CBS Uses Copyright To Scuttle Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II Episode

McGruber writes "The NY Times ('Cookies Set to Cleared, Captain!') is reporting that CBS is blocking fan-generated internet series 'Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II' from making an episode using an unproduced script from the original series. In a statement, CBS said, 'We fully appreciate and respect the passion and creativity of the "Star Trek" fan and creative communities. This is simply a case of protecting our copyrighted material and the situation has been amicably resolved.'" The original writer of the episode, sci-fi author Norman Spinrad, was enthusiastic about the production, and planned to direct it himself.

Comments

It's a perfectly valid

[geekoid]

concern. CBS owns the copyright. This isn't about a clip, or anything remotely considered fair use.

Unless CBS has plans for the script, this certainly wasn't the smartest way to resolve it fro their company. That's a different matter.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Hatta]

Copyright exists to promote the creation of art. If CBS is using it to suppress the creation of art, that's not valid at all.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I don't love the idea of them using it to stop fun little projects, but I can see why they'd want to protect ownership of a valuable property.

It's not like Star Trek is as worthless as it was before the most recent flick.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[ColdWetDog]

And nothing of value was lost.

(At least in this instance. Come on, this stuff is almost as bad as another Star Wars prequel / sequel / plastic figurine.)

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[ColdWetDog]

Star Trek New Voyages is art?

Only for distressingly small values of the term.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[cpghost]

Copyright exists to promote the creation of art.

If it ever was the case (and it's doubtful), it was a long, long time ago... when Copyright didn't last more then 2 decades from the time some work of art was created. The perversion of Copyright we have today (life + 70/95 years, or perpetual in case of corporations-owned copyrights) has long outlived its usefulness as promoting art-creation.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Desler]

It's also about protecting your works from being outright copied without your consent which is what they were going to do. But let's ignore that part since it's inconvenient to your point. How horrible that they now have to come up with their own ideas rather than outright copy what is someone else's. The horror!

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to get away from the idea that you can just sit on something (anything, really) and take it out of usefulness to society for a worthless end result (nothing ends up being done with it, the item doesn't get better, and it doesn't gain value).

Just because you can doesn't make it moral.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[MightyMartian]

It's been sitting on a shelf for over 40 years. It wasn't even resuscitated for any of the "official" series. It would have been a nice nod to the fans.

Well, they can eat it, I suppose.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Rakishi]

So if you publish a best selling book and Warner Brothers makes a movie of it without paying you any royalties you'd be fine with that?

After all, you don't want to suppress the creation of art do you?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is supposed to encourage producers (be it writers, artists, software engineers, etc.) by granting them a temporary right to legally bar others from copying their creation and making a profit off it.

I think the real argument is why, after so many decades and having abandoned the series, is CBS still allowed to maintain this legal stranglehold over the script? It's not so much the idea that CBS is morally or legally obligated to produce an episode based on the script but rather that it has been so many years. This should be in the public domain by now in my opinion.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

The original writer is a leading figure in the project. Did you miss that part? The additional perversion here is that copyright somehow allows individuals or corporations to assume the creativity of another. It is an offensive to many in corporate power, but I think an excellent revision to copyright would *require* that original authors, when identifiable, *always* retain full rights to their work in addition to any rights granted to others.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[gstoddart]

Star Trek New Voyages is art?

Only for distressingly small values of the term.

Dude, if a can of shit is art, why not Star Trek New Voyages?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Githaron]

Why protect copyrighted material for the sake of copyright? I could understand if they were going to do something with the script but it helps no one if it just sits around and gathers dust. Is someone making money off this series?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Did it occur to you that CBS might think the script sucks? And since they're the copyright owner they get to decide if they publish it or not. Do you really want a world where it's OK to publish someone else's work against their objections? Like say you write an erotic fanfic, but don't want to puiblish it. Should I really have the right to then make a feature length film based on your erotic fanfic without your approval?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[zlives]

if it was fans of the book and i was involved in the process, no I wouldn't care. WB has the money and are producing it for the sake of money not art; i would want my share of that.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Oligonicella]

Because making it easier to proclaim that something someone has should be taken from them because you can't access it easily enough would be sooo much more moral?

Planning that spring release for your book is just too annoying for someone who wants it *now* (and most likely, free), so your copyright is yanked.

Very moral.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Publishing != writing. From the sounds of it the original author of the work is in support of this. It's the copyright holder that's blocking it. Also there was no mention of royalties or arrangements for royalties. Apples != oranges. The problem is that perpetual copyright is abused by corporations to stifle derivative works. Star Trek has become more than a single work. It's become part of our larger culture and a single corporation shouldn't be the gatekeeper for how people express themselves forever. Copyright should allow you to control your work for short periods of time so that you can profit from it. It shouldn't be used as a bludgeon to allow corporations to milk the last dollar out of every creative work.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[halcyon1234]

Unless CBS has plans for the script...

To play devil's advocate: There is a new Star Trek movie in the works. What if they are using the script/plot/idea as the basis for the next movie? Or they were planning on digging into their "we've already paid for writers" pile in general?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[ae1294]

And nothing of value was lost.

(At least in this instance.

That's not the point. The point is the original author of this episode can't even use it after some 40 years. CBS has no desire to ever use this script and Copyright is suppose to encourage creative endeavours not prevent them just because. This sort of misuse of copyright is hurting our culture for no other reason than greed and a desire for unhealthy amounts of control.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Oligonicella]

The original writer was working for someone and being paid when he wrote those things *for* that someone else.

