I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...

[JarodRussell]

How can that be right? They saved a couple of thousand bucks by stealing preexisting craftsmanship instead of hiring the guy and paying him for it. Isn't exactly that what you guys are against?

The emphasis is way too much on "property" than on the actual work that is done. Just because the original Star Destroyer design doesn't belong to him shouldn't mean the artist can be simply ripped off.

 

[OmahaStar]

How can that be right? They saved a couple of thousand bucks by stealing preexisting craftsmanship instead of hiring the guy and paying him for it. Isn't exactly that what you guys are against?

The emphasis is way too much on "property" than on the actual work that is done. Just because the original Star Destroyer design doesn't belong to him shouldn't mean the artist can be simply ripped off.

Actually, that's exactly what that means. In this case, Lucas owns it. He didn't steal anything.

If tomorrow, Paramount decided to release one of the New Voyages episodes theatrically and bring in a couple million dollars, they wouldn't have to pay Crowley and the gang a cent. It's not even work for hire. They are making fan material based on property owned by someone else.

It's up to the owners to decide what to do about it. Some, like Harlan, choose to stand up for their rights. Others tend to let things slide.

Hell, remember a few years ago when Paramount went all ban-happy on anyone who had a Star Trek fan website, sending out cease-and-desist letters through their lawyers? It's their right, whether we agree with it or not.

 

[Sindatur]

How can that be right? They saved a couple of thousand bucks by stealing preexisting craftsmanship instead of hiring the guy and paying him for it. Isn't exactly that what you guys are against?

The emphasis is way too much on "property" than on the actual work that is done. Just because the original Star Destroyer design doesn't belong to him shouldn't mean the artist can be simply ripped off.

If someone came into your yard and erected a statue, without your permission or commisioning, would you feel obligated to pay them for it? Wouldn't you consider it's your statue free and clear, since they built it in your yard?

 

[JarodRussell]

How can that be right? They saved a couple of thousand bucks by stealing preexisting craftsmanship instead of hiring the guy and paying him for it. Isn't exactly that what you guys are against?

The emphasis is way too much on "property" than on the actual work that is done. Just because the original Star Destroyer design doesn't belong to him shouldn't mean the artist can be simply ripped off.

Actually, that's exactly what that means. In this case, Lucas owns it. He didn't steal anything.

If tomorrow, Paramount decided to release one of the New Voyages episodes theatrically and bring in a couple million dollars, they wouldn't have to pay Crowley and the gang a cent. It's not even work for hire. They are making fan material based on property owned by someone else.

It's up to the owners to decide what to do about it. Some, like Harlan, choose to stand up for their rights. Others tend to let things slide.

Hell, remember a few years ago when Paramount went all ban-happy on anyone who had a Star Trek fan website, sending out cease-and-desist letters through their lawyers? It's their right, whether we agree with it or not.

Holy shit, that's what I'm criticizing!

How can that be right? They saved a couple of thousand bucks by stealing preexisting craftsmanship instead of hiring the guy and paying him for it. Isn't exactly that what you guys are against?

The emphasis is way too much on "property" than on the actual work that is done. Just because the original Star Destroyer design doesn't belong to him shouldn't mean the artist can be simply ripped off.

If someone came into your yard and erected a statue, without your permission or commisioning, would you feel obligated to pay them for it? Wouldn't you consider it's your statue free and clear, since they built it in your yard?

I don't think that's the exact same thing. But he built it, it's his work. I'd maybe want a fee because he puts it on my yard, but if I want to do something with it (whatever that might be in this example, d'oh), I gotta pay him. It's his work. He invested the man hours, not me.


I can't profit from the work someone else did. I believe we agree on that, don't we?

