Harlan Ellison is Suing Paramount and Pocket Books
- Thread starter nx1701g
- Start date
go back to one of my earlier post.
there is a link to courthouse news article about the case that goes into a lot more depth.
evidently he had an agreement about this in the past were indeed he would have to be asked and paid.
but for some reason this time he wasnt.
You know what I don't think it's so much about getting paid that he really cares about. He's given several "trek world" people permission to use his trek stuff without it. It seems his biggest bitch is when people, especially people in the corporate level at pocket and paramount/cbs, decide to use his stuff without asking him. That's when he gets pissed and files the law suit, with paying him the acceptable punishment.
Which, I believe, is how "Arena" became an episode of Trek and The Outer Limits.
I love--just love--how many of us trekkies insist that Ellison should fuck off and stand by while Paramount et al. wring every last nickel from his idea. Why, because paramount is so poor and deserving Ellison should just give perpetual use of his ideas to them? And then we drag his prickly and, at times, obnoxious personality into the issue as if that has any bearing on a matter of law and of a creator being paid for what he created.
And no, HE is not washed up. He still writes the occasional story and is still very active and vocal in SF fandom and the Writers Guild. He has slowed down but he is old and has had a heart attack. No one on this board will ever produce a thousandth of the impact on literary SFthat Ellison achieved by the time he was forty. He's an asshole? Stipulated. Paramount is lousy with assholes--the great GR was, by many, many accounts, a asshole of epic magnitude. HE is still owed what he is owed and I hope he gets it, plus interest.
I thought it was because the PTB decided Nicholas Locarno was beyond redemption, character-wise, that is.
Nope, it was because they would have to had to pay the co writers of that story royalties for the character every time he was shown on the show, mentioned in dialog, ect... They even had the idea that he would be the same when they cast him. In the end though, it all came down to money being paid to the writers.
So, his name was changed and his history was left "open", but he was the "root" for the Tom Paris character, and some have even speculated that they are the same person in trek world, and he just changed his name "because he didn't want to be connected to his dad the admiral, and was allowed to attend the academy under a fake name."
^^^Exactly. So, even without knowing the specifics of the contract, even in a standard TV contract Ellison would be owed payments any time his characters were used, regardless of whether or not he had "approval". This is to prevent unfair profit from the work of someone else.
Why anyone would side with a corporation over the creator of anything boggles my imagination, or are some of us really so desperate for sequels that we'd rather the creators get screwed if that's what it takes to make sure we can get a fix?
Why anyone would side with a corporation over the creator of anything boggles my imagination, or are some of us really so desperate for sequels that we'd rather the creators get screwed if that's what it takes to make sure we can get a fix?
Ya might want to learn a little about copyright law before you start spewing such ignorant "facts" around. http://www.copyright.gov/
Same here. Why is that the majority of fandom thinks that the writer should bend down and take it for the sheer privilege of working on their beloved show or any other beloved property? They tend to think writers don't deserve to make as much money as they can from their art because then it's just being greedy and selling out. No it ain't. It's hard work and without it there be nothing for us to read, to watch and to bitch about.
As Harlan Ellison would say and has said, "Pay the fucking writer!"
That's the same reason why T'Pau became T'Pol on Enterprise.
I'm of two minds about this. I do agree with Ellison, "Pay the fucking writer!" I've been screwed over as a freelancer, so I sympathize. So part of me roots for Ellison getting his piece and taking it from the rich, untalented suits at Paramount.
However, I also think he's a misanthropic, anti-social troll -- and that's quite a statement coming from a self-described curmudgeon. But curmudgeons can be lovable, and Ellison is anything but! It's too bad writers don't have a better, more media-savvy representative who isn't hell bent on offending everyone within earshot and beyond, enforcing the negative impression people have of writers in general, and socially inept science fiction writers like Ellison in particular.
Red Ranger
Thank you for pointing out my ignorance,
though I do know about copyright law and I know about the constitution.
The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution authorizing copyright legislation reads:
The intent of the clause is to promote progress.
In developing the constitution, the founding fathers recognized that to ensure the future production of new written works (among other useful acts of intellect), they would have to grant exclusive rights to the producers of the works. Otherwise, there would be no economic incentive for the production and the common good would be lessened. With the advent of movable type presses, written works could be easily duplicated. Before the press, duplication of printed works was accomplished through slave labor (actual slaves or religious institutions) and was far too costly to be a threat to the production of new works. The decrease in cost to reproduce, afforded by the movable type press, lessened the value of the actual original by making reproductions a commodity. As a product moves into a commodity market, the price of the product decreases as the value to the consumer decreases, due to the availability of the product. In the near term, access to information is increased, but in the long term, there is no great incentive for the producer to produce for a commodity market. By granting an exclusive right to the producer of the work, the product can move out of the commodity market and back into a consumer market (by modulating supply to influence pricing). This serves to increase the return to the producer and make the production of new works a viable business endeavor. From a utilitarian perspective, granting exclusivity to the producers of the work increases the net present value of the country moreso than not granting exclusivity.
Even though the intent of copyright is to serve the common good, the application of copyright in the United States does serve to also benefit the producer. Given that the application of the law grants power to a specific group and those in power seek to expand that power, more benefit has been given to the producer (or copyright holder) over the years. Copyright was originally granted for 30 years, then to 65, then to life plus 50, then to life plus 70 (this is from memory, so please excuse me if I have missed any of the increases.)
At each extension of copyright, the legislature reminds that the purpose of the original act was for the common good and that the extension will also serve the common good. Most recently, the Sonny Bono Act was written as a international trade act, to bring the U.S. in line with the European Union, but it also paid homage to the original intent of the constitution by closing with the following (Section I - Purpose):
I apologize if my initial reply implied that copyright law provided no benefit to the producer of the work, clearly it does. But its primary purpose in the constitution is and the overarching purpose in each extension has been for the common good. It does this though enrichment of certain individuals by giving the producers more control in the market.
Just listened to that interview that he did at that university. I know this is just my opinion, but dear God what a pompous asshat. Fuck him and the Guardian of Forever he rode in on. Sue me if you can find me ya little shitworm.
You know the funny in all this: If someone was suing George Lucas for exactly the same thing, people would be cheering them on and saying how much Lucas got what he deserves. But because it's "Star Trek", the feelings seem to run that Ellison should shut up, sit down, and let Paramount dump all over him whenever they want cause it's "Star Trek".
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Clearly, while some of us here have vision, there are others, due to rectal-cranial inversion, who have to wear ass-focals.
You sir are in the latter category.
Indeed.
.
The thing is, Harlan's a great guy, anything but a "misanthropic, anti-social troll" and he's far more media-savvy than most representatives he could hire. What he is also is very sure of himself and of his facts, inclined to be outspoken and not at all inclined to suffer fools gladly. He gets his shit straight and lays it out in matter-of-fact, often blunt fashion, without being overly concerned about offending the easily-offended.
On this current business with Paramount, CBS, et al: if Harlan says he's owed something under such-and-so contract and has found it necessary to go to court over it, then I'm quite confident that he is not only correct in so asserting but will end up getting what he says he is owed and be perfectly gracious about the whole thing once it's over. There is nothing wrong with standing up and demanding what you're due, and nothing which says you've got to candy-ass around in doing so. Harlan makes sure he's in the right, and then goes and gets results in a direct manner.
