ViacomCBS Selling Simon & Schuster

[JoeZhang]

If the lose the Star Trek license, I find it more likely it will be after the current contract expires rather than having it pulled prior to that. At the very least, this latest contract was more complicated than usual, Trek novels were essentially suspended for an entire year while the contract was negotiated. It'd be a very terrible situation if they spent all that work on the contract just to have the license pulsed before the contract was up.

So often how that works is even as a Strategic Business Unit (its legally a subsidiary I think? ) - S&S was expected to be competitive and tender against external companies to provide best value for the parent.

*however* given CBS-Viacom are (AFAIK) 100% owners - if they want that contract to go *puff*, it will go *puff*!

 

[David Weller]

I would assume that the Star Trek line is profitable for S&S or they wouldn’t have spent a negotiating the new contract. I can’t see them voluntarily walking away from it.

 

[JoeZhang]

I would assume that the Star Trek line is profitable for S&S or they wouldn’t have spent a negotiating the new contract. I can’t see them voluntarily walking away from it.

As a whole owned subsidiary of ViacomCBS Ltd - what power do you think they have to stop that?

I can only see it being a major problem if there is some third party involved and cannot find any evidence of that.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If this means we get wacky licensed Trek stuff by publishers and writers who have never watched the show - i.e. a 2020's version of the Gold Key/UK TOS era, I'm all for it

 

[David Weller]

If ViacomCBS are looking to sell S&S it might be less attractive to potential buyers without the Star Trek license.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

If ViacomCBS are looking to sell S&S it might be less attractive to potential buyers without the Star Trek license.

No shade to any of the writers, but I highly doubt it makes a lick of difference to the company’s valuation. They have hundreds of way bigger book deals.

 

[JoeZhang]

If this means we get wacky licensed Trek stuff by publishers and writers who have never watched the show - i.e. a 2020's version of the Gold Key/UK TOS era, I'm all for it

beany hats and Spock glassing planets - I'm in!!

 

[Christopher]

Maybe this is some weird quirk of US law I am unware of - American companies are *forced* to license their IP ?

What in the seven Hells of Mongo are you talking about? When did I suggest anything remotely like that? I'm just saying that it seems to make more sense to let the existing license continue until it runs out, then renegotiate. That's not "forcing" anyone to do anything -- it's just holding them to the terms they already agreed to. When Pocket got the Star Trek license in 1979, they still had to hold off publishing original novels for 2 more years because Bantam still had a few more novels to publish under their license. Even though Bantam's license had ended, they still got to fulfill the terms of the contract that they and Paramount had mutually agreed upon years earlier.

Yes I agree it is possible once it is not a SBU - it could be allowed to *bid* but walk out of the door with the IP? No - I doubt it.

Again, what the hell are you talking about? It's not the IP, it's just a license to tie into the IP. Lots of companies that aren't owned by CBS have licenses to publish Star Trek content, such as IDW Publishing, Modiphius Entertainment, Titan Books, and Cryptic Studios.

 

[iarann]

Actually, that happened before the buy-out. I remember catching some movies from the Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy on TV around the time of The Last Jedi's theatrical release in 2017, and they had the Fox logo removed from the opening.

Only for Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Star Wars, now known as A New Hope, had permanent distribution rights with Fox.

EDIT: For the Original Trilogy. The Prequels were under the same situation as Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

 

[JoeZhang]

What in the seven Hells of Mongo are you talking about? When did I suggest anything remotely like that?

Em...

For another thing, this business isn't supposed to be monopolistic. Publishers are supposed to have the right to compete for a license

Maybe this is confusion in terminology because the words you use have specific means to academics and experts and are different and used more loosely by non-specialists like yourself?

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

I don't think that follows. For one thing, I don't think you could break a licensing contract just like that;

When you own 100% of all the companies involved, yes you can. And when there's nobody at S&S in any sort of position to care, yes you can.

They're going to sell S&S without the rights to anything ViacomCBS / Nickelodeon Consumer Products want to reclaim.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe this is confusion in terminology because the words you use have specific means to academics and experts and are different and used more loosely by non-specialists like yourself?

My statement was perfectly clear -- that once the license is up for renewal, any publisher should have an equal chance to bid for it. I don't understand what you find so confusing about that. If non-CBS-owned companies like IDW and Cryptic can get Trek tie-in rights, why couldn't a non-CBS-owned Simon & Schuster have a fair chance to get them too?

 

[KRAD]

I can actually go one-step further: Simon & Schuster no longer have exclusive license for Star Trek novels. It was one of the first decisions made by the Nickelodeon team. They have something amazing (oh, and canon) planned.

I doubt that very much. S&S having the license to Trek has nothing to do with them being owned by Viacom, especially since S&S has had the license both with and without being owned by Viacom (they've been both). The terms of the agreement are such that S&S will continue to publish the books for the duration of the current contract. If Viacom plans to go with another publisher after that, then they may well do that, but the one thing has nothing to do with the other thing.

