New Book about TOS: These Are The Voyages

[Maurice]

When someone consults a lawyer with experience negotiating and clearing I.P. on movies like Wreck It Ralph,(which the one I have spoken to did), then I'll be happy to give their opinion equal weight.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

To, CorporalCaptain, you seem to be making the argument that Gurian may own those 150 clappers (and thousands of other images mentioned in the article) but didn't use them as a source of imagery in the book. Now that is hilarious. It's impossible to argue with someone in such a total state of denial. Thank you for convincing the more fair-minded members of this forum how malicious some can be.

Whoa!

I've done no such thing! I've made no such argument!

What I have said, I'll clarify in two parts.

1. I've asked questions to which you replied, "I wasn't saying I know."

2. Additionally, I can't find where in the article by Gurian, that you provided us with a link to, that my questions are answered. I'll illustrate [emphasis mine]:

Most of the photos presented in the book series are taken from my personal collection of rare Star Trek imagery, and so I thought that the readers of this site would enjoy a more detailed look at my collection and some of the restoration work necessary to make the photos appear more presentable.

How many were used in volume one? Why, it doesn't say. It's to be a three volume series, right? So, based on that alone, that could mean that most of the images that he's providing the sources for occur in volumes two and three, right? What about volume one? More [again, emphasis mine]:

Now, virtually all of the images included in "These Are The Voyages" have to go through some degree of photo restoration in a photo editing software. In the past 8 months for the first two volumes of the book series, I have literally spent many hundreds of hours engaged in this activity. I am somewhat proficient with the software Corel Paintshop Pro X4 - which I have utilized constantly over the years to fine tune all the imagery that appears on this website.

Here are just a few examples of the numerous photo restorations that I performed for this book project ...

So, again, while claiming to have spent hundreds of hours working, there is still no exact answer to be found to the questions I've asked. He then gives a grand total of four examples, so I guess implicitly he's claiming that the number is at least four (three in volume one and one in volume two?). That's really all we know. Unless I'm missing something, there's just no way to tease out what he's saying about his contributions to volume one, beyond a grand total of at most three photos.

Now, if you can point to me where I missed him answering the questions, then I'll concede that he answered the questions and that I missed the answers!

Otherwise, all I can say is that whatever has been provided in his article doesn't appear either to provide "irrefutable facts" bearing on the issues under discussion or to provide "irrefutable overwhelming evidence that the assertions of wrongdoing are incorrect", as you have claimed.

And that's what I've said, as well.

Again, to be clear, that's not a charge of wrongdoing on anybody's part. All that is is an assertion that what's been presented is not the kind of evidence that it is described to be in your posts. I would like that made very clear!

If it turns out that I am mistaken on these or any other points, then I will certainly admit that I am mistaken and apologize!

So, what are the two numbers?

If you don't know, you don't have to provide an answer, or you can just say you don't know.

I'd say that two people should know the answers: Gurian and Cushman. stcanada29, are you either one of those people? If you aren't, then what is your basis for saying what you do?

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the first volume did Gurian provide?

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the upcoming second volume will Gurian have provided?

I wasn't saying I know. I was saying Harvey has no idea either of the true depth of "The Collectors" resources - which seem massive - so he shouldn't automatically conclude that a huge number of photos were restored elsewhere. That's all I meant.

My basis for my most recent comments are the photos of what appears to be a huge collection of rare images in the report at startrekpropauthority.

...

Quite frankly, I don't believe a word that you've typed in this thread. Plus, I think you're doing more to hurt the book than help it with your posts here.

For the sake of the book, I hope this is the only place you're posting your drivel.

Frankly - you are now demonstrating nothing but an irrational and mean spirited mentality. I am not asking anyone to believe my statements based on faith - I have just pointed to a startrekpropauthority post that presents irrefutable facts that your own eyes can confirm -- 140 to 150 Lincoln clapperboard film clips and glossies. The only drivel that you seem to be taking on faith are the unfounded allegations against the publisher. What is your vested interest in StarTrekHistory that makes you want to drink their Kool Aid?

