Number6 said:
Actually he does. Remember when B&B were developing ENT they changed T'Pau to T'Pol to avoid having to pay Theodore Sturgeon for the rights to feature the character in the series.
That's a bit different, though.
Ellison is arguing that he legally owns the elements of "City" that are episode-specific -- that he owns Edith Keeler, the Guardian of Forever, etc. As such, Paramount Pictures, in making
Star Trek XI, would be obligated both to obtain Ellison's permission and to pay him for the characters by licensing them from him for use in the film. Ellison would also, by virtue of his ownership of the character, have the right to approve or disapprove of how the characters/elements were used, and/or to use them in fictional contexts outside of the
Star Trek universe (similar to how Terry Nation sometimes used the Daleks in extra-
Doctor Who contexts).
However, the issue with T'Pau was not that Sturgeon owned the character -- Paramount (at the time -- now CBS) owns the character of T'Pau. Rather, the issue was that even though Paramount owned the character, they would still have to pay Sturgeon for every appearance she made onscreen though they would not have to obtain Sturgeon's permission and license the character from him. Further, Sturgeon (or his estate, rather) would not have approval rights over the depiction of T'Pau, nor the right to use T'Pau in extra-
Trek fiction.
The issue here is whether Ellison's contract differed from Sturgeons. If it does, and Ellison is right to claiming ownership of "City"-specific elements and characters, then he owns the Guardian of Forever and has creative control over its depiction. If his contract did not differ from Sturgeon's, however, then he does
not own the Guardian and has no right to determine how or if the Guardian is used by Paramount or CBS, though he is entitled to receive a royalty payment for having created the character/element (however you want to classify the Guardian).