Did you miss, or ignore, that part?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Fallingcow]

It's actually perfectly in keeping with the justification for private property used by some of the big thinkers in political science shortly before and a bit after the founding of the US, notably John Locke.

Granted his book was mostly fantasy, but a lot of people continue to use it in everyday lay discussion of politics and economics, so why not that part too?

I would guess that the concept of squatter's rights either influenced Locke & co.'s thinking, or vice-versa (too lazy to look it up), for a real-world parallel to the present difficulty.

Of course, this has the added layer that the person who actually created the art in question wants it to be performed, and it's pretty damn old. Hard to argue that this is a good example of copyright working as designed, for the benefit of all involved, even if you don't accept that fallow works should be forfeit to the public domain (or, FFS, at least revert to the creator's ownership).

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Oligonicella]

"It's the copyright holder that's blocking it."

That would be the company he worked for when he did the writing. You know, got paid for working for someone else and all? Hence the copyright not being his.

Writer != owner. Your apple, your orange.

Once paid, the writer has no claim on the product if so contracted and I'll bet you real money he signed a contract to that effect.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[JATMON]

As long as CBS paid him for the work, then he should not be able to retain the right to the work. If he wanted to maintain the full rights to the work, he should have not taken the money from CBS or he should have put it in his contract that he retains the rights to all the works that he wrote.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Oligonicella]

Altruism is a truly wonderful thing in the abstract.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jordanjay29]

One sapient's trash is another sapient's treasure. Who is anyone to claim that something holds no artistic value, or deem that it 'sucks' and thus should not be available for consumption?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Fned]

Do you really want a world where it's OK to publish someone else's work against their objections?

"Published?" They weren't selling copies of the script, they were making a Phase II episode out of it. That's a "derivative work", not "publishing."

Now, if you're asking if some of us want to live in a world where it's OK to make new works derivative of 40-year-old prior art, then the answer is OF COURSE WE FUCKING DO.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jandrese]

Why should I as the author expect anything from that? I didn't make the movie, why should I expect to get a piece of it just because they used my book as source material? Copyright should protect me from having Random House take my book, slap a different cover on it, and resell it as their own work. It shouldn't prevent people from making derivative works.

It's pretty much impossible to write a completely original novel or movie. Something somewhere in your work is going to be construed as a reference to something before. That's a good thing, it lets people leverage the combined knowledge of society in order to advance the state of the art. The current copyright (and patent) system is undermining this, by letting artists block off their work for effectively indefinite periods and add the specter of lawsuit to any successful work. The copyright realm is not as bad as the patent realm on the lawsuit front (because as I mentioned before, even those people copied existing ideas), but I fully expect the situation to get worse over time unless something is done to nip it in the bud.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Dahamma]

The creator (or owner if the creator sold it) of that work, that's who.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jordanjay29]

If I overload the operator!= to check whether apples and oranges are both fruits, grow on trees, contain seeds and ripen annually, your boolean statement will fail as you wrote it.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an argument based on an author's moral rights -- which are barely recognized at all under US law (IMO rightly so, but YMMV quite drastically, and I don't consider proponents unreasonable), and in countries where they are recognized, are generally non-assignable, so they rest with the original author. In this case the author very much wanted it published, so your example is nonsense.

US copyright, and the English copyright it descends from, is wholly justified as a privilege granted pragmatically by government, to encourage production of new works and avoid the supposed stagnation that would arise if copying were free. In this case, the law is clearly not fulfilling that justification.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jordanjay29]

Don't worry, when it looks like Lord of the Rings, Star Trek and the other '60's era classics are coming into public domain, the copyright will be extended again to 'protect' these classic works.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Caerdwyn]

Did it occur to any of you that perhaps, just perhaps, CBS isn't hoarding? That the ownership of the script produced and submitted within the Hollywood structure (particularly the one that existed back in the 60's) includes a clause that forbids reassignment? That there may exist terms with the Screen Writers' Guild that forbids subcontracting SWG scripts for production by non SWG-signatory producers (like, y'know, fans)? Crap like that goes on all the time in Hollywood.

Screeching "GIMME GIMME GIMME MINE MINE MINE" like a two-year-old in the toy aisle of a supermarket isn't going to make CBS (or other owners of popular franchises) more likely to cooperate. In fact, it makes them more likely to start cruising through YouTube on a takedown spree. If the fringe fans become more trouble than they're worth, they're going to get shut down.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[1u3hr]

That would be the company he worked for when he did the writing. You know, got paid for working for someone else and all? Hence the copyright not being his.

Well duh. The issue isn't the legal rights, those aren't under dispute, but that CBS are being dicks in enforcing those rights when to allow the script, for a series off the air for 45 years could do them no conceivable harm.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Because that's one of the reasons copyright was made for: to prevent people from sitting on ideas that will never see the light of day.

Did it occur to you that CBS might think the script sucks? And since they're the copyright owner they get to decide if they publish it or not. Do you really want a world where it's OK to publish someone else's work against their objections? Like say you write an erotic fanfic, but don't want to puiblish it. Should I really have the right to then make a feature length film based on your erotic fanfic without your approval?

