Slashdot Mirror
Harlan Ellison Sues For "Star Trek" Episode
Miracle Jones writes "The ever-quotable speculative fiction writer Harlan Ellison has launched a lawsuit against Paramount and the Writer's Guild West for rights to residuals surrounding his famous and award winning 'City on the Edge of Forever' episode for the original Star Trek series. Ellison, recently featured in the documentary 'Dreams with Sharp Teeth,' said that 'The Trek fans who know my City screenplay understand just exactly why I'm bare-fangs-of-Adamantium about this.' Regarding his lawsuit, he had this to say: 'The arrogance, the pompous dismissive imperial manner of those who "have more important things to worry about," who'll have their assistant get back to you, who don't actually read or create, who merely "take" meetings, and shuffle papers — much of which is paper money denied to those who actually did the manual labor of creating those dreams — they refuse even to notice... until you jam a Federal lawsuit in their eye. To hell with all that obfuscation and phony flag-waving: they got my money. Pay me and pay off all the other writers from whom you've made hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars... from OUR labors... just so you can float your fat asses in warm Bahamian waters.'"
Tell us what you really think dude ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is not YRO. This did not happen online. The summary is so bad that I'm not even sure that this is about his rights.
He has a mouth and he must sue...
Get over it. Your copyright should have expired anyway by any sort of good definition of limited term.
I really enjoyed the Star Wars stuff he wrote...
A writer and his dog-and-pony show.
To hell with all that obfuscation and phony flag-waving: they got my money. Pay me and pay off all the other writers from whom you've made hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars... from OUR labors... just so you can float your fat asses in warm Bahamian waters.'"
Is there an actionable contract dispute here or is this guy just ranting since he is on the short end of the Hollywood stick? Guess what, dude, we all are.
This is a perfect illustration of the problems facing content creators (artists). Because of the "industry groups" (read: cartels) all being in cahoots, creative types are forced to work under their unfair practices. Things like not paying performers for online distribution because it is "promotional" could not happen in any other climate. Sadly the entertainment industry is so involved in the US economy and politics that right now the only thing artists can do is suck it up and hope that things someday change. The more people like this guy who come forward and shine light on these tactics the better.
On one hand, we have the tired old story of a writer/creative not receiving due credit for his work. On the other hand, said creative is possibly the most obnoxious asshole still living that I've known of.
On the third hand, this is Star Trek.
God, I'm so conflicted here, who do I want screwed over the most?
Is it in your contract? No? too Fucking bad, boo hoo, you shouldn't sign contracts you don't agree with.
You whiny pain in the ass.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's not an attractive way to raise the issue, but it's true: artists should be rewarded for their work. Look at how the studios screwed the Gilligan's Island people, who languished in poverty after the networks ran episodes for decades. The second issue is that is big corporations like those in Hollywood, no one takes you seriously until the lawsuit hits the table. I really don't blame him for being upset, sounds like he tried to go through friendly channels for awhile.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
Watch that cunt get modded 'insightful'!
Ellison is one of my favorite sci fi writers but the version of the screenplay he wrote only vagely resembles the one that was used in the film, it was rewritten several times himself and by 4 others including D.C. Fontana and Roddenberry himself before it was finally filmed. As is the original script was unfilmable, it was written from a writers skew not a screenwriters one and also dismissed alot of the established character traits of the crew. He was originally upset enough by the rewrites that he threated to pull his name from the script.
Fast forward 42 years and a Hugo and now he wants all the credit? I take it his books arent selling like they used to? Seriously Harlan maybe you need the cash or something but get over it.
Regardless of what any contract says, regardless of who actually owes what, screenplay writers are the major breadwinners yet get paid virtually nothing for their efforts. Nobody got rich writing scripts, but many many rich actors and movie moguls got rich from bloody good stories.
Now, onto the crux of what he says. It is well-known that money brought in through lawsuits, etc, via the MPAA and RIAA have not been forwarded to artists. It is also well-known that artists repeatedly sue managers, producers and studios for payment of royalties. Is it too hard to imagine the studios rip off those who are respected and heard even less?
