Tribbles Creator Calls On Trek Fans To Support Ellison Suit

[Orne]

It shouldn't matter that Ellison wrote a script in 1966 and is seeking damages 40-plus years later against the use of elements in it that are legally his property, as outlined in the contract. If Shakespere (or Francis Bacon) could come back to the future and collect for all those times 'Romeo and Juliet' has been staged or filmed, you can bet they would, and they were definitely due those profits.

One other thing, studio-exec wishes to the contrary, a spec script submitted to a studio is not the property of any particular studio until a contract to purchase it is signed by all parties concerned. Otherwise, for a studio to film it without consent of the writer, is plagarism. And if, like Ellison's script, writer-created elements (Guardian of Forever and certain characters) are not specific to the property (i.e. Star Trek), if those elements are used in a future film or novel tie-in, without consent, that is also copyright-infringement. Last time I looked, there is a 2 1/2 year statute of limitation for copyright-infringement in U.S Copyright law, so there's good reason for Ellison not to hesitate bringing this up now. (I've written a number of scripts for TV, movies, and graphic novels, so I have my own - not always pleasant - view from the inside of how this all works.)

I met David Gerrold once at San Diego Comic-Con (he even had some nice things to say about my 'Starship Discovery' model seen over on the Trek Art forum). Several years later, he took some time out of his schedule to give me advice about a problem I had with a manuscript submission - for which I was really grateful, because the advice was right on the mark and saved me a world of grief - so here's one more vote backing him on this matter.

 

[FalTorPan]

I support whomever is in the legal right, whether that be Ellison or CBS.

 

[Mysterion]

I support whomever is in the legal right, whether that be Ellison or CBS.

Ditto.

And, frankly, I am a bit disturbed by the attitudes some posters (not FalTorPan) are exhibiting, which seem to boil down to this: "screw the legal/contractural rights of the people who created it, I just want my Star Trek!" I hope the folks who think this way find themselves in a contractural dispute with their employer sometime soon. Then we'll see how they fell about the matter.

[Whiny ST Fan] The writers are being childish, and it better not hold up my entertainment! [/Whiny ST Fan]

Selfish whiny bitches. Ellison, Fontana, Gerrold, and all the rest deserve whatever they are legally entitled to by contract (and so does CBS, for that matter). And if this causes CBS to freeze-up and die thus depriving the world of any more Star Trek, well that'll just be too bad, won't it?

 

[SheliakBob]

Harlan Ellison IS a belligerent dwarf.
Hey Sparky, you did "work for hire" over forty years ago and got a contract that reflected the pay rates and conditions of the time.
Times have changed and creative rights/payment practices have changed.
Doesn't mean you can go back and retroactively acquire a whole new contract based on modern practices.
What? The UMW gets more pay and benefits today than they did in the 1960's. Does that mean that those benefits and pay rates should retroactively be extended to everyone who worked in an autofactory during the '60's? Yah. Go ahead and tell the corporate management that.
The way things are going, they could use the giggles.
Ellison should quit whining and sputtering about being treated the same way that other creative professionals were treated forty plus years ago.
Stop your whining and go do something NEW! Then you would be entitled to the new rates and practices.
Try to contribute something new to SF other than spleen and I'll march in the streets for your creative rights.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Damn, there's a lot of experts on the legal implications of WGA contracts around here. Why aren't you all making big bucks as contract or IP lawyers instead of hanging out here?

Quoted for truth.

People should learn a little (or a lot) about the specifics of this issue before applauding OR condemning Ellison.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I've got a lot of respect for Gerrold (and for Ellison, for that matter). Both great writers, both deserve lots of kudos for two of Star Trek's iconic episodes, not to mention the enormous amount of non-Trek material they've published over the years.

But here is where Gerrold loses me:

"Here's an example a little closer to home. The scriptwriters of the DS9 episode 'Trials and Tribble-ations' will receive residuals in perpetuity every time that episode earns money. The scriptwriter who created the tribbles receives nothing for that reuse of his work. Is this fair? If you go by the letter of the contract, it's legal. But fair? You decide.

The issue here isn't about "what's fair." That's a completely subjective issue and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in Ellison's case. Ellison isn't arguing "fairness," in his suit - he's claiming that his legal contract was violated. He may or may not prevail, but he's arguing a very specific legal point, not the overall notion of "fairness."

In his comments, Gerrold seems to be attempting to expand this case to suggest that he deserves compensation for his "Tribbles" script beyond what was legally paid to him under his contract, because "it's fair."

If Gerrold has a legitimate legal case regarding the "Trials and Tribblations" episode, then he should file suit. If not, he needs to shut up and stop suggesting that he's been screwed in some way because the contract he signed 40 years ago wasn't "fair."