Yes actually, you should. If I'm not doing anything with the idea then it should enter the public domain to be used by anyone. If I really don't want people using then I shouldn't made it or tell others that I made it. By sitting on it and doing nothing with it society is lesser off, not because we can't use your idea but because the pool of available ideas is diminished and no body has benefited from it.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[santiagodraco]

Your statement sounds nice but it's also a complete misinterpretation of the purpose. Copyright exists to protect the creators and promote creation of works. This much is true.

What it does not exist to do is to give those who would blatantly use the works of others for their own purposes simply because they call it "art".

You do know that Youtube/Google pays video uploaders based on views right? I can gaurantee that while some might see the creation of the episode as art... I see it as creating a video based on someone elses creative work, their script, that's not art to me, but hey, who am I to judge.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Fned]

Setting aside the awfully cute assumption you've made that Warner Brothers actually pays royalties to book authors without getting sued first, it would depend a lot on how long ago I wrote the best-selling book. I, for one, don't expect to be paid forever for something I did a long time ago. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice, and I wouldn't turn the money down, but I also wouldn't go around thinking I was entitled to it. What have I done lately?

In fact, now that I think about it, if I was working on a new book and thought I could get it polished and shipped by the time the movie came out, I'd be totally cool with it. Because I could put "by Fned, author of [BEST SELLING BOOK], now a major motion picture" on the paperback cover and shelf-end standie and get a lot of extra promo for the book.

Even if the movie sucked, people would be interested in the book, and if they liked it they'd be interested in my new stuff. They might even contribute to my Kickstarter to publish my next thing.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Obfuscant]

"Published?" They weren't selling copies of the script, they were making a Phase II episode out of it. That's a "derivative work", not "publishing."

Since TV scripts are the means of creating a TV episode, the episode filmed from that script is hardly a derivative work.

If you take the characters from that script and use them in a different way, THAT'S a derivative work.

Now, if you're asking if some of us want to live in a world where it's OK to make new works derivative of 40-year-old prior art, then the answer is OF COURSE WE FUCKING DO.

And if you're asking if some of us want you to take material that wasn't considered suitable for production away from the owner and produce it anyway, then the answer is OF COURSE WE DON'T.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

>The original writer is a leading figure in the project. Did you miss that part?

The "original writer" doesn't own the copyright. He did not create Star Trek, and wrote derivative art on a work for hire basis. His work was built upon the works of many other people. Do they all get a say in this matter?

>The additional perversion here is that copyright somehow allows individuals or corporations to assume the creativity of another.

As someone mentioned earlier, copyright is to promote the creation of art. Like it or not, creating mass market commercial art that is available cheaply requires funding. Giving corporations copyright is incentivising them to bear the financial burden of such projects. In TV and film, where audience expects a certain minimum level of (surface) quality, and the creative input of hundreds of people are required, funding is the most important element to getting something made.

Work for hire is not a perversion (that doesn't mean it can't be twisted and used for evil). You don't want house painters asserting copyright over your house, or animators copyrighting individual frames, or in this case, a hired scribe to yank the characters away from Gene Roddenberry, do you?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[IntlHarvester]

Most hollywood scripts have multiple authors, so Spinrad probably isn't the only person with 'moral rights' to the story. CBS probably doesn't even know the actual legal status of the script, and would have to rack up the lawyer hours to find out. There always could be some Harlan Ellison-type character waiting around to sue them. File this under CYA.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Stormwatch]

It's not like Star Trek is as worthless as the most recent flick.

Fixed that for you. Damn, that movie was one of the dumbest pieces of shit to ever bear the Star Trek name.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[similar_name]

If this was based on an unused script from the original series that means it is at least 40 years old. While it is true CBS owns the copyright it's a shame that copyrights are granted for such a long period of time. If Copyrights are granted with the idea they encourage the arts this is a clear example of the law not fulfilling its goals. I'm not against copyright but if the terms were shorter this wouldn't be an issue and we would have one more work created.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[networkBoy]

it is derivative, just fails the substantially different test.
Maybe CBS could have licensed it to them for $1.00 (or whatever the actual cost of providing a license is)?
This way CBS is preserving their (C) but allowing the fan base to continue.
-nB

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[sjames]

Perhaps yes! The supposed intent of copyright law is promotion of works, not locking them away. There is no reason the law shouldn't reflect that properly. If you don't want your name on the fanfic, that should be your right to insist they credit it to anonymous. There should probably be some sort of compulsory licensing, something like a right of first refusal, or some sort of defined abandonment built in.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[sjames]

And CBS screaming I Don't want it but you can't have it GIMMEE GIMMEE MINE MINE MINE isn't likely to make me any more sympathetic to their cause.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[sjames]

The correct analogy would be you submit a book to a publisher and they lock it in a vault and refuse to publish it, then they refuse to let you turn it into a movie with another group of people. The actual author of this episode was actually part of the production.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright exists to promote the creation of art.

Such nonsense... Copyright exists to control distribution.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[compro01]

What it does not exist to do is to give those who would blatantly use the works of others for their own purposes simply because they call it "art".

Yes, it does. That's what the entire "public domain" thing is about.

And under sane copyright terms, said script would have long been in the public domain.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[thomst]

Access the NY Times article without having to register with this link.