The totals are probably exaggerated a little. A Star Trek FAQ from the 1990s suggested the annual turnover of Star Trek merchandise was around 60 million dollars. Recent FAQs don't show any estimate and deny it's possible to calculate one, so this is the only figure I can really go on. It simply isn't possible for a single episode (minus residuals owed to everyone else involved) to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, even if we assume the FAQ figure to be about right. Tens of millions, divided amongst everyone, for the entire time since original screening - that sounds more likely.
Given the number of people involved wasn't many, I could see that he should have made somewhere in the low single-digit millions or upper three-digit thousands off a single script at this point. If he has made less than this, he has every right to feel like the studio is ripping him off.
Of course, legally, all that matters is what the contract says. If the contract says he should be paid X amount and he has been paid less than that (a common enough experience with artists, so why not writers?), then he has not just a moral argument but a legal argument.
Those who accuse him of kicking up a fuss over nothing should remember that the studios ARE rip-off merchants, and ARE making a great deal of money off Star Trek. There isn't the slightest possibility all of the money Paramount is making is legal. Maybe most of it is, but don't expect me to believe they're being honest for the first time in their lives over one of their biggest money-spinners. Their lawyers are bigger and their accountants are sharper. If there's a way for them to have hidden income, you can be certain they have.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Look them up. Though I admit it can be murky at times, inspired by and written by are NOT the same thing.
Seriously, when you get down to it how many things are inspired by Biblical stories and old fairy tales?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
OK, I think that I think rationally about copyright, though that may not be a completely objective opinion. Here's my way of thinking about it, and ya'll can decide if it's rational or not:
I'll start with a prosaic non-copyright example to establish my conceptual framework. Suppose you go to a builder to build a house. The builder would be willing to build it for $50000. However, the law requires that he charge you $100000. Would that be rational?
Now, suppose George Gershwin was willing to write "An American In Paris" as long as he had a copyright for 17 years, but the law required that he have the copyright for the rest of his life plus 100 years. Would that be rational?
People might say "It's his property!" But if somebody copies it, have they stolen it from him? Doesn't he still 'have' it. What he doesn't have (after the copyright expires) is the right to deny somebody else copying it.
I thought the original idea of copyright was to give a creator enough incentive to do creative work. Just like $50K might be enough incentive for that builder to build the house.
Copyrights do inhibit other people's rights. Nobody else was likely to independently compose "An American In Paris", but perhaps George Harrison indepedently composed the melody of "He's So Fine" for his song "My Sweet Lord".
If George Gershwin thought to himself, "I ain't gonna bother to write no "American In Paris' if all I get is a measly 17 years copyright'. Then maybe 17 years wouldn't be enough. How often do you suppose that comes up in the minds of creators?
Copyright is now associated with the concept of "intellectual property", and my self-described rational way of thinking of "intellectual property" is that it's a expression coined to trip up people into thinking of copyrights/patents as being the same thing as real property, which is stolen not when somebody copies it, but when somebody actually like, you know, goes out and steals it.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
They should have the rights to "bare-fangs-of-Adamantium"
I never considered the option of suing someone for $1. That's brilliant. For threat of a suit they'll capitulate simply to avoid legal fees but it will bolster his position being able to say he successfully sued the guild in regards to their complicity.
Lawyers are tricky!
Talk to Walt Disney. They still have copyright protection and licensing rights for that fucking mouse, and it's about a hundred years old.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Agreed. I don't understand why Hollywood lets so many movies tank because while they are willing to pay millions for big name actors but can't be bothered to buy a decent script. Obviously cost isn't the issue, as lots of less expensive films and TV shows (the old Doctor Who comes to mind) do get decent scripts.
Copyright is one of the things that makes it possible for them to do this. Instead of paying actors, scriptwriters, and so on for new material, the studios can coast on their back catalog (as with Gilligan's Island, which someone mentioned upthread). The system may be great for a few superstars, but for the ordinary Joe who pays the bills with steady work, long strong copyright is a bad thing.
Not that Harlan would let that stand in the way of a good rant about ordinary folk people "stealing" his stuff. Still, whatever the legal facts of this case, I'm more inclined to side with him than the MAFIAA.
