I'm not sure why paragraphs upon paragraphs are being written in argument of all this. It's very simple: CBS owns Star Trek in its entirety. They've given Paramount a license to produce Trek films, and Trek films only. What Paramount cannot do is create a Star Trek TV show without CBS's permission (which is why this whole thing with Gummelt makes no sense to me.) Fan sites, fan films, etc. exist at the whim of CBS, which can order them to cease and desist at any time. The only reason they do not do so is because fan sites and fan films do not make any money, so CBS doesn't bother with them.
I will accept that as your opinion of how things work. The fact is, we don't know for sure, and unchallenged media reports from industry publications in the past have stated otherwise.
You live in Florida. I'm not going to say you don't know anything about how Hollywood works, or that you couldn't know anything about how Hollywood works, but seriously... how much on-the-ground street-level information could you possibly have? I mean, just about anyone else with a steady internet connection can read Deadline. What gives you the inside track? Unless... You are aware we're talking about Hollywood, California and not Hollywood, Florida, right?
Ah. My mistake then. Thanks for the heads-up. I suppose that's at least something. Still, it doesn't really explain why he's so adamant about being wrong on this one. Oh well.
I covered entertainment now for 17 years, on top of 22 years of print and broadcast journalism experience. I have covered a number of major deals, have talked with more people involved the higher echelons of the industry than I can even remember half the time. I also had my own dealings with IP sales to media conglomerates when I sold the SyFy brand in 2009. My site has always focused quite a bit on contracts, and the business side. I've also been a business reporter — covering major corporations —*on the print side beginning in 2005, and continue to do it today, until I semi-retire from print next month to live in the Caribbean for a couple years. Appreciate the question, however.
No more than anyone here. However, I try to base my information on what's out there, not what I "believe" or "feel." Those don't create facts. The fact that a trade publication shared these details and were not challenged, says a lot to me. But if you want to believe something else, including thinking a trademark is more than what it is, that is completely up to you.
Thanks for elaborating. I have my own source of information and my own experience to draw on and I think you're right - its important that we acknowledge where each of us is coming from and what we've seen, what we know, and how we know it. I don't agree with your assessment of the situation, but I appreciate your candor.
Same here ... and I also know enough about Star Trek that one should never piss off a Klingon. Even a laughing one.
So... I did some digging, asked some questions and this peer-reviewed academic text was submitted to provide an answer: I'd have quoted more but I can't be arsed to transcribe the whole thing. It all starts on pp. 188 for those interested in understanding the reality of this situation. In short, there is no debate here. Michael_Hinman is grossly incorrect in his assertions.
I can vouch for Mike Hinmans credentials, I have know him for several years and while we do disagree on something's (like paramount licensing right now), he is a good guy. I remember the whole SYFY thing very well. Actually a year before he sold Syfyportal.com to NBC, I actually sold a domain I owned scifiventures.com to NBC, they never used it and decide to change Sci-fi to Syfy. LOL
You probably should've tried quoting more ... especially the part that NOWHERE does it talk about the films. This is all about television. I went several pages past what I guess is a very long footnote in this book. Also, why would this be definitive? I looked at the author name, and was like, "Who is Roberta Pearson?" She is a college professor ... in the UK. Her book is not about the business relationship that owns Star Trek — it's about things much less business-centric than that. She provides this as an aside, and a lot of it is just information she is pulling from Variety. And the part you quoted here, she doesn't even reference with any kind of source. So what are you telling me ... if I said what I am saying here, and published it in a book, I could then throw it on this message board, and say, "Look, I'm right!" Seriously? I don't think so.