The article is, as is typical of the Times, full of detail about the story in question. Some salient points:

1. Norman Spinrad - who wrote the original script in question - requested Gene Roddenberry not to make the episode, after the comedy he wrote was re-written into what he called "a very unfunny comedy" by Gene L. Coon (TOS producer), and Roddenberry complied with his wishes.
2. Spinrad himself comments on this sequence of events on his blog
3. ST Phase II has already produced an episode based on an unused script from the ST:TNG era called "Blood and Fire" by David "The Trouble with Tribbles" Gerrold (which Gerrold himself directed) without any dissent from CBS.
4. The Star Trek script is called "He Walked Among Us". It should not be confused, however, with Spinrad's non-ST science fiction novel of the same name, which is available in RTF format as shareware.

Spinrad, who's 71 now, was an enfant terrible of SF back in the 1960's. His novels "Bug Jack Barron" and "The Men in the Jungle" broke what at the time was new ground (the former for its use of vulgarity, the latter for its subject matter). He's been one of the most consistently interesting SF writers ever since, and I can't recommend his work highly enough.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Unless CBS has plans for the script, this certainly wasn't the smartest way to resolve it fro their company. That's a different matter.

Well, I'll put it this way: Several episodes of the first season of TNG were Phase II scripts.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright exists to promote the creation of art.

Welp, you gotta admit, since they now have to come up with a new script, they are being urged to create new art.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[fermat1313]

but I can see why they'd want to protect ownership of a valuable property.

Me too, but what the fuck does ownership of property have to do with copyright?

(SPOILER ALERT: "Nothing.")

Not sure if there's any legal basis for that. How can the concept of ownership not apply to copyright? If I create a work, I own the copyright for that work. It is a tangible and potentially marketable asset and I can transfer that asset to someone else. With that copyright, I have the legal right to control (subject to some limits, such as fair use) how that asset is used.

I know this isn't a popular idea here, but copyright is, in principle, a good thing. The length of time we're giving it is ridiculous, and the way the *AAs are handling it is problematic, but to listen to many people here, they think that "information wants to be free" so there should be no basis for copyright. Using this logic, should it be illegal to create a work and not publish it at all? Would that even be within my rights? Of course it would. If I have the right to publish or not, clearly I should have some types of rights to control how it is disseminated after I publish.

I fully reject the idea that once I create a work of art that I'm morally or in any other way required to give it to the world to use as they see fit. The creator of a work does own the copyright for that work, and can do with it as he sees fit.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Caerdwyn]

CBS doesn't need your sympathy, or a cause. It's already theirs. It's the fans who have to play nice and who have to abide by CBS's wishes in this matter, and no amount of "I'm entitled to take anything I see for free regardless of law or contract or right or wrong" attitude will ever change that.

It's their property, they can do what they want with it, and that's the end of it. They don't have to explain why, and they don't have to accommodate you. They said No, and throwing a tantrum will not change that to a Yes; the tantrum will only make a future No all the more likely.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[idontgno]

Adverse possession is the legal core of "squatters' rights". And adverse possession is completely preventable by strenuously contesting property trespass.

So, if you want to invoke the spectre of squatters' rights in intellectual property, CBS did one of the the only two things they could: fairly and quickly eject trespassers, to make it clear that there would be no squatting on their property.

Alas, as far as I can tell, they could have done one thing other than close down the fan production: give explicit license which would also make clear that the copyrights on the original materials (characters, scripts, etc.) remains with CBS, and only performance rights are with the performing group.

But I guess the latter would have been too much work or not enough money or something. You have to wonder about motivations, some times.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek New Voyages is art?

If it's not, then it shouldn't be copyrighted at all.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I didn't, and I knew somebody would raise this point. I just don't think that it matters. How do you believe that it is defensible that somebody should *own* the rights to something that exists within my mind, and which I created with my mind? Sure, paying for the work gives them the right to use it, and that makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that it prevents me from using it. So what, I'm compensated. It's still ultimately mine in the sense that it came from me.

Taking the contractual or paid revocation of copyright from original authors (the current system) to more extreme conclusions, it is akin to though police. Suppose you have a perfect memory due to your own excellent genetics or technological augmentation. You are paid by a company to write some code. Should the fact that they paid you mean that you are not allowed to write the exact same code completely from memory in the future. It seems to me the situation has a lot of similarities. Remember, copyright is not patent, and it does not and should not imply that original work cannot be duplicated in another creative process of the mind.

The idea that somebody can pay you and thus take away what exists within and comes from your mind is absolutely abhorrent to me. Please, somebody, explain a defense of the parent's post that doesn't have extremely dystopian implications.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Obfuscant]

it is derivative, just fails the substantially different test.

It is derivative in the same way that a published novel is a derivative work from the version the author sent to the editor to be published. In other words, NOT.

This way CBS is preserving their (C) but allowing the fan base to continue.

According to the summary, CBS is blocking "an episode" using the script, not "all production of the series". Thus, CBS is preserving their copyright and allowing the fanbase to continue, just not continue with that script.

I'd say "RTFA", but the NY Times link requires a login.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[desdinova 216]

have you seen what's on network TV lately?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Hatta]

No, that's just one means of achieving the end, which is producing more cultural output.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Hatta]

Your statement sounds nice but it's also a complete misinterpretation of the purpose. Copyright exists to protect the creators and promote creation of works. This much is true.

No, that's half true. Copyright doesn't exist to "protect" anything. It exists solely to promote the creation of works.

What it does not exist to do is to give those who would blatantly use the works of others for their own purposes simply because they call it "art".