The lawsuit is based on the master Writer's Guild contract in effect in 1967.
The contract defined who was entitled to be credited as a writer. It defined the writer's share in derivative works and merchandising.
It doesn't matter who owns the copyright on the script as broadcast.
The geek is abysmally naive about copyrights.
He forgets who owns the master prints. The trademarks that protect logos, character designs and props.
He forgets that Disney or Paramount has a corporate line of credit. Production facilities. Talent. Marketing and Distribution.
The screenwriter - the pro - never - forgets that without a strong union - without out a strong contract - the studios will find ways to profit from his work for all eternity.
The Last Dangerous Visions, the third volume of the anthology series, has become something of a legend in science fiction as the genre's most famous unpublished book. It was originally announced for publication in 1973, but other work demanded Ellison's attention and the anthology has not seen print to date. He has come under criticism for his treatment of some writers who submitted their stories to him, of which some estimate to be nearly 150 (many of the authors have died in the subsequent three-and-a-half decades since the anthology was first announced). Harlan Ellison
Greedy, arrogant writer sues greedy, arrogant corporation.
Seriously, I'm finding it hard to think of a more overrated Star Trek episode than this one. Utterly lame. Definite third season material.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If he wants credit for shit, then how about we all give him credit for starting the Trek trend of bullshit time travel plot devices that have been pulled out whenever they need a ratings boost or plot holes need filled.
He can also take the credit if the new Star Trek movie sucks because of its time travel plot device. Its not about the art with him, its about the credit, so take it Harlan, its all yours! The shitty Voyager two part episode where they went back in time - Its yours!
The terrible DS9 holodeck episodes set during WW2 - yours too! You were the first to do a WW2 theme in Trek.
After all, its all about the money, your words. Let that be your epitaph, while after your death we continue to celebrate real sci fi authors like Phillip K. Dick who died penniless, but left amazing art.
love him or hate him, he has a record of sticking his neck out on behalf of "the little people", at the same time the studios have a justly-earned reputation for screwing said "little people". Ellison should be given due credit for that.
Rock on, Harlan.
If you contract somebody to build an apartment complex for you, and they do so... let's say they design it, taking it all the way from blueprint to finished building, and you pay them for that job and then proceed to rent out the units in that complex, eventually starting to profit quite heavily, the people you contracted can't exactly come back later and start demanding a percentage from your profits just because it was their work that helped make you rich, can they?
He wrote something, he was paid, and that was it. Unless his contract specifically says that he was supposed to get royalties all along, he may need reminding that *HE* agreed to those terms. If he didn't like them, he shouldn't have agreed to them in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A few years ago at Worldcon, a famous SF author told a story about Harlan Ellison. It seems that Ellison once asked a friend and fellow SF author what he thought about his (Ellison's) latest book, and the friend told him, in polite terms, that he didn't feel it was Ellison's best work. Ellison never spoke to the man again.
But that's not the end of it. Years later, Ellison had a heart attack, and the former friend sent him a note to express that he was sad to hear it had happened and wish him a swift recovery.
Ellison wrote him a nine page letter to reject his get-well note.
I'm fascinated to see what's in Ellison's books, what comes from the mind of such an angry man that could fascinate people for generations, but I'm waiting for him to die before I buy any of them, I don't want to give him any of my money.
...it's come to this.
In your dotage, it's easier for you to sue someone, than it is to create and write something of quality.
Have you no sense of shame, you foul-mouthed, angry little man? You've been playing the L'enfant terrible for decades, and now, here you are, 75 years old, still throwing tantrums, still playing the poor victim, still blaming those damned kids and their Internets and everyone else under the Sun for all your woes. Still cursing and swearing and tossing obscenities and vulgarities around like a little child, wanting to shock the grownups.
Well, guess what. The grownups think you're a rude, vulgar, egotistical little shitmonkey. Every time you open your yap to cry that you have been victimized yet again, most of humanity in the immediate vicinity wishes you would just shut the hell up, already.
