Need help putting my TNG Novel together

[Sci]

Exactly. Which is to say nothing of the fact that -- c'mon. It's about writing a Star Trek book, not determining the fate of millions or anything. No one goes home hungry at night because they missed out on a Star Trek book, y'know? No one actually suffers from losing out on a gig like that.

Well, I would, because it's been my primary source of income for the past several years. But then, I'm stupid that way. If I had any sense, I'd have a real job by now. And people who aren't already regular contributors to the Pocket stable presumably have other sources of income of their own, and what they'd get from selling a first Trek novel wouldn't be huge compared to what they'd earn for a comparable few months' work at their regular jobs.

Well, fair enough, but someone who has never actually written for Star Trek at all, a complete novice, has not lost an established source of income if he's turned down for a Star Trek book. And, really, if you're a novice writer who's in dire straits and desperately need to get that Star Trek novel gig even though you have no writing experience, that's a sign you need to go out and find a part-time gig to feed yourself before you can start focusing on your writing -- because, as you and others have said numerous times, the overwhelming majority of writers have to go through the process of being rejected numerous times before their writing improves to the level of publishability.

Anyway, if book authors were entitled to royalties for the use of their characters and species, it probably would just result in the film and TV producers choosing not to use those characters and species -- the same way Enterprise created T'Pol rather than using T'Pau as a regular character so that they wouldn't have to pay Theodore Sturgeon's estate a royalty every week. After all, it's easy enough to create a character with a different name in order to fulfill a similar role. Since 99 percent of the TV/movie viewers will never have read the novels, it won't matter to them whether the character is from the novels or newly created, so why should the studio expend the money on using a novel character?

Excellent point, that.

On the other hand, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have been public about their enjoyment of Star Trek novels. If they were to make a new ST series in the future, it's not wholly improbable to imagine they might be interested in having some of the Trek novelists with screenwriting experience -- I'm thinking of you and David Mack -- adapt their novels for TV.

Interested, maybe, but that just means the authors might get invited to pitch stories. They'd still have to go through the pitch process the same as everyone else.

See, here's the thing: if a TV or movie production company asks you to write something for them, they have to pay you for it. So if they came to you and said, "Hey, we'd like you to adapt this specific novel of yours for our show," that would be a promise up front to pay for that adaptation. And then what happens if the author they approach is unable to figure out a way to adapt the novel into a filmable episode? The producers have then paid for something they can't use. That's why the initiative generally has to come from the freelance writers (or more usually their agents). The writer's agent asks for and gets a pitch meeting, then the writer comes in and pitches ideas (verbally, since they have to pay you for anything they ask you to write down), and if the producers hear an idea that they think can work, then they'll ask for a treatment, which means they'll pay for that treatment. And if the treatment works and they think the writer is capable of taking it to script, they'll ask the writer to script it, and that means they'll pay for that script.

So I'd have to say that the scenario of Kurtzman & Orci deciding to ask a novelist to adapt their novel into an episode is pretty unlikely. They might invite the novelist to pitch ideas to them, and the author might choose to include a novel adaptation as one of the pitches, but there's no guarantee that the producers would accept that pitch.

Very informative! Thanks.

Similarly, Russell T. Davies had some Doctor Who novels and audio stories adapted for the revived television series, including having author Paul Cornel adapt his novel Human Nature into Series Three's "Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood" two-parter, Rob Shearman adapting his Jubilee into Series One's "Dalek,"

Well, as we've established, the rules in British TV are different than in American TV. And did RTD ask those writers to adapt their stories, or did the writers come in and pitch adaptations of their stories which RTD then accepted? There's a big difference.

From what I understand, Davies was the one who approached them, yes.

 

[Stevil2001]

Yup, Davies wanted a lone-Dalek-as-prisoner story, so he asked Rob Shearman to adapt his own Jubilee rather than start from scratch.

On the other hand, Steven Moffat adapted his "What I Did on My Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow" into "Blink" just by pitching a story with a similar premise.

 

[Greg Cox]

But anyone who thinks that the studio actively seeks out novels to adapt into episodes, or that we write the novels with the intent or expectation that they'll become episodes, is fundamentally misunderstanding the process.

Exactly. (And yet, whenever I write a CSI book or whatever, well-meaning neighbors and relatives invariably ask when the episode is going to air. Sigh.)

It's also worth stressing that book contracts and tv contracts are very different animals. Hollywood screenwriters may get royalties or credit if a character they created is reused, but that's because they belong to a powerful union that has fought long and hard for those rights.

That has nothing to with book publishing at all.

 

[Idran]

I've brought this up before, but I should specify: this isn't a difference between British and American laws. It's a difference between how they tend to do things. It's certainly possible for a US publisher to do tie-in works not on a work-for-hire basis, it's just that none of them do because it's more beneficial for them to keep the rights themselves, for a variety of reasons that have been mentioned already in the thread.