You're right, that's not why copyright exists. Do you think I claimed it was? In the absence of copyright people would be able to make whatever derivative works they wanted. So the implementation of copyright cannot possibly be intended to enable people to do something they were already able to do.

I see it as creating a video based on someone elses creative work, their script,

That's exactly what it is, and it should be encouraged.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[CronoCloud]

And 3 characters in TNG are based on Phase II characters IIRC,

Data on that full vulcan fellow Xon
Riker and Troi on Decker and Ilia.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Hatta]

I'm happy to let WB copy freely from my work. I copy freely from theirs.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Have Brain Will Rent]

This is exactly why copyright should have been left at the previous very generous 20 years. Now some fans can't use an unpublished script written almost 55 years ago? A bit ridiculous. We need to get rid of the "corporations are people" concept and replace it with something more workable.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[liquidsin]

the creator was on board and excited about the project. i understand that cbs "owns" the script, but do you really believe that the author originally sold his work because he wanted a corporation to bury it forever? i totally get that cbs has to defend their properties, but they could have resolved this in a manner other than taking their ball and going home. shit, i didn't even know that cbs owned the rights to star trek; "CBS greenlights fan-made Star Trek project" would be a way better headline for cbs, but i guess they just don't give a fuck about anything but today's dollar.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[R3d M3rcury]

IANAL, but I would imagine it has to do with precedent. As I understand it, if you have a copyright on something, you have to protect it. If you don't, you lose it.

So if CBS doesn't protect this script, what's to say that someone else isn't going to snag last week's script from NCIS and produce a "fan version" of the show. When CBS complains, they say, "Well, they didn't fight this guy! Why should it be different from us?" Keep in mind, also, that CBS still makes money from Star Trek.

Of course, the correct thing to do would be to require that these people pay them a "license" to use it--make it a dollar or two--just to establish that, yes, CBS owns it.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

CBS is a for profit company. It shouldn't come as a surprise they don't care about anything but money.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Obfuscant]

Me too, but what the fuck does ownership of property have to do with copyright?

When most people refer to ownership of intellectual property, they are referring to either copyright or patent.

Did you think the problem was ownership of the specific pieces of paper that the script was printed on, or the specific copy of that script?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Copyright is not as simple as that. While it seems intuitively obvious that this is a direct hindrance to the creation of art, thinking along these lines involves a relatively obvious (at least, in hindsight), but surprisingly common fallacy: namely the unfounded assumption that the inspiring artwork would have existed in the first place. To assume this is to implicitly assume that copyright is not valuable (since this initial existence is the mechanism by which copyright works), and thus makes any argument concluding on this basis that copyright is not valuable completely circular.

You say that copyright suppressed the creation of art, but most likely, it neither suppressed nor promoted it. It isn't likely to have suppressed it because without the support of copyright, because star trek isn't likely to have been made and been as popular without copyright. Copyright is as much responsible for the proposal to begin with, as it was for its being shot down. CBS defending their copyrights promotes copyrights, and thus the creation of art, just in a possibly unintuitive way.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jedidiah]

The actual creator of the work was the one that wanted to direct.

Yeah. That's right. The desires of the actual TALENT are being ignored here. That's OK. I am sure you will come up with some pro-corporate excuse why the desires of CBS should override the guy who wrote it in the first place.

If they haven't been willing to publish the work after all this time, their rights should be null and void anyways.

Spinrad should get it back.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Obfuscant]

Copyright should protect me from having Random House take my book, slap a different cover on it, and resell it as their own work. It shouldn't prevent people from making derivative works.

If the cover is different, it is a derivative work.

What if they scan your book and release it in PDF form? That's a derivative work because the format changed, according to the "movie is a derivative work" argument.

What if they run the scanned, OCRd version of your book through Google translate and then publish the resulting versions?

What if they pay someone to read your book into a microphone and then sell audio books from your book? Different medium, derivative work.

Reductio ad absurdum. The real answer is that a movie made from a book is not a derivative work, and the movie producers are not released from the responsibility of getting licenses to use it.

It's pretty much impossible to write a completely original novel or movie.

It is. Stories that sell well are usually based on a limited number of themes. Basing a story on the same theme as another work isn't copying that work, but taking your book and making a movie out of it is. The copy is in a different medium, and they may have left important (to you) parts out (goodbye Tom Bombadillo, we hardly knew 'ya), or added small bits of their own, but it is your book as a movie.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[datavirtue]

If all they cared about was money they would just go into banking. I presume they have a passion for the art with money being an afterthought.....but what do I know?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Thuktun]

if people stopped getting paid for stuff, they'd create anyway, out of the love and joy of creation... right?

An artist puts something of himself/herself into the art and wants it to be seen/heard/experienced, not to be shelved indefinitely by someone who doesn't care about the art.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[datavirtue]

Copyright protects the characters and story arch as well. You can't just pop something called Star Trek with their characters and story line and think it is going to be OK.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Americano]

Wrong. The correct analogy would be you write a book under contract for a publisher, under a contract that assigns them all copyrights for the work you are producing for them. After you deliver it and they pay you, they decide it's just not "right" for them to release, and they lock it in a vault and refuse to publish it.

Then they refuse to let you turn it into a movie with another group of people, because you created the story on contract for them, and your contract stipulated that you no longer own the copyrights to the story you wrote.

The actual author of this episode was actually part of the production, but he wasn't actually the copyright holder. And so whether or not he was part of the production is actually rather irrelevant.