Mr. Ellison, your time has passed. You are as irrelevant as the ancient typewriters you worship. You are as irrelevant as Spiro Agnew. You are as irrelevant as suing AOL, thinking that would stop ebooks of your works being on the Internet. Mr. Ellison, I hate to break this to you, but AOL does not equal the Internet, despite all those TV commercials from the 1980s you remember.
Mr. Ellison, you are a joke. You have become nothing more than a punchline: "Why do you call an 8 ounce can of Budweiser a 'Harlan'? Because it's a short, bitter half-pint!"
Mr. Ellison, feel free to continue to disgrace yourself in public as much as you like. Just be aware that, like seeing the derelict who has urinated and defecated in his trousers, the vast majority of people just turn away from such a scene of pitiful self degradation with expressions, not of sympathy for that poor man, but of disgust for what has become of that poor man.
Show some dignity. For once in your life, show some dignity!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
If anything, good writers are even more rare than good actors. I have yet to meet the fiction writer who can fall back on their looks.
The problem is a fundamental disconnect. Good dialogue makes the actor look good. Good structure makes the director look brilliant. A script that stinks just makes the movie overall look bad, but generally no one blames the actors. In the end -- and yeah, this is oversimplification -- writers get none of their due and all of the blame.
Studio executives -- who famously refer to screenwriters as the "highest paid secretaries on Earth" -- honestly believe successful movies are the result of their business acumen. They take arrogant cluelessness to a level Marie Antoinette would have boggled at. Witness the latest SciFi/Syfy debacle.
Everyone wants to sleep with the actors, and the studio execs understand lust. Directors are the boss, and studio execs understand the boss needs to get paid. But frat boys turned studio nepotists almost intentionally refuse to understand the value of the script. They honestly believe Tricia Helfer's breasts do more for "Battlestar Galactica" than Ron Moore's scripts.
Even worse, every single one of those MBAs have delusions of Hammett -- or Snoopy at least -- and they all believe they could write the next Great American novel, if they just weren't so darn busy all the time, or could condescend to the menial labor of typing. Every Armani-clad jackass walking down Wilshire fancies himself a warrior-poet, strong yet sensitive, tortured and misunderstood.
Hell, even Saddam Hussein self-published a novel in which he saved the maiden of Iraq from the ravages of America, and his prose was even worse than this line. I guess it's easy to find success when you can have the critics tortured and beheaded.
It's hard to charge premium prices if your small, dedicated market doesn't perceive the value of your product, and even worse, are all convinced they could do better than Twain and Shakespeare's bastard love child if they just took the time.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
$1 is a minimum dollar amount required to trigger "consideration" aspects of law, and is not considered a "trifle". There are many suits calling for $1, and no I'm not going to get flyswatted by a lazy "Citation Please". It's because the elements of contract law of Offer, Acceptance, *Consideration*, Capacity, Legality usually require Consideration>0.
What Harlan is suing for is to establish precendent for future cases that if the Guild does not assist authors in certain ways, Bad Things will happen.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You sue for justice to remedy a bad situation. It's not about "he who sueth for the largest $ amount wins" , though that theory seems to have been tried by the RIAA.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Mote, Beam, Eye, NotPournelle.
If I buttress my note to you enough the DropDown crew won't trash your K.
There is no such thing as an external "fair price" for anything. Staff writing works on the theory that someone would rather be guarantee to make a mortgage than hope to get lucky enough to have $1.15 accrued per day in royalties off a minor hit.
If you think you've got the killer vision to make the next big hit, then go to it. Then shop it around, get turned down while the insider politics stomp on you for a while, and in 4 years you might land the contract you are looking for, so you too can buy a new car. Don't care to be broke for 4 years trying? Then don't disparage. It's that industry's risk-reward ratio. It's the IP lottery.
Larry Niven wrote he mainly got started because he could live off a family inheritance for some 3 years until he learned the trade.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If this is a combined suit, wouldn't including the Guild as a defendent make it possible for the court to award legal fees to Ellison, which would (assuming he is correct) be "poetic" justice, since the Guild, who was supposed to be suing for him in the first place so he wouldn't need to pay legal fees, would end up paying (at least in part) his legal fees?