Via PsiPhi's "What's New" page. I'd post the orginal Ellison letter, but he'd probably sue me for that.
http://www.psiphi.org/cgi/upc-db/
http://www.psiphi.org/cgi/upc-db/
Harlan Ellison to sue over Crucible? (via Psi Phi)
- Thread starter drc
- Start date
- Status
Pardon my language but what a prick. I've been an avid reader of these boards for two years now and I sure as heck hope Marco is able to get this guy off his back. Marco is a much nicer, kinder and better person than Harlan who apparently is a hateful individaul (I've seen some of the other garbage he's pulled).
I was actually considering buying "The Essential Ellison" but I sure won't now. However, I'll definately be picking up the rest of the Crucible books.
I was actually considering buying "The Essential Ellison" but I sure won't now. However, I'll definately be picking up the rest of the Crucible books.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
All he cares about is the size of his literary dick and how much he can intimidate people. He's as much of a thug as he is a writer, for no reason other than he can be.
Sure he might be able to sue the writers, but it's not so much whether or not he can but whether or not he should and he's not remotely interested in appearing weak, maybe he's even afraid to appear weak, so deep down he's more insecure than he wants his "enemies" to feel and he wants them to hurt worse than he percieves others would have him hurt.
Sure he might be able to sue the writers, but it's not so much whether or not he can but whether or not he should and he's not remotely interested in appearing weak, maybe he's even afraid to appear weak, so deep down he's more insecure than he wants his "enemies" to feel and he wants them to hurt worse than he percieves others would have him hurt.
What an absolute dick! 
I don't get it. I thought everything made for Trek was owned by the parent company. Countless novels have adapted countless episodes... what's his ground for these threats?
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
I was thinking about posting a thread on this, but wasn't sure if it would be considered good form or not, since many members of the "smart--- generation of know-nothings who act arrogantly and unilaterally"* frequent this board, and I didn't want to be the one responsible for putting them in a position where they might be tempted to comment on a matter on which they should probably try not to get involved in publicly. But since someone else has done it... 
I'm not going to throw around names or whine or anything like that; the English language does not have a term that fully expresses this individual and the way he behaves and comports himself. It is simply beyond the scope of words. He freely admits that it's all about the money while apparently fighting for his 'artistic integrity'. He claims that Pocket Books is infringing on a work that is his, when they are basing the books on a finalized episode which he never actually wrote, just got credit because he wrote the initial draft. He has no sense of decency, and no sense of humility. In fact, he has no sense at all. Judging from his letter, he thinks that everyone in the writing business, period, should bow down to him simply because he orders them to do so. He doesn't even pay attention to Star Trek at all; he had to be *told* that someone had written a book based on "The City On The Edge of Forever".
Forgive the antiquated reference, but someone should throw him a triumph. He could arrive at the next Hugo Awards ceremony riding in a horse-drawn chariot with someone standing behind him, holding a laurel wreath above his head and whispering in his ear, "All glory is but fleeting."
But then, he would probably sue the guy.
* Ellison, Harlan. "Harlan Ellison's Webderland". (harlanellison.com). 2006.
I'm not going to throw around names or whine or anything like that; the English language does not have a term that fully expresses this individual and the way he behaves and comports himself. It is simply beyond the scope of words. He freely admits that it's all about the money while apparently fighting for his 'artistic integrity'. He claims that Pocket Books is infringing on a work that is his, when they are basing the books on a finalized episode which he never actually wrote, just got credit because he wrote the initial draft. He has no sense of decency, and no sense of humility. In fact, he has no sense at all. Judging from his letter, he thinks that everyone in the writing business, period, should bow down to him simply because he orders them to do so. He doesn't even pay attention to Star Trek at all; he had to be *told* that someone had written a book based on "The City On The Edge of Forever".
Forgive the antiquated reference, but someone should throw him a triumph. He could arrive at the next Hugo Awards ceremony riding in a horse-drawn chariot with someone standing behind him, holding a laurel wreath above his head and whispering in his ear, "All glory is but fleeting."
But then, he would probably sue the guy.
