New Book about TOS: These Are The Voyages

[stcanada29]

I'll say one thing with assurance: "Some of the images weren't pilfered!" is hardly a passable defense.

Can you not be gracious when your thesis is shown to be fundamentally incorrect? Do you expect to see some lineage behind every single "public domain" image included in the book series?

I think I see quite a few Lincoln clips in "The Collector"'s article that were also supposedly restored by startrekhistory and are currently displayed there. If I might make the observation, you appear now to be just "digging in" to your past position without any reasonable consideration of the evidence that was just plainly posted for all to see.

And, as I've asked you previously, where is your evidence that unquestionably connects even a single "pilfered" B&W book photo to a startrekhistory restoration versus other iterations on the web?

 

[trevanian]

Y'know, Harvey seems to be a quite passable researcher and historian himself, and I'd consider his qualifications a lot less impeachable than damned near anybody else on this board, myself included. I don't think the onus is on him at all here.

This is not Pauline Kael being selective in her reporting and deliberately fucking over Orson Welles about the authorship of CITIZEN KANE, you know. It's more like calling it as it looks, when looking with sharp eyes.

 

[Maurice]

I still find it curious that stcanada29 joined this board basically the very day the photo issue came up and posts almost exclusively in this thread and almost always about the photos, even when we've moved off that topic. It certainly smacks of an involved party instead of just another user.

 

[stcanada29]

Y'know, Harvey seems to be a quite passable researcher and historian himself, and I'd consider his qualifications a lot less impeachable than damned near anybody else on this board, myself included. I don't think the onus is on him at all here.

You may be right, but in all fairness, I have just seen compelling evidence on the Star Trek Prop Authority site of a massive rare TOS image collection that even includes Matt Jefferies personal film cells. And it seems this collection even dwarfs the collection presented on startrekhistory.

Also I also see very sweeping allegations of wrongdoing made by Harvey without ANY serious research at all to support his statements. Research that you say he is capable of performing. I just think there should be some onus of proof on him if he feels compelled to attack people's reputations in a public forum.

 

[plynch]

And his refusal to say who he is in real life.

The writing in that Gurian post sounds a lot like stcanada29's.

 

[stcanada29]

I still find it curious that stcanada29 joined this board basically the very day the photo issue came up and posts almost exclusively in this thread and almost always about the photos, even when we've moved off that topic. It certainly smacks of an involved party instead of just another user.

Well, I admitted that I am a supporter of the book. And "The Collector" just posted this new article about his collection a couple of days ago, Maurice.

 

[Harvey]

This is not Pauline Kael being selective in her reporting and deliberately fucking over Orson Welles about the authorship of CITIZEN KANE, you know. It's more like calling it as it looks, when looking with sharp eyes.

You know, her "research" in RAISING KANE is even more heinous than that. She actually stole much of that book from the work of a UCLA professor named Howard Suber, who was neither paid or credited. Kael promised that they would co-write the book together; when he sent her his research she refused all further contact and published it as if it were her own work.

And, as I've asked you previously, where is your evidence that unquestionably connects even a single "pilfered" B&W book photo to a startrekhistory restoration versus other iterations on the web?

The testimony of the fine people who run Star Trek History and Bird of the Galaxy's Flickr page was enough to convince me. I see no reason for them to lie, and every reason for Jacobs Brown Press/Marc Cushman to do so.

Also, your post above is the third time you've tried to drive traffic to that particular post on Gurian's site. The rest of your time on this forum, you've almost exclusively been in this thread, offering a litany of flimsy defenses/attacks over the photos. Seems pretty suspect to me.

 

[stcanada29]

Why not focus on the evidence about the source of the images and Harvey's lack of research instead of my identity?

And there goes Harvey "digging in" again based on hearsay from some because he likes them.

They in fact might not be telling lies intentionally - because they hadn't seen those identical film cells now on view at startrekpropauthority. They could be guilty of assuming the worst about people without any evidence -- just like you appear to be doing, Harvey. And what is wrong with driving traffic there if it adds information to the debate? Is it wrong because it refutes your position?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Gurian says that he performed "numerous photo restorations" for Cushman's book project.

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the first volume did Gurian provide?

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the upcoming second volume will Gurian have provided?

 

[stcanada29]

I think it's fair to say that all of the clips and printed glossy images in the article are his - and I see very many that look familiar to the book. I also see quite a few I've seen on startrekhistory and on other sites.

I don't expect to see an accounting for every single image. After all, Jacobs Brown still contends it's all public domain.

How many images can Harvey establish were without question taken from startrekhistory and how does he have intimate knowledge that they are not in "The Collector's" massive collection? Based on more hearsay based on incomplete information?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, what are the two numbers?

If you don't know, you don't have to provide an answer, or you can just say you don't know.