But that means two things: I can't profit from the brand Star Wars, for example. So I have to pay George Lucas some kind of fee, because I didn't create it. But I should be able to profit from my own work, regardless under which brand. So if I did a Star Wars movie, and I wanted to make money from it, I'd need to give Lucas a share based on what I reuse (how many characters, how many designs, how many concepts, etc...). But the rest is my work. It's not his work. He didn't do it. He didn't write the script, he didn't produce it, he didn't direct it. So he shouldn't be able to take it away from me. And in turn, if he, or anyone else wanted to base a new movie on "my" movie, he'd have to do the same again. Compensate Lucas for the Star Wars stuff, compensate me for the additions (new characters, new designs, whatever), and then do his own work and be allowed to make money.

Paramount shouldn't be able to take Phase II away from James Cawley and profit from it without compensating him either. If Cawley wanted to profit from it, he'd have to compensate Paramount for using the brand, and the characters, the designs. But he should be free to profit from it, because it's also his stuff. He started it, he produced it, etc... he invested time and effort, nobody else.

If I sing a U2 song and upload it on the web, U2 shouldn't be able to take it, put it on an album and release it without compensating me. It's my variation on it. If they like it and want to make money from it, they gotta compensate me for my voice and talent (lol). But if I wanted to make money from it, I got to compensate them in turn, because it's their song.

If someone creates a CG model of the Enterprise, ILM shouldn't be able to download it and use it without compensating the artist for the man hours that went into it. And if the artist wants to sell the model, he should be free to do so, but with compensating whoever designed the Star Destroyer.

And so forth...

It should be a two way street where everybody is free to do whatever he likes, which it's not right now.

 

[Jan]

I don't think that's the exact same thing. But he built it, it's his work. I'd maybe want a fee because he puts it on my yard, but if I want to do something with it (whatever that might be in this example, d'oh), I gotta pay him. It's his work. He invested the man hours, not me.

Nah. Stupidity *should* be costly.

Jan

 

[Avalon]

^^^ But Jarod, you're missing a vital step here -- you have to ask PERMISSION first to use someone's original work. (Except, of course, under certain conditions like parody. And I think this brings us full circle to about 14 pages ago, doesn't it?)

You can do a cover of a U2 song and even profit from your version. But you have to get permission to do so beforehand. Your request can be turned down for whatever reason, and that's a choice a creator ought to have over their own work. So, no, it's not all about money.


ETA: Sorry. This was meant to follow JarodRussell's post.

 

[JarodRussell]

^^^ But Jarod, you're missing a vital step here -- you have to ask PERMISSION first to use someone's original work. (Except, of course, under certain conditions like parody. And I think this brings us full circle to about 14 pages ago, doesn't it?)

You can do a cover of a U2 song and even profit from your version. But you have to get permission to do so beforehand. Your request can be turned down for whatever reason, and that's a choice a creator ought to have over their own work. So, no, it's not all about money.


ETA: Sorry. This was meant to follow JarodRussell's post.

I think it is limiting. Someone can sit on a property without doing anything, while so many creative minds who'd be able to do something with it can't do it because they are not allowed to. They are basically limited to parodies, as you said.

As long as I have to compensate the creator, I don't see why he should be able to forbid it. He can still set the price. But that also shouldn't be unreasonable (like asking more than he actually would have got had he done it himself).


Star Trek movies, for example. Bryan Singer wanted to do a TNG movie. Paramount got Abrams instead, and that's it. But why shouldn't Singer be allowed to do his Trek movie if he wants, while Abrams does his version? Maybe it's great, maybe it sucks? Who cares? Yeah, it's diluting the market, I already heard that, and I still disagree with it. If Singer's Trek sucks and Joe Plumber's Trek sucks and Abrams' Trek rocks, the audience will decide. Then there are only so many wide release slots open, so that will filter out potentially "diluting" movies, too. But they should be free to do these works and release them.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I think it is limiting.

It's meant to be limiting. It should be limiting. Intellectual property is still property and the only one who should be profiting from the property is the property owner or any duly authorized licencees.

Someone can sit on a property without doing anything, while so many creative minds who'd be able to do something with it can't do it because they are not allowed to.

