Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by neoworx, Jul 13, 2013.
Did they request permission to use the restored photos, even as a courtesy?
No, I'm suggesting that the restoration work that Star Trek History did shouldn't have been used without getting permission. Ethically, they sure shouldn't have been used while giving credit to another source.
Everyone has the right to republish those images on the web or in books. That the definition of material that is not legally copyrighted by anyone but is part of the Public Domain.
And being part of the Public Domain (non-copyrighted) is not the same as being available to the public. I think the written text in the book is a new creation that can be copyrighted by the author ... but those photos can be reused by anyone.
startrekhistory, or perhaps others here, seem to be asserting that restoring public domain images gives them the right to prevent others from publishing copies of those public domain images - which is not true, IMO.
Peace and Love, Dudes. I guess we'll just disagree on this!
Uh, no. You're either deliberately obfuscating the issue or just not getting it.
If I was someone on the fence, the attitude of stcanada29 would be enough to make me not buy the book.
Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it's public domain. For some reason, people have trouble understanding that, even professionals.
Well, like I say: your contention, whether right or wrong, sure doesn't seem to be winning supporters and promoting sales.
I wish the publisher better luck on the future volumes of this series. What a mess.
Publisher has probably not done anything illegal.
Publisher has definitely done something unethical.
Can we talk about Bruce Hyde again?
It sure seems like that was a mistake, no one can seem to find him.
That sure puts a dampener on things. Everyone raved about the quality of the text but if it contains a lot of errors...
And yet, you neither credit Rudi Hurzlmeier for the creation of the image used in your avatar, nor do I think you asked for permission of the right holders to use it here.
As for this book and the issue of the images used: I can see that it's not very cool to take theses images from startrekhistory.com and use them without asking for their permission first, but if they at least name them as a source for those images – which they seem to have done – I don't see how they would be doing something illegal. It doesn't make them criminals, but it doesn't make them very nice people either, I guess.
They are not named as a source of the images in the book. The website is listed among several other Trek-related sites in the back, and quotes from their interviews are cited, but the images are credited to Gurian.
Got mine yesterday. I haven't had a chance to dig into it that much, so I can only give a limited review and general impressions.
Before I do that, let me say up front that I'm not a lawyer, and am not able to judge any of the legalities regarding copy writes, etc. So I'm simply not going to "go there." In the interest of full disclosure, I am a regular visitor to startrekhistory.com, am on their mailing list, express my great appreciation for all that they do and hope they continue to enrich our lives with their efforts. I do note that the book lists that site as a resource in the back, but whether the authors "lifted" information illegally or inappropriately is beyond my ability to discern.
That said, in the limited time I had to read last evening, I concentrated on one of my favorite episodes of the first season, "Court Martial." As you've read above, there are a number of interesting aspects throughout the script development, production and post-production that I have never known about. That certainly sells the book for me, as I'm as interested in the production of the series as I am about the final product.
As to factual and grammatical errors, I haven't really found any yet but I'm not really looking that hard right now. I'm satisfied in the accuracy because the author (1) was given access to the original files created by the producers and (2) conducted a number of interviews with those involved, including producers, directors, crew, actors, etc. Justman's enjoinder--(paraphrase) 'The memory fails, but the original docs never do'--is a good thing to keep in the back of your head as you read this book and come across things that contradict what you think you knew.
Now comes the big challenge for the authors as far as I'm concerned: Season 2 (release date, anyone?). That's where most of my very favorite episodes reside. Of course, I most look forward to learning new things regarding my all-time fav, "The Doomsday Machine." The foreward to this book states that William Windom and Norman Spinrad were interviewed as part of the overall project, so I hope to gain more insights than I ever have regarding this episode.
Do I recommend this book to you? Yes, like I'd recommend you continue breathing. BUY IT!
The error is that Riley was always at the navigator station in The Naked Time, not the helm. In The Man Trap, at 13m56s you can clearly see Bruce Hyde (or a Bruce Hyde lookin' dude) at the nav seat as the camera dollies past. This is the "chili peppers" scene.
I linked to a screen capture of that same shot (slightly earlier) in my post you quote. The guy in question isn't Bruce Hyde; he's a bit player named Budd Albright.
Hm. Then it looks like instead of parting his hair on his left side like in "The Naked Time," Bruce Hyde seems to have parted his hair on the opposite side for this "The Man Trap" pick-up shot. He seems to have put in blue contact lenses, too.
I'm assuming the author had access to the daily call sheets that confirm that Bruce Hyde was present for that scene. Obviously, if he was visible, us fans would have known that for the last 47 years.
Well, the thing is, the book doesn't mention call sheets. It just says that we get a glimpse of Hyde during that scene. We don't; it's a mistake.
I finished my read-through this afternoon. First impression: DAMN! That's long!
Second impression: If the publishers would like to send me the "galleys" of Season Two, I'd be glad to give it a proof-reading once-over. I found in the neighborhood of 200 typos and other errors. I'm sure I missed a bunch; I'm not a professional proofreader.
Third impression: Cushman might've done better homework. He brandishes the "revelation" that "Space Seed" was shot BEFORE "A Taste of Armageddon" as if nobody had ever reported this before. Yet, when I pull out my First Edition copy of Allan Asherman's The Star Trek Compendium, I find the following details: "Seed" was "Filmed in middle and late December, 1966" and "Armageddon" was "Filmed in late December 1966 and early January 1967."
So, I've known that those two episodes were shot in that order since 1980, when Asherman's book came out.
Admittedly, that information (and lots of other good stuff) was cut from later editions of the Compendium to make room for information about the evolving film series. That's why I've kept my First Edition copy all these years, even though it's falling apart.
The production numbers of those episodes are 6149-23 for "Armageddon" and 6149-24 for "Seed," indicating that they were intended to be shot in a different order (which Cushman explains in some detail) but he crows a bit extravagantly about resurrecting an 33-year-old bit of Trek trivia. (The "production numbers" come from the copies of the scripts published by Roddenberry.com a few years ago.)
Third impression: Despite its flaws, I like this book. It's a very engaging read (I rarely read 400 pages in a couple of long sessions, as I did with the last 400 pages here.)
Fun factoid: the copyright page lists "Interior Design: Marc Cushman, Susan Osborn and Gurian." Which completely blows my earlier attempt at even-handedness right out of the water. It seems unlikely Cushman was unaware of the "harvesting" and "repurposing" of the restoration work of other people. That's unfortunate, because I WANT to read Season Two and Season Three, but I'm reluctant to reward this kind of behavior.
Legalities be damned. What was done was ethically wrong — taking the restoration work of others and passing it off as their own. And I won't give these folks my hard-earned money because of it.
Separate names with a comma.