TV vs. Film Rights (CBS vs. Paramount)

With CBS and Viacom getting back together, this is likely going to be a non-issue soon.

Still, I'm curious.Up until this point, CBS has had the TV rights and Paramount has had the film rights. But I've struggled to understand exactly what that means in terms of what eacn side can and cannot do.

For instance (and I wish I could quote the source, but I can't), I've read that the film elements are off-limits to CBS. But it's not clear exactly what film elements that refers to. CBS recast Spock rather than using Zachary Quinto. Is it because they couldn't use Quinto or did they just want to choose their own path?

It seems clear that both sides have access to TOS and everything that originated therein. But I wonder about characters like Carol Marcus and Sybok. Those characters originated in films back when Paramount was making both TV and films. Are they currently off-limits to CBS? Sybok's absence in Discovery season 2 was conspicuous. Did they leave him out because they couldn't use him or just because he didn't fit in their story?

Then there's this vague notion of "25% different" which may or may not have some basis in reality. I'm not sure how you could quantify "differentness" of a starship design.

Basically, I'm just wondering if anybody at CBS or Paramount has spelled this out. I haven't seen it.

 

I think that, along with the "25% different" thing, is just fannish rumor and speculation. It's not to be taken seriously.

 

Exactly. I think I'll leave CBS and Paramount to take care of their affairs and I'll enjoy the products produced. The rest is just reckless speculation without all the facts.

 

I don't see how Carol or Sybok could realistically turn up in DSC.

Sybok is an exile from Vulcan*, so they're not likely to stumble across him (even if they return to their own time). And Carol's backstory is tied to Kirk, so unless Kiirk actually turns up on the show, we won't see her either.

And the "25% different" was NEVER a thing.

* I can see why some might wonder why we never saw Sybok during the flashback scenes on Vulcan, but he could have already been kicked offworld by then. Isn't he supposed to be older than Spock?

 

CBS owns Star Trek. Period. Paramount has a license from CBS to produce Trek movies, and a copyright on the contents of their films. That means that Paramount would get financial compensation if characters or entities unique to their movies (e.g. Captain Robau or Red Matter or the Franklin) were used in a CBS production, which gives CBS a financial incentive not to do so, but they have the legal right to do so, since it all ultimately belongs to them.

It's got nothing to do with actors. Studios don't own actors. There are cases of the same actor playing the same character (or different incarnations of a character) for different studios, like all the productions in which Richard Belzer has played Detective Munch, or Christopher Lee playing Sherlock Holmes in a 1962 film and a pair of 1990s TV movies from separate studios. If CBS had wanted to cast Zachary Quinto to play the Prime version of Spock, there's no reason they couldn't have.

Nothing in the first ten films is off-limits to CBS, as far as I know. There have been movie elements in Discovery -- Marc Okrand's Klingon language, the concept of katras, Earth Spacedock (glimpsed under construction in the season 1 finale), a version of the Saurian design from TMP. They didn't use Sybok because TFF is an unpopular film.

 

Disco certainly draws a lot from the Kelvin films, like the windshields in place of viewscreens on the bridge, a similar auditorium from Trek XI was seen in Disco, Pike even wears a gray dress uniform from STID in an episode of Disco I don't think I can go into without spoiler codes yet.

The 25% different thing is only a studio desire. They want things too look a minimum of 25% different, because that apparently makes the merchandise "more desirable." It was never a legal requirement, as it was initially reported to be.

 

Also the Vulcan learning center with hemispherical pits, as seen in the first episode.

It wasn't about merchandise, and it wasn't a studio directive. It was the creative staff's decision to update the look for modern CGI. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-25-difference-rule-of-Star-Trek-Discovery-a-real-thing

 

Or Sean Connery playing 007 in Never Say Never Again.

 

There seems to be some confusion here. The studio that produced TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT is the very same studio that is producing Discovery and Picard, et al. It's under a different parent company, and changed its name, but it's the same studio.

It used to be called Paramount TV, then the whole studio was sold to CBS corporation. It was renamed CBS Paramount TV in 2006, and finally, CBS Television Studios in 2009.

Paramount Pictures was never sold to CBS Corp like the TV studio was.

 

Heck, we even got the Ceti Eels on DISCO once.

 

Other way around, actually. Paramount TV was a division of Viacom, which bought CBS, merged it with Paramount TV, split off its movie properties to another company, and renamed what was left of itself CBS Corporation to reflect that it was more TV-centric now.

 

And for that we truly must say, "Thanks, Mr. Redstone, ya rat bastard!"

 

When? I must have forgotten that part.

 

Either way, it's the same studio

 

In "Will You Take My Hand?" Grilled Ceti Eels were being sold as food.

Kor

 

Yup. Basically Star Trek has always been produced by the same entity, whose name has changed as a result of various corporate mergers and absorptions. First it was Desilu Studios, then it became Paramount Television when Desilu and Paramount were merged, and then it became CBS Studios when Paramount TV and CBS were merged. (There are a couple more steps and name changes in their somewhere, but I'm simplifying.)

 

When TOS was produced, there was Norway Productions and Desilu-Paramount.

What was the original ownership/split of the IP (e.g. the character Kirk and the idea of the Starship Enterprise). And did GR sell his Norway share?

Plus individual writers who thought of things got royalties when their ideas (IP) were reused, yes?

Allow me to be a jerk and ask you to weigh in if you truly know, not conjecture. I.e. Maurice, Harvey ... (Ruk voice: the Old Ones)

 

Yes, but that's a different matter from rights or ownership. It's more of a repeated payment for selling someone else the rights/ownership of your idea.

 

Was that in their contract as writer or WGA policy that they didn't own the rignts (work for hire?) but would be paid ... residuals?