As long as I have to compensate the creator, I don't see why he should be able to forbid it.

Because what you have in mind for the property might not be in line with what he has in mind. Or he might feel that he finished the story properly the first time and doesn't need anyone elses help finishing it.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that stories and characters are often very personal to their creators. They represent their imagination, their values, their philosophies, their voice.

Who want to just have so strange come and dilute your characters, perverting them from your own personal expression and turning them into something that's a faint imitation or worse philosophically opposed to your own intentions?

There are a million reasons why a creator might not want to just trade in his creations for a bag of money.

He can still set the price. But that also shouldn't be unreasonable (like asking more than he actually would have got had he done it himself).

So he can set the price but only if he doesn't ask too much? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Eh, comrade?

 

[Jan]

I think it is limiting. Someone can sit on a property without doing anything, while so many creative minds who'd be able to do something with it can't do it because they are not allowed to. They are basically limited to parodies, as you said.

Yes, it's limiting. Let the so-called creative minds do original work. Then they own it and people have to come to them to purchase the right to use it. If they don't have enough creativity to do original work, there's a technical term for that: consumer.

Jan

 

[Professor Zoom]

I can't profit from the work someone else did. I believe we agree on that, don't we?

YES. That's what we've been saying. You however have been saying the opposite.

But that means two things: I can't profit from the brand Star Wars, for example. So I have to pay George Lucas some kind of fee, because I didn't create it. But I should be able to profit from my own work, regardless under which brand.

Yes. No one is saying you can't make any money. And FINALLY you acknowledge the guy gets to be paid off.

Where we DISAGREE is about PERMISSION.

So if I did a Star Wars movie, and I wanted to make money from it, I'd need to give Lucas a share based on what I reuse (how many characters, how many designs, how many concepts, etc...). But the rest is my work. It's not his work. He didn't do it. He didn't write the script, he didn't produce it, he didn't direct it. So he shouldn't be able to take it away from me.

And he wouldn't be able to IF YOU HAD ASKED PERMISSION, IF YOU HAD GOTTEN THE RIGHTS TO MAKE THE WORK.

If you stole it, then yeah, he can take it away.

The guy that made the Star Destroyer, STOLE IT from LucasFilm. STOLE IT. Didn't ask permission. Didn't pay for the right. He swiped the design.

It is perfectly reasonable, even by your logic, for Lucas Film to take it back.

And in turn, if he, or anyone else wanted to base a new movie on "my" movie, he'd have to do the same again. Compensate Lucas for the Star Wars stuff, compensate me for the additions (new characters, new designs, whatever), and then do his own work and be allowed to make money.

As long as there is an agreement, yes. And generally that agreement means money.

Paramount shouldn't be able to take Phase II away from James Cawley and profit from it without compensating him either.

They should. If they wanted to. Did Cawley get permission? Did he purchase the rights? If not, then, they can take it. He violated their copyright.

If I take your favorite sweater, without your permission, and just add a little bit, should I be allowed to resell it? Just giving you a percentage after the fact?

If Cawley wanted to profit from it, he'd have to compensate Paramount for using the brand, and the characters, the designs.

YES. However, he didn't have permission IN THE FIRST PLACE.

But he should be free to profit from it, because it's also his stuff. He started it, he produced it, etc... he invested time and effort, nobody else.

He CHOSE to do so, knowing FULL WELL, he didn't have the right. And at any moment Paramount could sweep in and shut him down.

However, he could've asked permission. He could've paid for the rights--if he could afford them.

If you choose to do something that breaks the law, why should you be able to profit from it?

If I sing a U2 song and upload it on the web, U2 shouldn't be able to take it, put it on an album and release it without compensating me.

They could also remove your version from youtube without your permission.

It's my variation on it. If they like it and want to make money from it, they gotta compensate me for my voice and talent (lol). But if I wanted to make money from it, I got to compensate them in turn, because it's their song.

