Harlan Ellison COTEF Lawsuit Gains Momentum

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Are you saying that you would pull the plug on Star Trek's entire existence just for Harlan Ellison's behalf?

I would "pull the plug" on behalf of what's right. Who wouldn't? Who thinks that their entitlement to entertainment overrides simple fairness?

Of course, that's not what anyone is being asked to do in this context - hysterical fabrications about the collapse of Trek to the contrary. Conjuring up such a ridiculous and extreme example just to find ground from which to defend a preposterously self-absorbed and misinformed position is not working for you.

 

[Jeyl]

Conjuring up such a ridiculous and extreme example just to find ground from which to defend a preposterously self-absorbed and misinformed position is not working for you.

- I like Star Trek. Not really a self-absorbed position since this is a Star Trek forum site.
- I think Harlan should be paid if it's in the contract. That's not a misinformed position.
- I think Star Trek means something to people. That's not really something I conjured up.
- Harlan Ellison comes out like an angry grumpy douche bag. Well, I've never met the man but everything I read or watch points in that direction.

Who thinks that their entitlement to entertainment overrides simple fairness?

Well, if all law cases were fair, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

 

[Zachary Smith]

How's this for fair? PAY Ellison a royalty every time merchandise featuring any aspect of his contribution is sold, but Ellison must pay Paramount a royalty each time an aspect of his work is sold that features in some regard the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, the USS Enterprise . . . The name "Star Trek" etc etc etc?

Fair is fair, right?

 

[trevanian]

^So you'd have Paramount get paid any time he writes a review of a trek show? Yeah, sure, that sounds aboveboard.

 

[Ptrope]

^^

Actually, reviews come under "fair use" and thus are exempt from such. But if Ellison creates a new piece of fiction that includes elements of Star Trek, up to and including its established characters, he would be liable for compensation to the copyright holders, depending upon what sort of agreement he would have to make with them - the situation he's embroiled in works both ways. Harlan is, of course, fully aware of this, so it's pretty unlikely you'll ever see him creating a new work that does this.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Conjuring up such a ridiculous and extreme example just to find ground from which to defend a preposterously self-absorbed and misinformed position is not working for you.

- I like Star Trek. Not really a self-absorbed position since this is a Star Trek forum site.

In this instance it absolutely is. Why should your "liking Star Trek" even factor in to a discussion of a lawsuit concerning someone's right to fair compensation? You're the one who couched the question in terms of Ellison's lawsuit versus the health/future of Trek, after all, with that bombastic "is Ellison God?" nonsense.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Seriously, who ponies up the dough for THIS "collectible"? Paramount should pay royalties to Ellison for use of the Guardian. Ellison should then pay royalties to Paramount for use of Kirk and Spock. Everyone's happy then, right?

Of course, I doubt it very much.

 

[Jan]

Seriously, who ponies up the dough for THIS "collectible"? Paramount should pay royalties to Ellison for use of the Guardian. Ellison should then pay royalties to Paramount for use of Kirk and Spock. Everyone's happy then, right?

The flaw in that 'logic', of course, is that Harlan Ellison hasn't 'used' any of the Trek characters since he wrote the script 40+ years ago.

Jan

 

[Zachary Smith]

Seriously, who ponies up the dough for THIS "collectible"? Paramount should pay royalties to Ellison for use of the Guardian. Ellison should then pay royalties to Paramount for use of Kirk and Spock. Everyone's happy then, right?

The flaw in that 'logic', of course, is that Harlan Ellison hasn't 'used' any of the Trek characters since he wrote the script 40+ years ago.

Jan

The point being that Ellison's contributions are meaningless, obscure and completely irrelevant withOUT the connection to the greater "Star Trek" universe. Ellison's "Star Trek" related shit doesn't SELL without being attached to the characters and setting.

He got paid for his contributions WHEN he made them. He didn't have the foresight to recognize other possible avenues of revenue when he signed off on the contract in terms of future use or marketing. His bad. Whining about it for the subsequent FORTY YEARS is just pathetic.