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sell the book. And I really could care less if you buy it or not. I'm just trying to defend the good names of some friends that are being unfairly trashed. That's my motivation.

Your mentality reminds me of the deep south back before the civil rights movement.

You cheer allegations of wrongdoing without evidence because you "like" the uninformed person making the accusation.

And you attack the credibility of a person who points to irrefutable overwhelming evidence that the assertions of wrongdoing are incorrect. I take it you have a huge problem with the use of DNA evidence to clear people as well. And why do you keeping insisting I am asking you to accept any of the statements I make on faith?

http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2014/01/special-report-behind-scenes-look-at.html

You can obviously continue to believe the worst of people without the slightest regard for the truth. I hold no ill will towards you. But I can't say that you are doing much to project the feeling that there exists any sense of honor to be attached to some in this thread who would just blindly demonize and mock others.

How exactly does it "walk like a duck and quack like a duck"? Because you "like" your friends and would never question them, even if they accidentally drive you over a cliff.

---

Sorry, but pictures of "140 to 150 Lincoln clapperboard film clips and glossies" themselves have no bearing on the question of who contributed labor to create the published volumes.

Pictures of "140 to 150 Lincoln clapperboard film clips and glossies" do not answer the question of whether the similar images in the published volumes were derived exclusively from those pictured clips and glossies.

Similarly, Gurian saying that he performed "numerous photo restorations" for Cushman's book project does not answer the question of how many of the restored photos in each volume were derived exclusively from those pictured clips and glossies.

Gurian says that he performed "numerous photo restorations" for Cushman's book project.

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the first volume did Gurian provide?

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the upcoming second volume will Gurian have provided?

Plus, I gotta say that encouraging people to base their opinion of a legal matter on the conclusions of individuals who lack extensive legal training is very bad legal advice.

And I'd mention that the publisher's legal team would obviously disagree with Maurice's friend, and I really think that anyone without extensive legal training who has access to a Google search engine can refute his misinformed opinion.

 

[BillJ]

Please carry on mocking spelling errors on the publishers website and reading the National Enquirer.

Thank God! My unread National Enquirer's were starting to pile up because of this non-sense!

 

[stcanada29]

IMO, John, your nonsensical response is just proving my point. You just seemed to imply that Gurian only restored 3 photos and they all appear/will appear in books 2 and 3.

You say you can see the 140 clappers but have no knowledge they were the source of any images in book 1.

I think a reasonable person in viewing Gurian's article would conclude-
1. He owns those 140 clappers & rare behind the scenes shots
2. Since a very large number of those images in the post are recognizable to be included in Book 1; one is safe to conclude that he used those clips and photos - his very own photos - as the source for the Book 1 imagery
3. He has shown evidence of a dramatically more extensive and diverse collection than just those well detailed pictures of 140 to 150 clappers/bts shots.

Yet you are not even admitting to that - giving him credit for 3 images in Book 2 & 3.

That is what I mean about being totally unreasonable / unfair. Why would he search on the internet for a much lower resolution version of the same image that he has handy in high res in his collection.

Whew! Go ahead, keep proving my case with your complete lack of common sense.

 

[BillJ]

I thought you were finished? We have National Enquirer's to read...

 

[stcanada29]

I thought you were finished? We have National Enquirer's to read...

I know! I'm sorry!

I just couldn't resist attempting to rebut another brilliant unbiased analysis from one of this boards models of ethics and debate protocols.

And not all, just a couple of you must consider that paper to be the gospel.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

IMO, John, your nonsensical response is just proving my point. You just seemed to imply that Gurian only restored 3 photos and they all appear/will appear in books 2 and 3.

You say you can see the 140 clappers but have no knowledge they were the source of any images in book 1.

