It's over: Ellison vs ST tie-ins

[Joel_Kirk]

They basically retconned the first three seasons of ENT out of existence, too.

Sold!!!

 

[ChristopherPike]

They basically retconned the first three seasons of ENT out of existence, too.

Sold!!!

 

[21Spike65]

Star Trek has always followed both the "time travel changes the timeline you're in" and "time travel creates new timelines that branch off from the main one."

Ultimate evidence?

Somehow Spock, while trapped in the 1930s, is able to rig his tricorder to tell him what was going to happen to Edith Keeler in his timeline before McCoy changed it.

Obviously, that information had to continue to exist somewhere.

So, even though that episode was predicated on the idea that his timeline could be changed, it was also predicated on the idea that a change could produce an alternate timeline that continued to exist independently of the changed timeline.

In other words -- Star Trek has always had it both ways.

In this case, we're just seeing an alternate timeline that branched off instead of staying in an altered timeline. Don't like that? Too bad. Get over it.

And, no, Spock's incapable of getting back to his timeline, until or unless the producers change their minds.

I don't think there's as much mystery as to how Spock learned the Keeler's future in his timeline as you seem to imply. Here's the way I interpreted the episode.

When they first activated it, the Guardian of Forever showed them images (very rapidly) of their past (the 'real' one). Spock recorded these images (or the latter part of them anyway) in his tricorder. He learned Keeler's future in the 'old' timeline by slowing down these images and seeing the newspaper article.

After McCoy jumped through the portal, the images that the Guardian shows changes to account for the changes to the timeline. Spock is still recording, so he can later slow down these images as well to show Keeler's future in the 'new' timeline.

So the information Spock needed was already in his tricorder by the time he and Kirk jumped into the past, and it was just a matter of accessing and slowing down this data.

At least that's what I always got from watching the episode.

 

[Fer]

Well, I for one am glad to hear that something has been settled with this whole Harlan Ellison thing. Thanks for posting it!

One question though: since Paramount/CBS is settling with him, does this now make a precedent for other writers? If, for example, a book like "Devil in the Sky" were published today, would they have to be settle with Gene L. Coon's estate or be wary of a similar lawsuit?

 

[Christopher]

One question though: since Paramount/CBS is settling with him, does this now make a precedent for other writers? If, for example, a book like "Devil in the Sky" were published today, would they have to be settle with Gene L. Coon's estate or be wary of a similar lawsuit?

The way I interpret it, Ellison's suit wasn't against everything that mentioned the Guardian of Forever, just against things that re-enacted specific scenes from "City on the Edge," scenes Ellison actually wrote (or at least wrote a version of). That's why it covered Crucible and the talking Hallmark ornament of Kirk and Spock jumping through the Guardian -- because those both depicted actual events and dialogue from the script with Ellison's name on it. Other works of fiction using the Guardian -- "Yesteryear," Yesterday's Son, Time for Yesterday, First Frontier, The Devil's Heart, Imzadi -- aren't included in the suit because they only used the concept of the Guardian, a concept owned by Paramount (and now by CBS), rather than actual material from the script. Or at least that's how I understood it. (Though that doesn't explain why the suit didn't cover the various Strange New Worlds stories retelling events from "City." Probably because short stories are too penny-ante to be worth suing for a cut of.)

So a Horta book wouldn't be affected by this precedent unless it actually included scenes and dialogue from "The Devil in the Dark." And perhaps not even then, since we don't know the specifics of this settlement yet.

In fact, I seem to recall that "City on the Edge" was claimed to be an exception to the usual work-for-hire rule because Ellison published his original version of it separately under his own name, giving him (according to the suit) an ownership claim over material contained in that draft, such as the character of Edith Keeler. So if that's the case, it definitely wouldn't have a bearing on concepts from other Trek scripts. (Except for those that were adapted from pre-existing works, which would be "Arena," "The Slaver Weapon," "Where No One Has Gone Before," and "Tin Man." But in those cases I assume the authors' ownership of their original concepts was never in question, so this case probably wouldn't change anything where those four are concerned. I think Ellison was trying to prove that "City" deserved to be counted in the same category that those were already in.)

Of course, I could be misremembering details of the case, and I don't know yet what the settlement actually says, so all this is just speculation.

 

[Thrawn]

^ That's pretty close to what I remember from three years ago when this all came up the first time.

 

[21Spike65]

Reading that made me think of another question. What is the policy for novelizations? They generally say something along the lines of "adapted from the screenplay/teleplay" of such-and-such. Do the writers of the script that novelizations are based off of get a cut of their sales?

 

[TheAlmanac]

^ It is comparable to Marty in Back to the Future. Marty originated in a 1985 where his parents were dorks and siblings were losers.