Want to produce your own work on your own terms? Don't produce it under a contract for a company who will own the copyrights when you finish, write it yourself, on your own time, and don't sell the rights to it.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Darundal]

I think he sold it because he valued the money more than he valued the right to do what he wanted with the script.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the only point of copyright protection is to allow artists to make money. If it wasn't about the money, they wouldn't need copyright laws.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jedidiah]

> Copyright exists to protect the creators

No it doesn't. The creators be be completely screwed for all "copyright cares". Copyright exists to encourage the creation of creative works. If that means that "creators get screwed", then that's perfectly consistent with the actual legal language you are trying to misrepresent.

Artists have NO RIGHTS.

Copyrights are a power granted to the federal government. The justification for this power is that is serves a useful public purpose. That purpose is not the enrichment of artists.

You are trying to conflate the means with the end.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Thuktun]

Damn, that movie was one of the dumbest pieces of shit to ever bear the Star Trek name.

Are you sure you've seen The Final Frontier ("What does God need with a starship?") and Nemesis? Those set a formidably low bar.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Americano]

copyright is suppose to encourage creative endeavours

I'd submit that there's at least a little bit of inherent irony in this statement. The team isn't being told "you can't make a movie," the team is being told, "you can't use THIS SCRIPT to make your movie." There's nothing preventing them from writing, and producing, an interesting original story, rather than nostalgically flogging a 40 year old franchise that's pretty well played out & formulaic by now. Hard to see how "we're gonna take your script and make a film of it" is their only creative outlet.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

CBS is the current owner of the copyright.

If the author had signed a slightly different contract this would cut the other way. In fact there are many examples of just that (the characters Elmo and K-9, the kzinthy species from the Star Trek animated series) where a portion of a work done for hire remains owned by the original creator.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jedidiah]

Copyright grants entities the standing to interfere with the creation of new works. This fact was one of the facts originally considered when the law was being originally created and was thought to be a potential problem.

Particularly with patents, we see the destructive aspects of "creative property" quite frequently. These ideas also lead to incidental use being suppressed. Restaurants can't even sing you happy birthday any more for fear of being sued. The record of historical events can't be reproduced. Original works can't be distributed in their entirety due to the subtleties of derivative licensing.

That is why the whole construct was intended to be "limited".

Copyright has been distorted by the shortsighted in order to benefit a few rich corporate stockholders.

This work is old enough that this issue shouldn't even be coming up. If not for the recent corruption of the government by corporate interests, it would not be an issue at all.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[aevan]

Rephrasing: You can sell to someone and give away what exists within your mind. Turning profit from daydreams.

Sounds like a goldmine to me. When the State holds a gun to your head and forces you to give up your daydreams, then I'll consider it dystopian.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the purpose of copyright law is to create incentive for artists to create works by giving them control of their creations. By definition that means locking them away to one degree or another.

Prior to copyright there was no "creative control" anything you wrote and published was out there and could be used to create derivative works or even outright plagiarized. In short everything was in the public domain.

There is ground to stand on claiming that there should be a concept of abandonment where works that meet particular criteria enter the public domain, but don't pretend that copyright is designed to enlarge the public domain. Its very existence is to keep some subset of works out of the public domain.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[sjames]

They need at least enough public sympathy to not have the public yell collectively "sit down and shut up!".

They need at least enough that when they next come to the public saying "Give us your money for these works we've created" they aren't seen as a tantrumming two year old trying to be charming.

THEIR tantrum makes my future more lokely as well. I'll bet it makes Spinrad and other author's no more likely as well. I'm guessing their legal department won't be writing any blockbuster movies any time soon.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Darinbob]

Generally counsel advices copyright holders to crack down on obvious infringing uses, even fan sites. Because if you give the fan sites free reign then you have troubles later going after the big infringers who are making money on it. This is also part of the "cheap to make cheap video" internet age. When it comes to making an actual video that is more than some kids with a bedsheet backdrop and posting it somewhere with a mass distribution then it can't be ignored by the copyright holders. It's clearly not just fair-use, it's making money off of your copyrighted work, etc.

These fan made projects really should do the leg work up front and ask for permission. This is no longer just simple fan-fic. Ask for the permission, offer to give all proceeds if any to charities, etc. A lot of authors could be happy with that situation.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Darinbob]

Is CBS just sitting on something? Star Trek is still an active business and it recently had a movie and undoubtedly has plans for more.

Fans are not the people who get to decide when a copyright holder is just sandbagging something. I've seen this in the past where people have declared a game "abandonware" and feel justified to pirate it and then a couple years later the game or a sequel or a compilation is re-released.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[hey!]

Well, it feels like a lawyer-bureaucrat decision to me. It wouldn't be unreasonable for them (aside from the excessive copyright term) to block production of the fan series entirely. Allowing New Voyages to go forward is a rare example of enlightened self-interest by a corporate copyright holder.

The curious thing here is that it's hard to imagine any rationale for blocking the use of the script in question that wouldn't also justify blocking the whole New Voyages enterprise. After all they're using characters from TOS, building on stories that actually aired, and working with writers and actors who were involved with TOS.