I think a reasonable person in viewing Gurian's article would conclude-
1. He owns those 140 clappers & rare behind the scenes shots
2. Since a very large number of those images in the post are recognizable to be included in Book 1; one is safe to conclude that he used those clips and photos - his very own photos - as the source for the Book 1 imagery

Yet you are not even admitting to that - giving him credit for 3 images in Book 2 & 3.

That is what I mean about being totally unreasonable / unfair. Why would he search on the internet for a much lower resolution version of the same image that he has handy in high res in his collection.

Whew! Go ahead, keep proving my case with your complete lack of common sense.

No, I'm not implying that. I explicitly said I wasn't implying that, also.

However, you used the word "irrefutable". What I'm saying is that it's not irrefutable. What I'm saying is what I already said.

I would appreciate it, if my position weren't continually misrepresented. Thank you!

Actually, a reasonable person reading what Gerald wrote would conclude that it was his position that, even if images in the book were derived from other sources besides his collection, then it would be the same in every legal and ethical respect as if the contents of his collection were the only source, since those images are in the public domain, especially since he hasn't actually claimed what images used in volume one were sourced only from his collection.

Many people might not realize that all of the rare images in "These Are The Voyages", because they were never shown as part of an actual '60s TOS television broadcast - were never copyrighted by CBS/Paramount. CBS only has proprietary rights to the footage contained in the broadcast episodes themselves and, in order to have preserved any rights to the rare behind the scenes/clapperboard shots, would have had to literally register each image individually back then according to the copyright laws. Of course, the studio never bothered to expend the time and energy to do so, since no one could have anticipated that unused footage from the show would have any future worth. Who in the world would long remember a supposedly low ratings sci-fi television series that was cancelled after just three seasons? So all of these rare photos have actually fallen into the public domain (according to the Copyright Act of 1976) and may be freely used accordingly.

To recapitulate, as I understand it, the whole issue here is that restoration represents value added to the image files, and the position being taken by people here is that using image files produced by other people that have such value added to them, and using them for monetary gain but without attribution (edited to add - and without prior agreement), is unethical if not in addition illegal. That the images themselves are in fact in the public domain hasn't been disputed by anyone.

It would really clear things up if my questions could be directly answered. It would eliminate any need to guess about things, split hairs, etc., right?

 

[trevanian]

I thought you were finished? We have National Enquirer's to read...

I know! I'm sorry!

I just couldn't resist attempting to rebutt another brilliant unbiased analysis from one of this boards models of ethics and debate protocols.

And not all, just a couple of you must consider that paper to be the gospel.

I think I'm going to call you rebutt from now on. Or maybe IRREFUTABLE would be better, given your affinity for that word. But that's just me. (we'll see if that gets me a flame warning, Historically I'm pretty good at pissing off mods here when I get my dander up.)

Some of those posts of yours cited above are pretty goddamn inflammatory (saying "your mentality reminds me of the deep south back before the civil rights movement" is absolutely a motherfucking OTT flame, nobody here has tarNfeathered or castrated you or any of your cronies because you just happen to be different); can't believe the mods seem to be taking your side (well, that's not true exactly; the mods have often done so, when they felt there was some special weight to a particular poster in question; they went out of their way to let Dennis Bailey piss all over thousands of threads ... if your pedigree is 'up there' with his, there's even less reason for me to consider your input credible, as, to quote from DARK STAR, I considered Bailey and his pro-Paramount spin as 'false data.')

 

[Maurice]

Okay. This has gotten too unnecessarily nasty. I'm out.

 

[stcanada29]

However, you used the word "irrefutable". What I'm saying is that it's not irrefutable. What I'm saying is what I already said.

OK, I now see your point with the word "irrefutable" = absolute certainty. I admit there is perhaps a 0.001% probability that Gurian; despite owning those photographed 150 clappers himself, would try to locate lower resolution copies of those same images for use in the Book series from startrekhistory. It is not 100% established that those Lincoln clips of Gurian's were scanned by him since no video is presented in the article showing him scanning and restoring any clip.