He then goes back in time, causes things to change, then goes forward in time to a new 1985.

Marty now finds his parents are hip and his siblings are seemingly successful. However, Marty is exactly the same, because he came from that initial time period.

Back to the Future isn't really a good comparison for the model of time travel used in the new Star Trek movie (despite the helpful chalkboard diagram), since the former's rules of time travel show the timeline to be overwritten, with objects changing form and people being potentially "erased from existence."

By contrast, if the changes in the Abramsverse timeline cause that universe's Nero not to be born (much like any character born after 2258, or even 2233, is at risk), a paradox will not ensue, for the same reason that Spock Prime didn't fade from existence.

If anything, the BTTF rules are closer to the rules in TCOTEOF, with only the Guardian's protection keeping the landing party from being erased, and allowing them to be aware of both versions of the timeline at once. Kirk and Spock have to stop McCoy in the same way that Doc and Marty "must succeed" in stopping Biff in BTTF II.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Reading that made me think of another question. What is the policy for novelizations? They generally say something along the lines of "adapted from the screenplay/teleplay" of such-and-such. Do the writers of the script that novelizations are based off of get a cut of their sales?

At the risk of being accused of making stuff up, it is my understanding that the rights to potential novelizations are well-covered in the screenwriters' contracts.

I know Larry Niven was miffed because he'd have preferred to novelize "The Slaver Weapon" (TAS) himself, but Alan Dean Foster already had the watertight contract to novelize all episodes. (I often wondered if that protracted quibbling was why "Star Trek Log Ten" was the very last TAS episode adapted, and even missed getting the original Filmation art matching cover. Instead it - and "Bem" - got the cover design of the re-releases of the first eight "Star Trek Logs".)

 

[bbailey861]

Would someone please tell me if I have this right? If I write and sell a teleplay for a series, the work presented is what I get paid for (and presumably get paid for again if that work gets used somewhere else). The concepts that I develop, however, now belong to whoever I sold the story to. So in this case, the Guardian and Edith Keeler, or the Gorn et al. to broaden the case, can be used again by Trek as long as the same dialogue or events that took place on "The City.." or whatever, don't get repeated. Do I have it right?

Byron

 

[Dayton Ward]

These days, if you sold a script on a freelance basis to a show, you'd likely sign a contract stating that the owner of that show now owned your script and its contents lock, stock, and barrel, and they'd be free to derive, spin-off, or whatever from that material as they pleased. If you were working as a staff writer on the show, the owners would own it outright, anyway, since they're already paying you to develop content for them. Regardless, your level of compensation and any royalties/residuals/etc. you might derive later would depend on what was negotiated at the time of your particular contract review/signing.

Though I'm no expert on this matter, my understanding is that the types of contracts under which freelancers like Mr. Ellison and others in the 60s worked were worded differently, allowing for provisions like what he put forth in his lawsuit.

 

[Christopher]

Would someone please tell me if I have this right? If I write and sell a teleplay for a series, the work presented is what I get paid for (and presumably get paid for again if that work gets used somewhere else). The concepts that I develop, however, now belong to whoever I sold the story to. So in this case, the Guardian and Edith Keeler, or the Gorn et al. to broaden the case can be used again by Trek as long as the same dialogue or events that took place on "The City.." or whatever, don't get repeated. Do I have it right?

Not quite. They own everything in your script, and they're perfectly free to use any of it again without your permission (at least under the standard contract as it exists today). However, if they reuse characters or species you created, or show clips from your episode in a later episode (I think), then you're entitled to royalties for the reuse, even though you have no ownership claim. It's that distinction, ownership vs. royalties, that confuses most people. But that's just for TV episodes reusing those elements; I don't think any royalties are owed for reuse of TV material in a novel or comics tie-in.

As I said above, Ellison's arguing that he has an atypical claim to "City" because of special circumstances (either the way his contract was written or the fact that he published the original screenplay draft under his own name), and thus is entitled to extra compensation for anything that uses material from his script. So I don't think this is a precedent that would affect Trek fiction in general. If it is something to do with the way contracts were written during TOS, then it might affect other material based on TOS episodes; but if it's because of his separate publication, then it wouldn't really affect anything other than "City" itself.

Or so it seems to me. I'm just guessing here.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

As I said above, Ellison's arguing that he has an atypical claim to "City" because of special circumstances (either the way his contract was written or the fact that he published the original screenplay draft under his own name), and thus is entitled to extra compensation for anything that uses material from his script.