I suppose legal departments are like guard dogs. If the dog is used to one milkman and another takes over the route, the dog doesn't think, "oh, look it's a new milkman," and let him pass. He'll bark at the guy until he goes away. If you wave a possible copyright violation in front of a corporate attorney, he's not going to say, "oh, look, a new fan project," and let it pass. He'll bark at it until it goes away.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[jandrese]

A screenplay and a novel are not all that similar, and that's the closest thing to the book that the movie will get. It takes a real talent to make a screenplay out of a novel, and that is where it becomes a derivative work. Converting to PDF is not the same thing.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[aix tom]

Of course, that it is THEIR "valuable property" at all, and the can block the person who actually wrote it (Norman Spinrad,) from doing anything with stuff he actually wrote himself is only one further indicator that copyright is not about the "artist" at all, but about the money grabbers that want to rip off both the "artists" and the "customers"

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[X0563511]

OK? So how did this move give them any money? They stated they didn't care for the script.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[X0563511]

It could very well be the other way around: passion for money, afterthought for art.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Ihmhi]

concern. CBS owns the copyright. This isn't about a clip, or anything remotely considered fair use.

Wouldn't creating a fan-made episode constitute fair use? I mean, they're not selling it are they?

I'm not sure adapting an existing work for free could be considered a violation of copyright. It's definitely a murky area IMO.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[DerekLyons]

How horrible that they now have to come up with their own ideas rather than outright copy what is someone else's. The horror!

This.
 
Plus I've never understood the self-entitlement mentality that believes that authors, producers, and other stakeholders/owners are obligated to either a) keep feeding the voracious maw that is fandom, or b) give up their legal rights so that fandom can feed itself. Not to mention that if CBS itself was to release a series based in the now forty plus year old setting and characters - those same fans would be up in arms about them being "derivative" and just "making the same old crap" rather than coming up with something new.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[gottabeme]

Ideas cannot be stolen--only discovered, shared, or kept secret. See sig.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[gottabeme]

It's not necessary for a license to be sold--it may simply be granted, gratis. (cf. GPL, etc)

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

more accurate would be:

A book publisher pays you to ghost-write a book for a popular ongoing series of books for which they own the copyrights and trademarks, but decides not to publish it. At a later date you publish the manuscript through an on demand printing house like Lulu.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[gottabeme]

Most Star Trek scripts were written by a single author.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Megane]

As I heard it told a long time ago, back when "fanfic" meant you had to get it printed in a paper "fanzine", the first (Desilu) season wasn't "properly" copyrighted. And even though Phase II used his character, the fanfic writers back then would avoid Chekov because he wasn't part of the first season.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[blind monkey 3]

CBS didn't write it, the original writer of the episode even wanted to produce it. This is also about a script that would be 50 years old.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could just produce anything without regard to copyright, then it would be possible to inflict damage on the reputation of someone else's franchise without recourse.

Just because there is a niche market for the shitty episode doesn't mean it's a good idea to produce it. They have a right to protect their franchise, and that means enjoining others from diluting the quality of it by producing something they have intentionally withheld.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[gottabeme]

If I have the right to publish or not, clearly I should have some types of rights to control how it is disseminated after I publish.

Your assertion is unsupported.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Grishnakh]

If the property is so valuable, then why aren't they doing anything with it? It's not making any money for them by sitting in an archive, inaccessible to the public. And they're not making any new Star Trek episodes any more (and the likelihood of them doing a re-boot of ST:TOS is pretty much nil), so what's the point of sitting on it?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Grishnakh]

No, he sold it because he thought they'd make a nice TV episode with it. The author doesn't have the ability to hire actors, make sets, buy cameras, and film his own TV shows, and then get TV networks to broadcast them. So he sells his work to someone who does have all that, so that they'll use his script and turn it into a live-action TV episode. If they're not going to uphold their end of the bargain after all these years, then someone else should be allowed to use it.

Besides, this episode is probably decades old. If Congress hadn't stupidly passed unconstitutional copyright-extension laws, this thing would be in the public domain by now.

Of course, I'm not really sure how old this episode is, since I can't read TFA as it's behind a paywall, but since Phase II is a continuation of ST:TOS, I assume it was an episode written for the 60s show, and never made it to production because the show was canceled so early.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's their property". "it's in the contract". But my sense of right and wrong never got twisted in Hollywood, and thus tells me that that is *wrong*.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Grishnakh]

I'm not so sure about that. We're not talking about a big feature movie here, we're talking about a TV show made in the 1960s. If you go back and look at the credits for the old ST episodes, I'm pretty sure almost all of them only credit a single screenwriter.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Dahamma]

He sold it and took their money. If he wants he can try to buy it back, or if he doesn't want to give back the money he can write a different script (a monkey could write the crap they have been passing off as Star Trek TV episodes in the last decade).

If you want to argue the abstract validity of copyrights, fine, but the fact that a guy who wrote the work sold it for profit and now needs permission to use it not relevant to that argument.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[zlives]

you forget pride, vanity and egoism . If i am not making the money off of it might as well be famous/loved/appreciated.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're publicly traded, then legally, they have a passion for making shareholders money, and nothing else.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Caerdwyn]

Truth and beauty, not fact. Your perspective would be different if your ability to pay the rent depended upon getting paid to create copyrightable material.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Calydor]

Why doesn't the original author just write from scratch a VERY similar episode, with a few lines swapped around, maybe a different setting (medbay instead of hallway, for instance) for a scene or two, and call it a brand new work?

What's CBS gonna do, accuse him of plagiarizing something that the public has never seen?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Caerdwyn]

Their response hardly qualifies as a tantrum. What we're seeing here on Slashdot... does.