If someone creates a CG model of the Enterprise, ILM shouldn't be able to download it and use it without compensating the artist for the man hours that went into it. And if the artist wants to sell the model, he should be free to do so, but with compensating whoever designed the Star Destroyer.



And so forth...

It should be a two way street where everybody is free to do whatever he likes, which it's not right now.

Why should it be a two way street where everybody is free to do whatever they like? You haven't answered that.

Why should someone be able to take something that is MINE and do what they like with it?

I think it is limiting. Someone can sit on a property without doing anything, while so many creative minds who'd be able to do something with it can't do it because they are not allowed to. They are basically limited to parodies, as you said.

So? It's their property. It's their right. If those creative minds can ONLY work in someone else's universe, I would argue, THEY are the ones who are limited.

It sounds more like you are a fan who wants more Star Wars and more Star Trek, as long as your need is fulfilled, you don't care. It doesn't work that way. No matter how much one stomps their feet claiming it's not fair or it's limiting.

 

[Agenda]

I wish this thread would just die, already.

 

[Avalon]

^^^

 

[Jan]

Did Cawley get permission? Did he purchase the rights? If not, then, they can take it. He violated their copyright.

My understanding is that Cawley does actually have official permission for the Phase II episodes provided that no profit is made. My source for that is from somebody from his company who was showing an episode at a local convention.

Jan

 

[Neroon]

I promise you that I am not trying to stir the pot. However, how do we determine where the line is drawn between "inspired by" and "ripped off"? The former is acceptable, while the latter, though overused in sff circles, is obviously anathema.

 

[Jan]

^^ Again, it's in actual execution. JMS was 'inspired' by everything from greek mythology to Tolkein but regardless of what each fan is familiar with and tends to focus on, none of it was 'ripped off'. Using tone of another work is permissible. Using the same character names and/or mannerisms and/or characteristics isn't.

Jan

 

[JarodRussell]

[...]

Well, you keep repeating what happens now under the current laws, and I repeat how it should be in my opinion. We could do that forever without getting anywhere.

Because what you have in mind for the property might not be in line with what he has in mind. Or he might feel that he finished the story properly the first time and doesn't need anyone elses help finishing it.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that stories and characters are often very personal to their creators. They represent their imagination, their values, their philosophies, their voice.

Who want to just have so strange come and dilute your characters, perverting them from your own personal expression and turning them into something that's a faint imitation or worse philosophically opposed to your own intentions?

There are a million reasons why a creator might not want to just trade in his creations for a bag of money.

It's true, some might pervert the original stories/themes/characters. But the original creations continue to exist. Has TOS been eliminated by nuTrek? Did The Terminator make those two Harlan Ellison stories go away? There are many franchises that have long been seperated from the people who originally created the universes. Are Moonraker, Licence to Kill or Quantum of Solace truly representing the imagination, values, philosophies of Ian Fleming? Did Enterprise represent what Roddenberry had in mind? There already is this kind of perversion in many properties.

 

[OmahaStar]

^ As Uncle Harlan once said, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion."

 

[JarodRussell]

^ As Uncle Harlan once said, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion."

And where is it not informed?

 

[OmahaStar]

^ As Uncle Harlan once said, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion."

And where is it not informed?

Well that's an easy one to answer ...

Well, you keep repeating what happens now under the current laws, and I repeat how it should be in my opinion.

Based on what you have said, and continue to say, while you may know of the current laws, you do not understand them. Or, perhaps worse, you do understand but simply do not care, and choose to do whatever it is you want with blatant disregard for the law. This applies to your feelings/statements regarding property, both intellectual and tangible.

 

[Jan]

Well, you keep repeating what happens now under the current laws, and I repeat how it should be in my opinion. We could do that forever without getting anywhere.

Then the next question is what you're doing to change things more to your liking? Or is it enough for you to just complain and do nothing?

Jan