That's not the article you originally linked to back on page 5. This is that article: http://www.1701news.com/node/350/paramount-television-gets-president-star-trek-next.html which cites Variety as it's source. That article says out right: So you've cited two different sources saying two different things. Which should be considered authoritative and why?
Well, you certainly have a right to your position. It might not be based on fact, but I can understand taking a position. Ha! I wish business deals made sense. Many times they don't. The fact is, Viacom wanted to spin off CBS, but you can't leave it mostly empty-handed, so it kept Star Trek in its portfolio. But CBS is not in the movie-making business, and Star Trek in the movies has always had a Paramount card at the beginning. So the rights split. Because the current movies are based directly off the original television series, which CBS has the broadcast rights to, that means characters from the TV series that are used in merchandising —*based on the unchallenged reporting from The Wrap two years ago —*require a license agreement from CBS. You may not want to believe that's the way it's done, or that it doesn't make any sense. But it is a reality. Seeing a huge chunk of metal fly 20,000 feet above the Earth doesn't make sense to me, either. But that doesn't stop airplanes from being real. Why are you going into specific elements of the IP? When you do that, it won't make sense. The IP is not about Capt. Kirk — it's about the overall Star Trek concept. The better way to look at it is the way I keep doing it — from a distribution standpoint. You do that, why? Because that's how CBS/Paramount look at it. It's all about distribution nodes. Even merchandising is a distribution node. Before his death, Glen A. Larson was working on a "Battlestar Galactica" movie, that he didn't have to clear through NBCU, and wouldn't contain elements of that past series. How can he do it? Because he owned the film rights. But wait, how can Glen Larson and NBCU own Cmdr. Adama? They don't. But NBCU has television distribution rights of "Battlestar Galactica," while the Larson estate has the film rights. That's how the CBS/Paramount deal works, based on common information and The Wrap's unchallenged story. Because Internet is not considered "film" in the sense that Hollywood typically defines it. Trust me, if you wanted to do a fan motion picture, and only release it in theaters, you would then deal with Paramount.
Ummm . it is ... http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=11176897&postcount=66 Post No. 66, on Page 5, I cite The Wrap story, and link it, in direct discussion of where distribution rights are clearly spelled out (and never challenged). The second link, to 1701News, was talking about the Paramount Television talk, and was indirectly related to overall discussion of distribution rights. However, in the discussion of distribution rights, and what we know, I cited The Wrap article. The 1701News story did come out after The Wrap story, and I'm sorry that we were not aware of the aside on distribution rights included in that story when we wrote ours a couple months later. Considering Paramount/CBS has never been very forthcoming on this, and that I cannot read everything that's out there as it comes out, there will be disconnects. As a news outlet, we would take the safe route, without any acknowledgement otherwise, to say that "this is what common knowledge of the agreement is." If I had realized The Wrap talked about this a couple months before, and addressed this specifically, the line you quoted above would've restated The Wrap, and sourced that specific information to that trade publication. So that should answer the question of what is more authoritative in this particular conversation.
If Paramount owned the rights to make "Star Trek" movies, they would've just created their own characters and ships and moved on without paying a monster licensing fee to CBS. Hollywood usually doesn't give away money they don't have to. Which is non-sense, once again. If "Star Trek" is owned by both Paramount and CBS, Paramount would have just as large an interest in making sure the property isn't damaged or devalued. Paramount had no issues being heavy-handed with how fans used the IP before the split. The bolded pretty much says it all. It doesn't say "STAR TREK is a trademark of CBS and Paramount Pictures", then "Related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS". It lists everything as belonging to CBS. http://sunsteinlaw.com/practices/tr...rademark-pointers/trademark-usage-guidelines/
Who says they are paying a "monster" fee? And the licensing fee, according to The Wrap, is only for mechandising. But you do make a good point -- if they have to pay any money to CBS, why not just do their own Star Trek with new characters? We don't know the details of the merchandising licensing fee. Paramount might have to pay whether it's Capt. Kirk, or Capt. Bob Hope. Remember, merchandising is a distribution node, just like film and television. It's very possible the licensing burden is the same whether Paramount uses Kirk or not. Maybe not, but Hollywood will definitely spend money to make money. Otherwise, it wouldn't invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a film. Let's assume the licensing fee for merchandising is specific to the usage of Capt. Kirk and Spock. If Paramount doesn't use Capt. Kirk and Spock, then poof, more money for them. But is it? Paramount would assume a much larger risk by going with Capt. Bob Hope, because he is not an iconic character (although he was an iconic comedian in real life), and unless this new character is a breakout hit, Paramount probably won't be selling a lot of action figures of him, or his likeness on a lunchbox. So, let's say they have full control, and with Capt. Bob Hope, can sell 1 million units. They earn a simple $5 per unit, and that is $5 million. But Paramount knows fans will want Kirk and Spock. However, to do that, Paramount has to pay CBS 30 percent of profits (this is all academic discussion, and not based on anything real). However, instead of 1 million units, Paramount sells 5 million units. The gross earnings remain $5 per unit, which grosses $25 million. However, 30 percent of that goes to CBS —*$7.5 million. That leaves $17.5 million for Paramount ... but that's still far more than the $5 million it would've netted with Capt. Bob Hope. Paramount and CBS are businesses. They are designed to make money. And to make money, you have to invest money, and sometimes pay out more than you would like. But as long as the returns more than compensate, it's all good. I think if you stick with ownership of distribution rights, which is ultimately where true ownership lies (I mean, what's the value of owning something if you can't distribute it and make money). And I'm sure Paramount is just as concerned about brand devaluation as CBS. However, if Paramount has no legal authority to enforce it outside of film, then it can't do it. Just like I can't start moderating posts here. Sure, if someone says something disparaging about me, it would hurt my value. But if I had an issue with it, I would have to reach