But your discussion most certainly implies, IMHO, that you are unprepared to give him credit for supplying all those images which we see in the book which are also evident in his posted sample of Lincoln clips. And any reasonable person would give him credit for those. You looked at my previous statement and tried to split hairs over the use of the word "irrefutable". Seeing all those photos that we know he owns; and seeing the same looking images in the book (as B&W) - what do you think the likelihood is that he supplied them from his collection?

C'mon, seriously, tell me how you can honestly have doubts about the source of the images in Book 1 (and there are a lot of them) that look the same as the Lincoln clips and glossies clearly photographed as part of Gurian's collection. How can you seriously doubt they didn't come from Gurian? Are you just playing to the home crowd here to win friends and local glory?

I would appreciate it, if my position weren't continually misrepresented. Thank you!

I feel the same way!

Actually, a reasonable person reading what Gerald wrote would conclude that it was his position that, even if images in the book were derived from other sources besides his collection, then it would be the same in every legal and ethical respect as if the contents of his collection were the only source, since those images are in the public domain, especially since he hasn't actually claimed what images used in volume one were sourced only from his collection.

I agree. You correctly state what I believe is one of the arguments made by the publisher.

So perhaps you are half a reasonable person; since you missed the first reasonable conclusion that Gurian did provide all those rare images seen in the clips & glossies and likely many, many more due to the evidence of a huge rare image collection.

That the images themselves are in fact in the public domain hasn't been disputed by anyone.

Maurice's lawyer (and Maurice) dispute this, I believe.
GSchnitzer disputed this, I think. GSchnitzer also firmly expressed the belief that Gurian owns ZERO rare photos and everything in the book is of dubious origin. (I wish he would have been willing to bet a large sum of money on his firm conviction.)
Startrekhistory claims they OWN proprietary rights to these images (which look identical to many of Gurian's images). Since startrekhistory didn't create any new work of art; they added no value; they still just have a copy of an original that is essentially the same thing as Gurian's copy of an original. So startrekhistory must be disputing this as well.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

I'm really looking forward to the next two volumes. This was the best book about the making of Star Trek I've ever read.

 

[1001001]

Man, this has turned from a hot mess into a goddamned dumpster fire.

I'm not going to bother with infractions (T'Bonz can reopen and issue if she feels like it).

For now I'm closing this thread and admonishing those involved in the argument not to bring this to other threads or forums.

Thanks.



"Hailing Frequencies Closed"

 

[T'Bonz]

You know guys, it really, really, really pisses me off when I tell people to stop and they ignore. And since I run the place, that's a really bad thing.

I went through the posts since my last post and handed out two warnings; one for being personal, and one for trolling. Both were clear-cut. There were others that were borderline and I let those slide.

Bear in mind that the next time I tell you to stop (or Digits does) you had BETTER FUCKING STOP! I'm angry that in spite of whatever philosophical differences you had over the book or whatever issues you had with what ever, you couldn't act like civilized people but had to act like all too many keyboard warriors being shitty and nasty. This thread has been a clusterfuck. Hope you enjoyed it, because going forward, that's NOT going to happen. We will stop it earlier. We had both hoped that you guys would just get over it, but like so many online things, if you don't come down hard, well people seem to escalate. My mistake.

That's what I get for having not brought the bitch-hammer down in my last post. I didn't want to be nasty. I should have gone with my initial impulse when I last posted.

You're on notice. From here on out, if you guys start this crap in ANY thread, Digits and I WILL warn. This will NOT happen again. And there are no appeals if I warn.

This used to be the most civilized forum on the BBS and part of why I loved it so - and it will stay civilized, even if I have to start warning more often. I hate to do it, but I hate reading threads like this more than I hate warning people.

Thanks to those who DID stay civil. It was noticed.