Screenwriters retain the right to publish their screenplays, if I understand WGA rules correctly.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, I don't entirely remember what I read, but I do think Ellison is claiming that as part of the basis for his suit. I never said I agreed with it.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

As I said above, Ellison's arguing that he has an atypical claim to "City" because of special circumstances (either the way his contract was written or the fact that he published the original screenplay draft under his own name), and thus is entitled to extra compensation for anything that uses material from his script.

Screenwriters retain the right to publish their screenplays, if I understand WGA rules correctly.

Yes, through the separated rights clause. It is what allowed Ellison to publish his original CoTEF and for JMS to publish his Babylon 5 scripts through Cafe Press.



From the WGA on Theatrical Separated Rights:

a. Publication rights. The writer obtains the right to publish the script, or book(s) based on the script, subject to a holdback period. The Company, however, has the right to cause a novelization to be published in conjunction with the release of the film, for the purpose of marketing the film. If the Company wishes to cause a novelization to be published, it must first approach the writer(s) who has Separated Rights to see if the writer(s) wants to negotiate with a publisher regarding the rights and services for the novelization. If the writer with Separated Rights does not want to write the novelization or fails to conclude a publishing deal within prescribed timeframes, the Company may publish the novelization but must pay the writer not less than WGA minimum for the right to publish.4 (Article 16.A.3.a.(3))

Source: http://www.wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=119

For television, however, the right to publish scripts is considered a reserved right under the separated clause:

...
(3) Publication rights: The right to publish a book based upon the material or to publish the script.
...
The Company and writer may negotiate for the Company to acquire some or all of the reserved rights.

Source: http://www.wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=124

 

[Allyn Gibson]

^Well, I don't entirely remember what I read, but I do think Ellison is claiming that as part of the basis for his suit. I never said I agreed with it.

I wasn't saying you did agree with Ellison's viewpoint. I was just pointing out that the WGA agreement gives the screenwriter the right to publish (or not publish) their script. That was where Lincoln Enterprises got in trouble, for instance; they were selling scripts they had no legal right to sell.

However, you are right that Ellison claimed that the publication of the screenplay for "City" in Ten Science-Fiction Plays and the White Wolf edition gave him additional rights to "City," that because Paramount didn't object then they had forfeited ownership of the Guardian and Edith Keeler.

I personally think Ellison's better route toward reclaiming "City" is to use the same mechanism that the Jerry Siegel and Jack Kirby estates are using on Superman and the Marvel Universe respectively. He'd have to wait about ten years, I think, but he could end up with "City" entirely.

 

[Greg Cox]

Reading that made me think of another question. What is the policy for novelizations? They generally say something along the lines of "adapted from the screenplay/teleplay" of such-and-such. Do the writers of the script that novelizations are based off of get a cut of their sales?

At the risk of being accused of making stuff up, it is my understanding that the rights to potential novelizations are well-covered in the screenwriters' contracts.

As I understand it, the screenwriters technically get first crack at doing the novelization. They almost always waive this option, however, because, by Hollywood standards, writing a novelization is too much work for too little money. I honestly can't think of a case where the screenwriters wanted to write the novelization. It's just not worth their time.

There was one movie, though, where the screenwriter refused to let a novelization be written; he wanted his screenplay published or nothing at all. I think that was a special case, however. I suspect most screenwriters just sign the release and move on to their next movie project.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Reading that made me think of another question. What is the policy for novelizations? They generally say something along the lines of "adapted from the screenplay/teleplay" of such-and-such. Do the writers of the script that novelizations are based off of get a cut of their sales?

At the risk of being accused of making stuff up, it is my understanding that the rights to potential novelizations are well-covered in the screenwriters' contracts.

As I understand it, the screenwriters technically get first crack at doing the novelization. They almost always waive this option, however, because, by Hollywood standards, writing a novelization is too much work for too little money. I honestly can't think of a case where the screenwriters wanted to write the novelization. It's just not worth their time.

There was one movie, though, where the screenwriter refused to let a novelization be written; he wanted his screenplay published or nothing at all. I think that was a special case, however. I suspect most screenwriters just sign the release and move on to their next movie project.

See my post above; I posted the separated rights paragraph from the WGA website that covers publishing rights, including novelizations.

 

[Greg Cox]

See my post above; I posted the separated rights paragraph from the WGA website that covers publishing rights, including novelizations.

Ah, very interesting.

I remember a crisis years ago, when the studio neglected to offer the novelization to one of the eight screenwriters who worked on the movie. The novelization was about to go to press and there was a momentary panic before somebody tracked down the missing screenwriter and got him to waive his rights . . . .

 

[thranx]

Therin;
Slaver Weapon and Bem were the last two animated Star Treks to be novelized because from the very beginning I saved what I thought were the best two stories, by actual SF writers, for the last. Not because of any quibbling.