New Book about TOS: These Are The Voyages
- Thread starter neoworx
- Start date
- Status
If you are going to use a website acknowledgement in the book as proof of photo usage from startrekhistory; then it seems to me that you shouldn't also simultaneously criticize the publisher for not crediting startrekhistory regarding photos.
I was actually thinking along the lines of someone proving a particular photo in the book not attributed to startrekhistory was in fact from them by pointing out those jpeg artifacts mentioned earlier.
It does seem odd to me that a low res image can suddenly be transformed into hi res inside Photoshop - as I thought the details would have to be present in the photo in the first place. I know blurry images can not always be sharpened to look good - there just isn't enough detail in what one was given to begin with. Assuming it is possible then; doesn't that transformation of the pic qualify as a significant rework/restoration activity in itself? Possibly as significant as earlier restoration work? Can the new hi res image be considered a derivative work or transformative work? Can it be copyrighted or some form of new ownership rights assigned to it? (That was someone's argument earlier about startrekhistory's efforts.) If the photo went from 72 dpi to 300 dpi ... can the difference (approx. 228 dpi of total 300 dpi or approx. 75% be considered a result of the publishers rework?). Just throwing this out there, fellow Spock Grokkers. Like the "selling the clips by Lincoln" doesn't represent publishing concept was thrown out there -- which I don't believe is a valid conclusion.
The Star Trek History website appears in the book's bibliography section on p.545. This is only right, since the book quotes from interviews conducted by Star Trek History. The website is not acknowledged as a source of any of the images in the text, which are captioned "Courtesy of..." "The Collector" is credited for the vast majority of the images used in the book, although there are other names listed (a few images are courtesy Bob Justman, John D.F. Black, Mary Black, and other names of which I am not familiar).
The websites in the bibliography are (in the order the book lists them):
Star Trek Prop Authority (The website of "The Collector")
Memory Alpha
Startrek.com
Star Trek History
Orion Press' Unseen Elements Page
Although "The Collector" is listed in the book's acknowledgments (pg.vii-viii) there are no contributors, as far as I know, to Star Trek History listed on these two pages.
The websites in the bibliography are (in the order the book lists them):
Star Trek Prop Authority (The website of "The Collector")
Memory Alpha
Startrek.com
Star Trek History
Orion Press' Unseen Elements Page
Although "The Collector" is listed in the book's acknowledgments (pg.vii-viii) there are no contributors, as far as I know, to Star Trek History listed on these two pages.
Actually, I just saw that startrekhistory is mentioned on P. 439 under a photo. It says "also on the internet courtesy Tom Redlaw and also startrekhistory.com". Perhaps they are credited elsewhere.
Frankly, your desperate attempts to cast doubt on every single assertion that might cast the book in a less then flattering light are the only grasping at straws I see here. I have no dog in this fight. Do you?
To me it is your multimillion dollar lawyer's very careless statement about CBS owning everything that really seems like such a flippant, ill conceived statement. It really appeared ridiculous to me -- and all the website citations recently given here and just the general knowledge of a major overhaul of the copyright laws in the mid-70s stands to refute this. Yet you repeatedly profess to have 1000x more confidence in a clearly absurd assertion than the real research of others. That really looks like a desperate grasping at straws attempt on your part, in my opinion.
Just made it that far in the book (still finishing it). The full caption reads:
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the only photo in the entire book that credits Star Trek History and/or Tom Redlaw (aka Birdofthegalaxy). Of course, the caption is sure to credit "The Collector" first.
Flipping ahead, there's an amusing photo citation on p.487 which simply says "trekbbs.com" That seems pretty lazy to me.
Characterizing a professional opinion as "flippant, ill conceived" speaks for itself. I'm only interested in being factually correct. I'll let others here judge which argument here has appropriate weight without trying to tinge other's arguments in a pejorative light.
Interestingly, you didn't answer the question. Are you the author, publisher, "The Collector" or acting on the behalf of one of more of them?
Yes, this has come up several times, and for some reason it's always pointedly avoided.
I'll go first, just to be fair. I am a public educator with no connection to the book. Though I love TOS, this book sounds more in depth than I would like, though I really enjoyed ST365. I have written and self-published a book that used quotes, public domain photos and a licensed photo for the cover; I plan a second book that will be a book of quotes. Plus I teach civics and recently had a constitutional law class. So I find all the legal nuances interesting and worth bandying about.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
In today's society, a lot of crickets just fall through the cracks.
- Status
Similar threads