And whatever they have planned won't be canon, because -- as I've said over and over -- no Hollywood producer is going to allow their TV show or movie seen by millions or billions of people be affected by something established in a book or a comic book read by tens or hundreds of thousands.

 

[JD]

I don't see why Simon & Schuster not being owned by CBS anymore would have any impact on the Star Trek rites, they paid for the license the same as any other publisher, so I would assume it would stay with them until the contract is up. I could maybe see them being taken away if they automatically went to S&S since it was owned by CBS, but that wasn't the case as we can see from they had to re
Honestly, I don't really see this having that much of an impact on the Star Trek books, since it'll still most likely be all of the same people involved, they just won't all be under the same corporate umbrella any more.

As far as exclusivity is concerned, it seems Simon and Schuster hasn't had an "exclusive" license for a while, what with Titan Books doing various "autobiographies".

We've also gotten Insight Editions' Travel Guides and now the Kirk-Fu Manual.

Cool. In that case I'll be delighted to hear about it when/if it's actually announced and or anyone "bothers" to share any actual details!

I don't mean to come off as a jerk - I also think it's reasonably likely this is true - but something in me is rubbed the wrong way when the only person talking about massive unprecedented Star Trek happenings is one anonymous poster on a messageboard. I find that questionable. Someone somewhere - perhaps Xavi here, perhaps someone else - should either have better judgment or better control over messaging.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree.
@CaptainXaviOfEarth are you really sure you're supposed to be talking about all of this stuff so openly? A lot of this really feels like the kind of stuff that would be officially announced by someone working directly for CBS or whoever else is involved.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

I doubt that very much. S&S having the license to Trek has nothing to do with them being owned by Viacom, especially since S&S has had the license both with and without being owned by Viacom (they've been both). The terms of the agreement are such that S&S will continue to publish the books for the duration of the current contract.

I'm sure they will continue to publish whatever books they have planned. I said it's become non-exclusive.

And whatever they have planned won't be canon, because -- as I've said over and over -- no Hollywood producer is going to allow their TV show or movie seen by millions or billions of people be affected by something established in a book or a comic book read by tens or hundreds of thousands.

And, as I've said, this is changing. It already has with the Nickelodeon show.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

@CaptainXaviOfEarth are you really sure you're supposed to be talking about all of this stuff so openly?

What I've openly talked about is fine. There is stuff I can't talk about (yet), and one thing I did mention that was a major no-no, but it's too late.

 

[David Mack]

I'm sure they will continue to publish whatever books they have planned. I said it's become non-exclusive.

If the contract with S&S specifies a period of exclusivity in certain territories, that will be honored through the completion of the current contract.

And, as I've said, this is changing. It already has with the Nickelodeon show.

You'll need to be a bit more specific about that. Are you talking about the animated series from the Brothers Hageman? For whom I work as a consultant?

 

[tomswift2002]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/viacomcbs-ceo-says-simon-schuster-set-be-sold-1281748

Exactly as I said a few weeks ago. Literally used the same wording and all.

I can actually go one-step further: Simon & Schuster no longer have exclusive license for Star Trek novels. It was one of the first decisions made by the Nickelodeon team. They have something amazing (oh, and canon) planned.

I’ve got to ask, what would the Nickelodeon team have to do with Simon & Schuster?

Also S&S have loosened up their hold on Trek books over the past 10 years. In the 90’s and 2000’s S&S has the exclusive right to anything fiction or non-fiction from Trek, but in the 2010’s (maybe even as early as 2009) was when we saw S&S slowing down on non-fiction and other publisher’s grabbing it. Plus “Star Trek Prometheus”, while using the S&S 24th Century Trek continuity, was a deal between Cross Cult & CBS, not S&S (possible because S&S’s contract was only for English-written novels and not German-written). As I recall, S&S were given the option of printing the English translations first, but S&S passed on the right to do so, and Titan picked up the rights (which is interesting, seeing as Cross Cult and Titan were both overseas publisher’s of S&S’s Trek books).

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

If the contract with S&S specifies a period of exclusivity in certain territories, that will be honored through the completion of the current contract.

And I stand by comments. Time will tell.

You'll need to be a bit more specific about that. Are you talking about the animated series from the Brothers Hageman? For whom I work as a consultant?

Yes, that’s the one. If they go to the licensing show in May, they will be pushing integrated storytelling as part of the license.

 

[Christopher]

S&S having the license to Trek has nothing to do with them being owned by Viacom, especially since S&S has had the license both with and without being owned by Viacom (they've been both).

Well, not under that name, no, but S&S has been owned by the same company that owned Star Trek since it first got the Trek rights -- first by Gulf+Western (which bought S&S in 1976), then by Paramount Communications (which was just G+W under a new name), then by CBS after the 2005 split. So it's always been in-house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_&_Schuster#1980s

Although, as I said before, not being under the same roof anymore doesn't mean it can't retain the license, given that plenty of publishers not owned by Paramount/Viacom/CBS have had Star Trek licenses over the decades.