out to the site owner (or a moderator that represents the site owner) to see if I can deal with it. If they won't, then I'm SOL. But Paramount cannot assert authority where it doesn't have it. Well, it could try -- but it wouldn't be enforceable, and CBS could legally challenge it. Unless you and I are both lawyers (and I'm not), I think it's very academic to parse a legal statement. You don't have the training to do it, and neither do I. However, I do have some experience in reading legalese, but then again, this is just a layman's approach. You are focused on the second-to-last line: "STAR TREK and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc." Look at how this is worded (and if a lawyer would like to jump in to elaborate, it would be greatly appreciated). The phrase "and related marks" after "Star Trek" is referring to "Star Trek" as a mark. That is talking about the name itself —*Star Trek. It's like saying "Capt. Picard and related Starfleet officers," which would identify Picard as a Starfleet officer. The phrase refers to the trademark, shortened to "mark," of Star Trek. Here's a more personal and specific example. When I sold SyFy to NBC Universal, I didn't sell my website as is sometimes erroneously stated by others. I sold a domain name and the mark of SyFy. I still own the website and all the content of that website (under the new mark of Airlock Alpha). But that is a mark. How the mark is presented also is part of an overall trademark. For instance, if NBCU wanted to use the SyFy logo we used, they would have to purchase that as well. Otherwise, just because they bought the mark doesn't necessarily give them rights to the logo. It's handled with the trademark, because it's based on presentation of the mark, but it's talked about individually in the trademark legalese. The last part of the sentence makes this clear that the entire sentence is about trademark. It doesn't say "copyright," it says "trademark." You trademark names (that is what a trademark is), not what the name contains. So you would trademark Star Trek, but then copyright the movie that you make attached to it. You can't trademark the movie, because a movie is not a mark that is traded. I know it's confusing, but I'm not a lawyer. But paragraph you keep sharing above that you says bolster your argument, I know actually bolsters mine.
Also, you keep quoting these legal statements about how trademarks should be identified. But I think you are missing what a trademark is. Here is a link that should help clear it up ... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trademark For those not looking to click, it says: 1. any name, symbol, figure, letter, word, or mark adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate his or her goods and to distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others. A trademark is a proprietary term that is usually registered with the Patent and Trademark Office to assure its exclusive use by its owner. 2. a distinctive mark or feature particularly characteristic of or identified with a person or thing.
Wow. CBS owns the Star Trek mark and related materials. I can't go on tour as Katy Perry, because Katy Perry is trademarked. I can't make Star Trek movies, because Star Trek is trademarked. I can't use the USS Enterprise, because, you guessed it, it is trademarked. By CBS. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:537a7a.2.1 I can't use Jean-Luc Picard, because, you guessed it, it is trademarked. By CBS. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:537a7a.7.1 I can't write a Star Trek: Titan novel, because, you guessed it, it is trademarked. By CBS. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:n82az6.3.1 I can't sell my goods under a title owned by another company.
Having flashbacks here folks: So in other words, distribution rights =/= ownership.....sort of. It's ownership of the product, not ownership of the intellectual property. The wrinkle simply appears to be that Paramount also puts up the cash to make Trek movies using their resources. CBS owns Star Trek, and Paramount gets to play in the playground and spend the big money.
Distribution rights is being able to show/present the film (and hence make money off it's showing). That's all they can do, Fox has no rights, what so ever, to use anything from the original film to make a sequel or a separate production because Lucasfilm owns the trademarks to Star Wars. Lucasfilm has full ownership of the IP and thus products derived from the IP.
Beatle, it's not as if every studio uses a standard form for distribution. This all depends on contracts, agreements and such with various parties. It's not really black and white, to where it can be applied in broad strokes. Owning distribution does not necessarily mean that you own the product. For instance, a film distributed by Paramount in the United States, could in fact be distributed by Fox internationally. That doesn't mean both companies own the content -- that's a much more complicated discussion. And because a distributor might also own content, doesn't mean all distribution deals come with content ownership. And just because you own content doesn't mean you have distribution rights. It's not a cut-and-dry thing. Hollywood is very complicated, like many businesses are. I know it would be much easier if it were uniform, but it's not.
Tom, that's a major oversimplification, applying broad strokes over many different contractual arrangements between studios, filmmakers, distributors, etc. The Fox/Star Wars example is not one that can be applied universally. That was based on a series of contractual commitments made by both sides, and if one side ever challenged this in court, it would be dealt with on the contracts specific to this case, not what everyone else does.
So, in terms of how the Star Trek ownership is understood, both Paramount and CBS have defined the parameters of the ownership through distribution. CBS gets television and merchandising, and Paramount gets motion picture. So in all intents and purposes, if something Star Trek goes on the movie screen, it's owned by Paramount. Now, the company might not own the trademarks and such —*but they have the right to use whatever they contractually acquired in the Viacom split to make Star Trek movies, and have to then pay a licensing fee for any merchandising to CBS. If you decide to put a Star Trek movie together, and you open it up in a theater, the cease and desist you get would not be from CBS' lawyers (although it might issue a C&D based on use of the trademark), but instead from Paramount. I really don't know how else I can explain it. Agree or not, but I feel like I am talking in circles now, and I'm moving on.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I work for Paramount nor CBS. Mine is simply a reading of the way the current laws exist, in a non-lawyer fashion from internet sources. Plus, it would seem awfully sloppy of Viacom to leave Paramount as the property owner of a piece of Star Trek but then structure it where they have to pay another company to use it. Things that make you go hmmm... [yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo[/yt] I'm okay with it if I'm wrong.