I can do that, but are the first ones to ask?
I am updating the ST Encyclopedia
- Thread starter Cronos6939
- Start date
Well...
Thing is, you kind of have a point here, but the thing is that a lot of sites often have scanned images FROM the ST Encyclopedia on them, to compliment the non-verbatim text. So either way, copyrighted material becomes involved. Often, those people care enough to at least cite and credit where their image came from, but some are not.
Just remember when the color edition of the Encyclopedia came out, how fast scans of the FC ships made it onto Trek ship websites...
Well, I just sent a note to Mike, so we shall see what we shall see...
And the ones who got into trouble over Sam Ramer's The Joy of Trek, a nonfiction book aimed at bringing casual fans and nonfans up to speed by summarizing the various Trek series and movies and giving background on major characters and cultures in the show. Copies did make it into bookstores, but Carol was ordered to pull them from stores. They were also going to publish an unauthorized book called The Star Trek Cookbook but that one never made it as far.
Since the Captain already did, I will refrain from doing so.
IIRC, what brought about Paramount's ire here was that the cover copy of "The Joy of Trek" promoted the book as "all you need to know about..." the canonical Star Trek franchise. Where other non-licensed NF books could argue that their book was helping to attract new fans to the franchise, who'd then potentially buy DVDs and licensed tie-ins, "The Joy of Trek" technically went beyond parody and "fair use". But the court ruling certainly scared off many other publishers from releasing any other ST books for a long time, which I guess show's Paramount's cleverness in picking a test case they could definitely win.
Last edited:
No public comment from Mike at this time.
is there an unknown(to us)private comment, Captain?
Let's just say that while he understands the enthusiasm, he's not amused by the approach. But, as there are potential legal issues, he doesn't want to get in the way should Paraborg take notice and do what Paraborg tends to do in cases like this. 
I encourage you for trying to do this however, always play it safe by trying to obtain the permission of those holding the rights and such. Or, collaboration is a nifty thing these days and could make things a lot easier. No body wants to do hard work for nothing.
Or, you can just get Abrams books to publish an updated Encyclopedia since they have the resources for it and you can give them what you have so far and get some acknowledgment for it.
Although if you yourself are an aspiring writer trying to get your foot in the door, this is a good way to do that. And KRAD is a walking encyclopedia so you can always ask him for help.
Oh, and self publishing is another way to go to get yourself out there.
Whatever happens though, good luck with project.
Or, you can just get Abrams books to publish an updated Encyclopedia since they have the resources for it and you can give them what you have so far and get some acknowledgment for it.
Although if you yourself are an aspiring writer trying to get your foot in the door, this is a good way to do that. And KRAD is a walking encyclopedia so you can always ask him for help.
Oh, and self publishing is another way to go to get yourself out there.
Whatever happens though, good luck with project.
The rights to the Star Trek Encyclopedia are held by Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Shuster, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of CBS/Paramount. Of all the terms used to describe the legal department of this corporate behemouth, I'm pretty sure "accommodating" and "understanding" are not among them. And since there's been talk of their doing an update of their own book themselves, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't look upon someone outside of their employ trying it on their own, potentially undercutting their own efforts.
The fanbase didn't dub 'em "Paraborg" for nuthin'...
The fanbase didn't dub 'em "Paraborg" for nuthin'...
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
I thought the US did not recognize the copyright-able status of "fact compilations", wheras Europe and the UK did...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
What? Breach copyrights and licensing agreements, and possibly cheese off the Okudas from wanting to do a new edition?
He would have to wait for Pocket Books to give up their license first.
The Okudas don't seem to need a collaborator.
You totally missed paulablock's explanation on Abrams Publishing. She said they were set up to do the type of art reference and coffee table books that are similar to "Star Trek 365", not they'd have any interest in publishing a new/updated edition of the "ST Encyclopedia". In any case, the rights for any new edition, reprint or update of the "ST Encyclopedia" rest solely with Pocket Books.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the Okudas would much prefer building upon their own work, and keeping their own unique style than to accept an unsolicited manuscript from a fan whom they then have to credit in the book.