I'd say that two people should know the answers: Gurian and Cushman. stcanada29, are you either one of those people? If you aren't, then what is your basis for saying what you do?

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the first volume did Gurian provide?

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the upcoming second volume will Gurian have provided?

 

[stcanada29]

I wasn't saying I know. I was saying Harvey has no idea either of the true depth of "The Collectors" resources - which seem massive - so he shouldn't automatically conclude that a huge number of photos were restored elsewhere. That's all I meant.

My basis for my most recent comments are the photos of what appears to be a huge collection of rare images in the report at startrekpropauthority.

 

[Maurice]

We've read and chatted with both Harvey and people from Star Trek History for years, and they've always been straightforward and willing to share information. They've got years of goodwill built up here on this BBS as part of the community, so when someone pops out of the ether with what appears to be an agenda it's not surprising that you'll see everyone's BS filters kick on.

 

[stcanada29]

We've read and chatted with both Harvey and people from Star Trek History for years, and they've always been straightforward and willing to share information. They've got years of goodwill built up here on this BBS as part of the community, so when someone pops out of the ether with what appears to be an agenda it's not surprising that you'll see everyone's BS filters kick on.

Understood, and that is a very valid point. That makes the reaction of some in this thread appear quite comprehensible. Standing by a friend who has perceived an injustice.

I believe the main emphasis of "The Collector"'s website is actually screen used props and costumes and I've heard that he is active in some of those forums but obviously not here. And Marc Cushman appears to be active in his local community (he is President of the Alameda Writers Group in Los Angeles) but, again, obviously not here.

Just because someone is an unknown entity doesn't necessarily mean he/she is an unethical or dishonorable person.

It seems clear to me that Cushman, Gurian, the startrekhistory and birdofthegalaxy folks all have a deep love of TOS and have all dedicated countless hours to building large collections of rare images (with many common images) or, in Cushman's case, has dedicated countless hours to writing about TOS.

 

[Maurice]

It's not just about friendship. it's the fact that they're proven themselves very trustworthy and honest so when they said "we was robbed" we have little reason to disbelieve them.

 

[Warped9]

I'll have to double check, but not only does the revised version read cleaner I think I am reading added materiel I don't recall encountering in the first edition. It could well be because the revised edition is supposed to have additional materiel.

 

[stcanada29]

It's not just about friendship. it's the fact that they're proven themselves very trustworthy and honest so when they said "we was robbed" we have little reason to disbelieve them.

They probably should have asserted "we think we were treated unfairly because we think our Lincoln cells are unique" (which they are not). (And I won't digress now into the whole public domain versus startrekhistory owning all rights claim.)

If you study all those photos in the startrekpropauthority article, and I suspect there are about 140 to 150 clappers and rare behind-the-scenes images (counting both Lincoln clips and glossies) just in that sampling - you should recognize a great number that are shown in Book 1 and many that are also visible at other sites on the web. Several that startrekhistory is also showing and incorrectly thinking the clips are unique to them. And looking at the Book 1 contributions aside from "The Collector"'s cache - you may have noticed one or two Enterprise filming model shots in TATV Book 1 that startrekhistory openly gives "special thanks to Robert O" for on their site but is credited by "These Are The Voyages" as "Courtesy of Bob Olsen". It appears Mr. Olsen contributed 4 images (not all starship shots) to Book 1. So there is an instance of more startrekhistory photo overlap - aside from the images in "The Collector"'s website report. And if Harvey is in touch with the webpage owner of birdofthegalaxy, as he claims, then I am surprised that he did not recognize that gentleman's name in both versions of Book 1 on some imagery. It is my belief that that individual, who has not published his name on his flikr pages (that's why I am not stating it outright) - does not hold any ill will towards the publishers and perhaps concluded he over-reacted at first. I've heard his name will appear on even more photo contributions to Book 2.

I don't even think the first release of TATV Book 1 even contained 150 rare Star Trek shots.

 

[Maurice]

My last post re the photographs. Period.

re the Copyright issue: Early on in this thread I wrote of a discussion I had about it with a lawyer with 25 years experience in Film, TV and video game licensing and intellectual property and cited his read on the subject, only to have his professional opinion casually dismissed by armchair lawyers who think they know better than someone who makes a career at this type of thing. Given that casual dismissal there's zero point in discussing it again.

Also, again, I discussed the issue directly with people from STH when the subject first came up and they related that there are special "tells" they put in their restored photos by which they can determine if the images in the books are the ones they restored. They also won't release the details of what those are because it will make it easier for people to remove them. That may not be "proof" to everyone, but given our years of experience with the STH guys I've no reason to doubt them.

I will leave it to other users here to decide for themselves whom they choose to believe, and if they believe anything done was wrong.

 

[Harvey]

I believe I'll just say, "what Maurice said," and leave it at that.

 

[Maurice]

Now, back to the factual errors and sloppy writing.