It seems a minor point, yeah, but it's something that there's been confusion on before. And it's been relevant to things in the US before too. It's that distinction that led to the lawsuits from the estates of Siegel and Shuster regarding Action Comics #1, for example. As DC didn't actually use a work-for-hire contract with them at the time, those estates have legally been declared to own the rights to all concepts and characters introduced in that issue.

Work-for-hire is in fact the exception to the "default" status of copyright in the US, not (legally) the usual and assumed way of doing things under any circumstances. And if your contract with your company or publisher doesn't explicitly spell out that it's work-for-hire, you as the author own all copyright.

 

[Christopher]

Work-for-hire is in fact the exception to the "default" status of copyright in the US, not (legally) the usual and assumed way of doing things under any circumstances. And if your contract with your company or publisher doesn't explicitly spell out that it's work-for-hire, you as the author own all copyright.

True -- but that's why TV/movie production companies and tie-in publishers make sure the contracts do specify that it's work-for-hire and have clauses explicitly spelling out that they own the writer's work.

 

[Idran]

Work-for-hire is in fact the exception to the "default" status of copyright in the US, not (legally) the usual and assumed way of doing things under any circumstances. And if your contract with your company or publisher doesn't explicitly spell out that it's work-for-hire, you as the author own all copyright.

True -- but that's why TV/movie production companies and tie-in publishers make sure the contracts do specify that it's work-for-hire and have clauses explicitly spelling out that they own the writer's work.

Oh yeah, no company would make a silly mistake like that anymore. Even back in the 30s I imagine it only happened to DC because they were such a small company; though admittedly I don't know if it was accidental or not. It's just a difference I think it's worth specifying about.

 

[Relayer1]

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a question, in essence, of how much clout the author has and therefore whether or not he/she is able to get a clause giving them royalties inserted into their contract. For the vast majority of tie-in writers, they wouldn't have that much clout, because their names just wouldn't be big enough sellers for CBS to be willing to grant them a provision like that to entice them to write. But if, say, Stephen King or J.K. Rowling were to express interest in writing a Star Trek book (yes, yes, wildly improbable scenario, but it works to demonstrate my point), I imagine their agents might be able to get CBS to concede to a provision entitling them to royalties.

Well, Michael Moorcock did write a Dr Who novel last year ! Maybe not quite Rowling or King, but there you go !

 

[Therin of Andor]

Even back in the 30s I imagine it only happened to DC because they were such a small company; though admittedly I don't know if it was accidental or not.

20/20 hindsight?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman#Copyright_issues

 

[Idran]

Even back in the 30s I imagine it only happened to DC because they were such a small company; though admittedly I don't know if it was accidental or not.

20/20 hindsight?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman#Copyright_issues

Oh okay, I misremembered the situation pretty thoroughly. It wasn't that the original contract wasn't work-for-hire, it was that when copyrights were extended in the 70s, original authors were given the opportunity to reclaim copyrights given up through work-for-hire contracts, and again when they were extended 20 years later. I didn't know about that bit with the copyright extensions, though it makes sense that it'd be offered.

And it does seem ethically more reasonable to me for even work-for-hire to be a temporary situation only, for the rights to original creations even in an existing setting to eventually revert back to the creators after enough time passes. Sort of akin to a lesser version of passing into public domain.

 

[Greg Cox]

Interesting, but creating SUPERMAN and writing tie-ins for a previously established series aren't really the same thing. It's not like Clark Kent started out as a minor supporting character in a story set in the universe of DOC SAVAGE or THE SHADOW. It's one thing to create a brand-new series and character on a work-for-hire basis--and another thing to expect to own a character you created for a STAR TREK novel.

 

[Idran]

Interesting, but creating SUPERMAN and writing tie-ins for a previously established series aren't really the same thing. It's not like Clark Kent started out as a minor supporting character in a story set in the universe of DOC SAVAGE or THE SHADOW. It's one thing to create a brand-new series and character on a work-for-hire basis--and another thing to expect to own a character you created for a STAR TREK novel.

True, but I honestly see nothing wrong with the concept that after some reasonably long period - something on the order of decades, enough for the publishing or producing company to get a fair amount of value out of the contract they made with the author - that an author has the opportunity to regain the rights to original concepts they create under any sort of work-for-hire scenario, original or tie-in. Not automatic either; if the author doesn't care, they could waive the chance to reclaim them. But I don't see any reason for them not to have the opportunity eventually.

 

[Therin of Andor]

if the author doesn't care, they could waive the chance to reclaim them. But I don't see any reason for them not to have the opportunity eventually.

But an original character written expressly for a licensed media tie-in is really only going to have significance as a part of the parent franchise.