"Everybody duck!"
If Pocket Books, with its already-established marketing team, can't get a new edition of this book into fans' hands - which would have to be a massive volume next time - I really doubt self-publishing of the "ST Encyclopedia" is any kind of answer. Especially not when "Memory Alpha" is so exhaustive, always-growing and easily updated.
As you can read in my Wikipedia link (and I have to say, that entry has been expanded a lot since the first time I looked at it), "facts" that spring from fiction are considered to be part of the same creative output, and thus subject to the same copyright protections as the original creation--as opposed to something like, for example, telephone number listings, which is the sort of thing you're referring to.
More recently, the Harry Potter Lexicon encountered similar legal difficulties when trying to publish a print edition of its website, filled with "facts" compiled from the fictional world of the Harry Potter novels.
They could also take the same approach as the most recent edition of the Star Wars Encyclopedia and publish it as a multi-volume set.
What? Breach copyrights and licensing agreements, and possibly cheese off the Okudas from wanting to do a new edition?
He would have to wait for Pocket Books to give up their license first.
The Okudas don't seem to need a collaborator.
You totally missed paulablock's explanation on Abrams Publishing. She said they were set up to do the type of art reference and coffee table books that are similar to "Star Trek 365", not they'd have any interest in publishing a new/updated edition of the "ST Encyclopedia". In any case, the rights for any new edition, reprint or update of the "ST Encyclopedia" rest solely with Pocket Books.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the Okudas would much prefer building upon their own work, and keeping their own unique style than to accept an unsolicited manuscript from a fan whom they then have to credit in the book.
"Everybody duck!"
If Pocket Books, with its already-established marketing team, can't get a new edition of this book into fans' hands - which would have to be a massive volume next time - I really doubt self-publishing of the "ST Encyclopedia" is any kind of answer. Especially not when "Memory Alpha" is so exhaustive, always-growing and easily updated.
Can't blame a dude for trying.
I have this horrible feeling/concern that if Mike does a new Ency, he'll mangle STXI to try and fit it in with old Trek (much like the EAS website, which insists the STXI spaceships are no bigger than those seen in TMP, and all the huge interiors seen on Enterprise and Kelvin are "errors") rather than just accept it warts and all.
Yes, I'm doing that internet fan thing and condeming a project before it's even been approved, without any evidence to back up anything
I still remember frowning really hard at those deck layouts for the TOS and movie Enterprises in the first Ency, that contradicted everything before, like Andrew Probert's cutaway showing where the warp core on the TMP Enterprise was, modified for Mr. Scott's Guide and others. So maybe not entirely without evidence.
Yes, I'm doing that internet fan thing and condeming a project before it's even been approved, without any evidence to back up anything
I still remember frowning really hard at those deck layouts for the TOS and movie Enterprises in the first Ency, that contradicted everything before, like Andrew Probert's cutaway showing where the warp core on the TMP Enterprise was, modified for Mr. Scott's Guide and others. So maybe not entirely without evidence.
Now that you mention it, I did have a conversation with Bjo on this very matter, how to handle ST09 in the Concordance (she's of "two minds" about it). If I had to set things in stone at this point, I'd say there'll be a short section dealing with it, listing a few reasons why it's not part of the main body (mainly the alternate timeline aspect, no mention of the controversy in the fan community; she thinks that would just reduce the book to "just another fanzine"), and a rundown of the basic data points (which, ironically, is what I figured would be the case waaaaaaaaaaay back when, before actually getting Bjo's take on things, and I was being accused of trying to hijack the whole project). Nothing for certain at this point, though; still might go back to a paragraph in the intro for all I know.
It's pronounced "bee-jo".
And the statement about the cutaway is, I presume, and reference to the big cutaway poster that was released around the time of TMP, later reworked slightly for TVH.
And the statement about the cutaway is, I presume, and reference to the big cutaway poster that was released around the time of TMP, later reworked slightly for TVH.