* Ellison, Harlan. "Harlan Ellison's Webderland". (harlanellison.com). 2006.
WFT, that is such crap. If I were an author and somebody did something like this, I would be proud to know that my work has had enough impact that somebody would want to do a book that continues (or whatever it is the Crucible does, I haven't read it yet) my story. But, I guess I'm just part of the
(Ellison, Harlan. "Harlan Ellison's Webderland". {harlanellison.com}. 2006.)
I don't know... if Ellison is within his legal rights and something fell between the cracks, then he is entitled to complain. Sure he could be more polite about it, but then that's hardly his style.
To me, the pertinent section in Ellison's post is the following:
I don't know much about these agreements, nor do I have a copy of the 60s MBA, but the 2004 version can be downloaded here.
The relevant sections appear to start around page 210.
I'm not aware of any licensed Trek story that adapts "City" explicitly, though of course the Guardian of Forever has turned up in a number of books and stories (and a TAS episode) and there've been several mentions of Edith Keeler. No idea if that's relevant to the issue, but I'm perusing the agreement now to see if that could shed any light on the matter.
To me, the pertinent section in Ellison's post is the following:
I don't know much about these agreements, nor do I have a copy of the 60s MBA, but the 2004 version can be downloaded here.
The relevant sections appear to start around page 210.
I'm not aware of any licensed Trek story that adapts "City" explicitly, though of course the Guardian of Forever has turned up in a number of books and stories (and a TAS episode) and there've been several mentions of Edith Keeler. No idea if that's relevant to the issue, but I'm perusing the agreement now to see if that could shed any light on the matter.
Well, I sure hope that this doesn't result in too much grief for DRG & Marco and the other folks at Pocket but I imagine it will have its share of stress. I hope that things can be worked out fairly for all involved.
While I don't claim to understand the full legality of the situation, I also don't think anyone can entirely fault Harlan Ellison if he does indeed have some sort of contractual rights to referencing his story and if those rights were indeed breached. And saying the guy's a bastard just for wanting his due cash (if indeed it is owed) is also unfair. It's the same reason why people can't make money off their fan-fiction. If I wrote a story and someone else unlawfully was making money off it, I'd be mad as hell as well. And I'll just say once more that I am not claiming that this indeed was the case.
While I don't claim to understand the full legality of the situation, I also don't think anyone can entirely fault Harlan Ellison if he does indeed have some sort of contractual rights to referencing his story and if those rights were indeed breached. And saying the guy's a bastard just for wanting his due cash (if indeed it is owed) is also unfair. It's the same reason why people can't make money off their fan-fiction. If I wrote a story and someone else unlawfully was making money off it, I'd be mad as hell as well. And I'll just say once more that I am not claiming that this indeed was the case.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several Strange New Worlds entries that have referenced the Guardian, Edith Keeler, and other pieces of that episode, not to mention the novel Imzadi. Why is he coming out with this stuff now? He wants a piece of the 40th anniversary publicity pie, simple as that.
Part of the problem might be that Harlan doesn't have the first frakkin' clue what separation of rights applies to under WGA rules.
I don't care what rights he holds to his original draft of the story -- the finished episode belongs to Star Trek.
I don't care what rights he holds to his original draft of the story -- the finished episode belongs to Star Trek.
With respect to Paramount "sign[ing] off on their status" in the White Wolf City book (September 1996 edition), that's not quite as clear-cut as Ellison implies. The copyright notice reads as follows, italics as per the indicia:
edit: Though, I guess David Mack does!
Sorry, took forever to research and type all this up, so by the time this was posted the point was already made and more succinctly.
With respect to the 2004 MBA (and who knows how this may have looked back in 1966), there does exist a clause (16.B.3) that says:
Adaptation of the work in the form of books don't appear to be specifically listed anywhere and could arguably fall under the definition of either "merchandising rights" or "publication rights" (both of which are defined in article 1 of the MBA).
Elsewhere there are clauses that allow the studio ("Company") to buy out the author's rights in these areas.
However, clause 16.B also states:
The critical question to me is whether or not this same clause existed back in 1966. If yes, then Ellison's argument is much weaker (unless for instance Trek isn't considered an "established" series).