You really think the animator who came up with Lieutenant Arex for TAS is ever going to get mileage, twenty or fifty years down the track, creating an "Adventures of Arex" vehicle? He may as well rename his race (again), give him a different colour and maybe an extra arm, and call him something else instead of Arex, because this borrowed-back Arex won't be allowed to be a part of Starfleet, nor interact with any TOS characters.

A ST novelist wants to use a planet he or she once created for a licensed tie-in Star Trek novel? It's going to have to have some very unique properties to be worth trying to set it up in its own universe.

Let's say Christopher L Bennett decides he needs/wants to use his character, T'Ryssa Chen, in a standalone, non-ST work. His agent and solicitor could approach CBS and attempt to negotiate a "used with permission..." contractual agreement. Money would change hands. But it would be more cost-effective to just rename her, call her a different race and keep her quirky personality. It's unlikely she'll be instantly recognisable in a non-ST setting, and the new story might suggest other changes he'd make to the character anyway.

Check out David Gerrold's "Star Wolf" novel series. Some of the cast members seem like analogs of Gerrold's original concepts for Picard, Riker and crew, the space organisation is similar-but-different to Starfleet, and he even used his failed "Blood and Fire" TNG script as the plot of one of the latter books. Gerrold owns "Star Wolf" outright, and he didn't have to negotiate with then-Paramount/Viacom to be allowed to re-use and extrapolate from his concepts, because he made them different enough.

 

[Stevil2001]

There are tons of Doctor Who characters, from both the television series and the tie-ins, that have gone on to have many adventures away from the BBC. Seems to be some "mileage" there to me.

 

[nightwind1]

And ohh, the furor that was raised when VGR dared to have a female captain.

... seriously?

Why?

Isn't Star Trek all about a future without discrimination?

One would think so, but take a look at the recent threads about the two Trek fans getting married...

 

[Christopher]

You really think the animator who came up with Lieutenant Arex for TAS is ever going to get mileage, twenty or fifty years down the track, creating an "Adventures of Arex" vehicle? He may as well rename his race (again), give him a different colour and maybe an extra arm, and call him something else instead of Arex, because this borrowed-back Arex won't be allowed to be a part of Starfleet, nor interact with any TOS characters.

As an Australian, maybe you're aware that there is just such a situation in real life with the Australian K-9 series based on the Doctor Who character of K-9, the robot dog who was the Doctor's companion in the late '70s-early '80s and has appeared in later works as Sarah Jane Smith's pet/companion. Under British contractual practices, the creators of K-9 still own the character and are able to use him without the participation of the Doctor Who producers. But they weren't licensed to use any other elements from DW, or even K-9's original appearance, so they had to set up a situation where K-9 "regenerated" into a different form and lost his memory, so that the series is only implicitly part of the Doctor Who universe.

Let's say Christopher L Bennett decides he needs/wants to use his character, T'Ryssa Chen, in a standalone, non-ST work. His agent and solicitor could approach CBS and attempt to negotiate a "used with permission..." contractual agreement. Money would change hands. But it would be more cost-effective to just rename her, call her a different race and keep her quirky personality. It's unlikely she'll be instantly recognisable in a non-ST setting, and the new story might suggest other changes he'd make to the character anyway.

Or, better yet, I'd just create a character with some similar personality attributes but enough differences to make her a distinct character. Oh, wait, I already did that. She's named Emerald Blair, and she's the protagonist of Only Superhuman. Although I created Emerald long before T'Ryssa. They both represent sort of a recurring character type of mine (elements of which also turn up in DTI's Teresa Garcia, though I've tried to make her sufficiently distinct as well). They're different people, but they let me exercise some of the same creative muscles and I have a similar amount of fun writing them. It's always possible to create new characters, and my Trek characters often tend to be variations on my stock character types anyway (which means I really should work on developing greater variety rather than trying to reuse past characters).

 

[Greg Cox]

Heck, I've used the same setting for three series now: Xena, Farscape, and Underworld. Nobody has ever noticed or complained, because I always adapted it to fit the series in question . . . and because I stole the idea from a real-life historical location.

Copyright is more about specific characters and institutions than just "ideas," which are a dime a dozen.

 

[Christopher]

^Now, if I wanted to write an original novel about an ocean planet like Droplet in Over a Torrent Sea, I could, because I based it on real scientific papers (though I assume I'd have to change the name). But what about the specific organisms and biosphere I created for it? I assume the featured intelligent species there would count as a specific "institution," and in many cases characters, that would fall under CBS's copyright, but what about the other life forms, the ones that were just animals/plants/etc.? Could I use essentially the same biosphere without legal difficulty? (Kind of a serious question, because I'm rather proud of the conjectures I made about the life existing in the depths. I don't have specific plans to revisit that biosphere, but it'd be nice if I could.)