And, anyhow, I disagree with your basic premise that Ellison "hasn't used any of the Trek characters since he wrote the script" etc. Take another look at the photo shop job I did of the Christmas ornament. WHO BUYS THAT IN THAT FORM? It looks like a Flintstone's TV set. The character bring that set piece to life. They are intrinsic to its aesthetic value. Ellison may RATHER the Guardian stand alone and he can claim "King of the Mountain" but the fact is that his contributions are meaningless without the larger connection.

 

[Jan]

He got paid for his contributions WHEN he made them. He didn't have the foresight to recognize other possible avenues of revenue when he signed off on the contract in terms of future use or marketing. His bad. Whining about it for the subsequent FORTY YEARS is just pathetic.

You obviously haven't bothered to read the court complaint, have you? The entire premise is that there *were* provisions in the contract that included payments for merchandising. The suit claims that Paramount hasn't fulfilled it's obligations. As the saying goes, you're not entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to your informed opinion. Guess who coined that saying?

And, anyhow, I disagree with your basic premise that Ellison "hasn't used any of the Trek characters since he wrote the script" etc.

Really? where has he used any of the characters since writing the script? You can disagree all you want but without proof, that's meaningless.

Take another look at the photo shop job I did of the Christmas ornament. WHO BUYS THAT IN THAT FORM? It looks like a Flintstone's TV set. The character bring that set piece to life. They are intrinsic to its aesthetic value. Ellison may RATHER the Guardian stand alone and he can claim "King of the Mountain" but the fact is that his contributions are meaningless without the larger connection.

The fact remains that they're using his creation. Just looking around Ebay the other day I found several versions of figures and ornaments featuring the characters. Adding the Guardian adds value and might just entice somebody who's already bought the others to buy one more item. Hence, Paramount makes more money *because* of the addition of the Guardian.

Jan

 

[The Lensman]

Paramount needs to honor whatever contract they signed with the man. A deals a deal.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Paramount needs to honor whatever contract they signed with the man. A deals a deal.

Desilu's contract is written for the 1960s, when no TV shows were spinning off 40 years worth of media tie-ins. The wording is vague enough that no one agrees what it means, hence the lawsuit.

 

[Klaitu]

Isn't there some sort of statue of limitations on frivolous entertainment lawsuits?

 

[trevanian]

Isn't there some sort of statue of limitations on frivolous entertainment lawsuits?

You mean like the limitations of royalty payments for frivolous episodes of frivolous tv programs?

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Harlan Ellison documentary on TV May 25 Monday

semi-related news:
Harlan Ellison documentary on TV tonight: Don't miss it (or you will make him even angrier!)
May 25, 2009
http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/dont-miss-tonig.html

Harlan Ellison is a TV writer (the original Star Trek series,

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Thanks, JT. Just alerted my brother, an HE fan from waaaaay-the-fuck back.

 

[Kelso]

Damn. I don't get that channel.

I'll have to get the DVD, after all.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I hear you're a talented thief, Kelso. Download it.

(I kid! I kid! I'd never condone breaking the law. Now if you'll excuse me, I want to do a line of coke before my call girls show up.)

 

[Kelso]

I'd be too afraid to steal from Harlan Ellison. He'd be likely to show up at my house and kick my ass.

Actually, it might be a bit like this.

 

[Sci]

Someone needs to remind him that a lot of what he wrote for COTEF got tossed out during rewrites save for the lines from the Guardian that were in fact used for the ornament.

It's not germane to his contention. His legal argument is that he received sole credit for his "City" script as a freelancer whose contract worked under the standard Writer's Guild of America contract for the time, and that the standard contract guarantees royalty payments to writers whose works are used in a substantial manner in subsequent episodes or merchandise based upon the program.

The legal question at hand is whether the use of characters or creations in merchandise based upon the program in new contexts and plots that are not based directly upon the context or plot of the original teleplay -- for instance, using the female Romulan Commander from "The Enterprise Incident" in a novel set in the 24th Century and discovering Spock's Unificationist movement on Romulus -- constitutes using the writers' works in a substantial matter, thereby entitling that writer to royalty payments. It's dependent upon how you interpret the contract -- it's open to debate, and will have to be settled by a court.