Clause 15.B.14 referred to at the end of that section does outline certain payments due if, for instance, a movie or radio show is adapted from the story, but that doesn't mean ownership of the material is retained by the writer, just that s/he should be compensated fairly for any adaptations. For instance, 15.B.14.m states:
After copyright notices for the "Perils of the City" essay, it says:
This implies that Ellison acknowledges that the shooting script is not his property, just the "original" and "extended" versions. What this means as far as ownership of the characters and storyline means, I don't know.
edit: Though, I guess David Mack does!
Sorry, took forever to research and type all this up, so by the time this was posted the point was already made and more succinctly.With respect to the 2004 MBA (and who knows how this may have looked back in 1966), there does exist a clause (16.B.3) that says:
Adaptation of the work in the form of books don't appear to be specifically listed anywhere and could arguably fall under the definition of either "merchandising rights" or "publication rights" (both of which are defined in article 1 of the MBA).
Elsewhere there are clauses that allow the studio ("Company") to buy out the author's rights in these areas.
However, clause 16.B also states:
Basically, it says for an episodic TV show (as opposed to a TV movie) the studio owns everything.
The critical question to me is whether or not this same clause existed back in 1966. If yes, then Ellison's argument is much weaker (unless for instance Trek isn't considered an "established" series).
Clause 15.B.14 referred to at the end of that section does outline certain payments due if, for instance, a movie or radio show is adapted from the story, but that doesn't mean ownership of the material is retained by the writer, just that s/he should be compensated fairly for any adaptations. For instance, 15.B.14.m states:
I heard that this guy is difficult, to put it mildly, but I wouldn`t have expected *this*!
I was torn if I should buy these books because I am usually not getting novels dealing with the "Big Three" but on the other hand, I like DRG III`s writing style. Now I have made my decision: I will get this trilogy, too!
I am sure, I won`t be the only one: This controversy will just help to sell more of these books. I think it would be great if this ridiculous lawsuit (if it really comes to that) will make the books even more popular.
I am admittedly a layman but I can`t see how such a lawsuit can have any chance of succeeding - except of wasting money and time and cause a lot of annoyance.
I was torn if I should buy these books because I am usually not getting novels dealing with the "Big Three" but on the other hand, I like DRG III`s writing style. Now I have made my decision: I will get this trilogy, too!
I am sure, I won`t be the only one: This controversy will just help to sell more of these books. I think it would be great if this ridiculous lawsuit (if it really comes to that) will make the books even more popular.
I am admittedly a layman but I can`t see how such a lawsuit can have any chance of succeeding - except of wasting money and time and cause a lot of annoyance.
what a wanker
Should also mention that it would surprise me if Ellison's claim was valid, given that there've been a number of novels and stories that are sequels/adaptations of existing Trek episodes/movies.
Eg Yesterday's Son and Time for Yesterday were based on "All Our Yesterdays" by Jean Lissette Aroeste.
(I was going to mention Mudd In Your Eye, based on "Mudd's Women","I, Mudd", but as the story for both these episodes was by Roddenberry who knows what does to ownership issues.)
If this was a real issue, I would have expected it to have come up at some point in the last 40 years, unless for some reason Ellison had a special arrangement (which doesn't appear to be the case, based on his words).
Eg Yesterday's Son and Time for Yesterday were based on "All Our Yesterdays" by Jean Lissette Aroeste.
(I was going to mention Mudd In Your Eye, based on "Mudd's Women","I, Mudd", but as the story for both these episodes was by Roddenberry who knows what does to ownership issues.)
If this was a real issue, I would have expected it to have come up at some point in the last 40 years, unless for some reason Ellison had a special arrangement (which doesn't appear to be the case, based on his words).
It's worth noting that there has already been a straightforward prose adaptation of "City": the James Blish short story, first published back in 1968. I don't have any of the books that contain that story; someone who does might check whether it has any unusual acknowledgement of Ellison or his rights. There was also a photonovel of the episode in 1977.
This is the same guy who went on television to hawk the Geo Metro, right? The three-cylinder beauty ...
--Ted
--Ted
- Status