Harlan Ellison is Suing Paramount and Pocket Books

The TERMINATOR thing is hardly a scam (though to be fair, I think the makers of DIMENSION 5 also could have sued Cameron.) In fact, Cameron & co had to pay Ellison TWICE, because they released the first videos WITHOUT the acknowledgement, triggering another payout. Cameron not only did something knowingly, he BRAGGED about it! Maybe that kind of 'tude is what guarantees success. I mean, I've got a screenplay that is totally dead because the one unoriginal element is practically the same as a Larry Niven story, which is always under option elsewhere. I would not submit the screenplay even if folks didn't know the Niven story, because I DO know it , having read it in the past, so I'm sure it influenced the writing of my piece, which wouldn't have happened at all without this key point. Yet young Cameron was secure enough to brag about his remerchandising of somebody else's ideas. Way to go, Jimbo.

Everybody who freelances has to deal with bad rewrites, but most folks who do nonfic stuff also have to deal with their stuff being rewritten and published elsewhere sans credit (ever read the James Van Hise trek books? you'll see some of my stuff in there, bastardized & uncredited.) Ellison has fought for the rights of writers and has managed to win big at least a couple times, so even if it doesn't stop the practice, maybe a few folks think twice before pulling this crap now.

I for one am very glad that Ellison has published some of his unshot scripts. I find FLINTLOCK to be one of the most amazing scripts I've ever read, equal parts Derek Flint and THE PRISONER. His adaptation of I ROBOT expanded on some matters in a brilliant way, even if some of the execution in dialog is a little 'on the nose.' While I think his take on CITY stressed fantasy elements that would have been more at home in a non-trek series, his trek teleplay is still really good stuff. If they'd left Trooper in the show, instead of subbing with the milkbottle-thievin' drunk, who knows how much better it might have played?

 

So, realistically what are his chances? Who has he successfully sued before and are they the same stature as CBS? When will this likely be settled? What kind of money would they be talking about if he won? And if he loses, then what will happen? It would be a shame to never see the Guardian in future Trek.

 

Ellison has never lost a lawsuit before. Of course, that doesn't mean he won't with this one. Again, it depends upon the nature of the contract he signed with Desilu back in the 60s, and we have no data on that other than the conflicting descriptions of the two relevant parties (Ellison and CBS).

If he loses, then that will just mean that CBS retains ownership of the Guardian and Edith Keeler characters and can do things like make derivative works based on his script.

As for never seeing the Guardian in future Trek... Well, it's not like it was being used all that much in all the stuff produced between 1979 and 2005.

 

Ellison has had judgements rendered against him. I think some lesser form like Jim Warren won some money for a demation thing from him, which was really a shame because from what I've read, it'd be pretty hard to defame Warren given the way the guy operates.

And you have to qualify 'winning.' I mean, he & Bova won something like 330 grand from Paramount over the FUTURE COP series ripping off their BRILLO story, but he said time & again he'd have settled for a billboard on sunset blvd from Paramount that had a pic of him and said, we at paramount stole from this man. didn't get it, obviously ...

 

I just hope this lawsuit doesn't affect the hardcover collection of the Crucible trilogy. I'm dying to have those books in a nice hardbound edition!

 

Gene Roddenberry could be an ass too

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Theme_from_Star_Trek

I find that much worst

 

Yes, thank you; I did read where you said that above. What I was curious about was who he won against previously and if they had the clout of CBS (or the weight of a cultural icon like Trek, which might sway a judge).

 

If you search under his name and Ben Bova's, along with Paramount and FUTURE COP and BRILLO, you'll find something on the one I mentioned. He had a long action against AOL, and that I believe was settled in the last few years.

 

Oh, I'm sorry; I did not see that. Thanks; so not small potatoes!

 

I've got a question for you all, if a writer writes a story for a television series and the studio likes the story and decides to make the story come alive on tv, once the story is purchased from the writer by the studio, how can the writer have any say as to what happens after he or she get paid?
Thanks,

JDW

 

It depends on the contract that they sign.

 

Less established writers are more likely to sign away all rights in order to make the sale.

More established writers MIGHT be able to retain some rights here and there, depending on how much the producers really want that writer's work.

--Ted

 

and in 1966 Ellison>>>>>>>>>Star trek in terms of importance they needed his story more then he need a sale

 

Speaking on behalf of STOGAM, we have direct permission from Harlan to use the Guardian.

 

Assuming for a minute that his claims are valid (something I am skeptical of), why would he sue now? Sure, some parties have asked for permission in the past, but did all of the Strange New Worlds authors ask for it as well? Is he doing this now because the Crucible books have sold much better than the SNW volumes and would net him more money if he won?

 

Harlan is always the life of the party. Not.

 

Why can't the studio that buys the script to be made into a tv series episode have some say as to who uses characters or other ideas from the script to write stories, possibly to sell to the same studio?
What happens when someone writes a continuing story of an episode when the original script aurhor has died?

JDW

 

Then it goes to that person's estate. I've had to do something similar in order to get permission to reproduce art from a dead artist for a exhibition catalogue I am working on.

 

Well, as usual, threads about Ellison's antics are entertaining! But you know what would really be news? "Ellison woke up yesterday and decided NOT to sue someone!" -- RR

 

No, copyright exists to further the production of the useful arts. Copyright is for the common, public good, not for the producer.