Or what about the laws of temporal physics I worked out for DTI? Would it be okay to use essentially the same laws in an original story?

 

[Idran]

You really think the animator who came up with Lieutenant Arex for TAS is ever going to get mileage, twenty or fifty years down the track, creating an "Adventures of Arex" vehicle? He may as well rename his race (again), give him a different colour and maybe an extra arm, and call him something else instead of Arex, because this borrowed-back Arex won't be allowed to be a part of Starfleet, nor interact with any TOS characters.

As an Australian, maybe you're aware that there is just such a situation in real life with the Australian K-9 series based on the Doctor Who character of K-9, the robot dog who was the Doctor's companion in the late '70s-early '80s and has appeared in later works as Sarah Jane Smith's pet/companion. Under British contractual practices, the creators of K-9 still own the character and are able to use him without the participation of the Doctor Who producers. But they weren't licensed to use any other elements from DW, or even K-9's original appearance, so they had to set up a situation where K-9 "regenerated" into a different form and lost his memory, so that the series is only implicitly part of the Doctor Who universe.

And then also taking Doctor Who as an example, there's Bernice Summerfeld. Originally created as a companion to the Eighth Doctor in novels in the early 90s, she continued in her own separate series after the publisher lost the rights to Doctor Who. Her past was only glazed over due to legal concerns, but her background with the Doctor and her past adventures were still in her personal canon, and she had two full years of her own personal novels before the company the publisher was part of shut down its book division.

Granted, since then she's actually been back to her roots in new Doctor Who stuff, audio plays from Big Finish Productions. But for two years she was an independent spinoff character that carried her own line.

 

[Therin of Andor]

As an Australian, maybe you're aware that there is just such a situation in real life with the Australian K-9 series based on the Doctor Who character of K-9...

I don't watch "Doctor Who", but yes, I'm very aware of all the K-9 stuff. But that robot was already an expensive, existing prop. It's a little like how Robby the Robot was able to pop up, inexplicably, in "The Invisible Boy" motion picture, and then make many appearances as other robots in shows like "Lost in Space" and "The Twilight Zone" while never infringing on the rights of "Forbidden Planet". (I'm assuming "The Invisible Boy" was made by the same production team as FB? But one may ask how Robby was on Earth centuries before Morbius made him on Altair VI.)

The fact that Arex and M'Ress were created by Filmation animators is probably why M'Ress was redrawn more human, and Arex was replaced by a human (although his musical instrument was allowed to stay) when the Power Records comic/record sets came out.

But they weren't licensed to use any other elements from DW, or even K-9's original appearance, so they had to set up a situation where K-9 "regenerated" into a different form and lost his memory, so that the series is only implicitly part of the Doctor Who universe.

Yep. At least they didn't have to make him a whole new head, or rename him, or turn him into a cat robot.

Oh, wait, I already did that. She's named Emerald Blair, and she's the protagonist of Only Superhuman. Although I created Emerald long before T'Ryssa.

Excellent.

 

[Christopher]

And then also taking Doctor Who as an example, there's Bernice Summerfeld. Originally created as a companion to the Eighth Doctor in novels in the early 90s, she continued in her own separate series after the publisher lost the rights to Doctor Who.

Seventh Doctor, actually. The Virgin New Adventures line. Benny was created in Paul Cornell's novel Love and War in 1992, four years before the TV movie that introduced the Eighth Doctor. She was the first novel-original companion that the Seventh Doctor acquired after Ace, and she was the Doctor's solo companion during a period when Ace left for a time.

And when River Song was introduced in the TV show a few years back, I thought, "Gee, she kinda reminds me of Bernice Summerfield."

I don't watch "Doctor Who", but yes, I'm very aware of all the K-9 stuff. But that robot was already an expensive, existing prop. It's a little like how Robby the Robot was able to pop up, inexplicably, in "The Invisible Boy" motion picture, and then make many appearances as other robots in shows like "Lost in Space" and "The Twilight Zone" while never infringing on the rights of "Forbidden Planet".

No, it's not the same at all. As I said, the creators of K-9 didn't have the rights to the design of the original character, because that belongs to the Beeb, so his appearance was altered in the Australian show. Here's what K9 from Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures looks like:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110710145328/tardis/images/d/d4/K9.jpg

And here's what the "regenerated" version from the Aussie show looks like (ughh):

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091208084729/tardis/images/0/0d/K-9_hovering.jpg

They're completely different aside from a few vague design similarities.

(I'm assuming "The Invisible Boy" was made by the same production team as FB? But one may ask how Robby was on Earth centuries before Morbius made him on Altair VI.)

Same character, different universe. Basically Robbie was "playing himself," like when actors play fictional versions of themselves in movies or cartoons.