My sympathies lie entirely with CBS. The law is on their side, the basic fairness of "they paid for it, they should be able to control what they paid for" applies, and the behavior of people saying "we will take anything we want anytime we want" is infantile.

Time to write CBS a letter praising them for defending their rights, and in the process defending the rights of copyright owners everywhere.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Calydor]

That's trademarks.

IANAL either, but I'd imagine that CBS would be able to say, "Hey, since it's YOU guys, send us a dollar bill and we'll send you the script." In doing so they'd charged for the product, but just because you sell something at one price to one person doesn't mean you have to sell anything like it to everyone else for the same price, so they wouldn't be suddenly flooded with dollar bills for their entire collection of scripts.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Em Adespoton]

I agree; I think CBS must be confusing copyright with trade rights -- with trade rights, you have to vigorously defend the rights in order to keep them. With copyright, all they have to do is grant the group a license (for free or not) to use the work. Or is CBS planning to create a new CG-based Star Wars:Retro series using all the old unused scripts and they feel that this fan-based production would undercut their potential profits?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Forever Wondering]

CBS is the current owner of the copyright.

Are they? This work is some 40+ years old. The copyright term probably expired. Did CBS renew it? There would have to be a record of this at the USPTO. Although, they have [and need to] renew copyrights on the series episodes that are well known, a script that was never made into an episode probably slipped under the "renewal radar".

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Obfuscant]

Why doesn't the original author just write from scratch a VERY similar episode, with a few lines swapped around, maybe a different setting (medbay instead of hallway, for instance) for a scene or two, and call it a brand new work?

Probably for the same reason Spinrad wouldn't want you taking one of his books, changing the name of a planet or swapping a few paragraphs around, and calling it a brand new work so you could publish it.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Suddenly_Dead]

IANAL, but I would imagine it has to do with precedent. As I understand it, if you have a copyright on something, you have to protect it. If you don't, you lose it.

You're thinking about trademark abandonment. Trademarks are treated differently from copyright because... they're different. The value of a copyrighted material still exists if someone else uses it, and the ownership is still clear.

Trademarks are used to identify something as coming from a certain person/organization; once they're "abandoned" (the company stops defending against trademark infringement), the trademark is can simply no longer do that, so the legal protection for it is lost.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Fned]

And if you're asking if some of us want you to take material that wasn't considered suitable for production away from the owner.

That right there, is a downright delusional statement.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Fned]

It is derivative in the same way that a published novel is a derivative work from the version the author sent to the editor to be published. In other words, NOT.

Producing a TV show is the same as editing a novel?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a tangible and potentially marketable asset

MP3's are tangible?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[sjames]

You're entitled to your opinion, but the whole I don't want it but it's mine so you can't have it thing does sound a bit 'pre-K' to me.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Tastecicles]

just had a horrible vision... "Star Trek: the remake. Directed and produced by Michael Bay."

You REALLY think he's gonna stop after TMNT??

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Tastecicles]

picture the scene: you're a programmer working for a giant software company. You write a significant component in a breakthrough kernel, without which that kernel won't work. You decide to leave that company and go work for the competition.

Do you REALLY think there won't be a clause in your contract that says you CANNOT take the code you wrote with you to the competition thus negating any technological advantage your previous employer had??

This is why Microsoft has such clauses in the uber premium MSDN accounts (I used to be a MSDN premium subscriber) along with the most evil source code NDA you've ever read.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he could write a new story, about the planet C'b's (pronounced: Ceebees) where democracy has been replaced by a corpocracy where instead of 'voting' the stock exchanges provide guidance; you like a certain corporation's visions for society: you buy their stock. Corps with the largest market caps are in power. There's still a "senate" where unelected power brokers sell laws to the highest bidder (hence why the stock value is of importance).

The story will center around Spock's tricorder, which has been confiscated after making detailed measurements of the air, which happens to be a 'trade secret' of the Sevnoom corporation. It turns out the tricorder also contains pictures of the city, owned by N. Teller Enterprises.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[sjames]

Actually, it's purpose IS to enrich the public domain. In our era of copyright that lasts for generations, it's harder to remember that. The idea was to assure an author of the ability to profit from his work by granting control for a limited time (originally 12 years with an option to renew for one additional 12 year term). The explicit purpose of that (and BTW, the only allowed purpose under the Constitution) was to promote progress in the useful arts and science. The idea is to trade a short term loss for a long term gain.

If our legislators had more wisdom, this discussion wouldn't be happening because the script would have entered the public domain nearly 2 decades ago.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Grishnakh]

WTF, is he doing a TMNT remake now? Please say you're not serious.

And there's certainly nothing stopping Hollywood from doing another reboot of Star Trek only a couple years after JJ Abrahm's version; they did it before with The Hulk.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Tastecicles]

I'm afraid so, worse yet they're gonna be born aliens, not ooze-addled toiletted pets.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright is, in principle, a good thing.

No, it's not. It's a tool to make those at the top richer and to keep those at the bottom from information.

Using this logic, should it be illegal to create a work and not publish it at all?

I wouldn't call that logic.

I fully reject the idea that once I create a work of art that I'm morally or in any other way required to give it to the world to use as they see fit.

If you want to keep beating that straw man you guys should get a room.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Grishnakh]

That's not quite so bad: it looks like Bay is only a producer, and not the director. However, the director doesn't exactly have a glowing resume either, with his latest film being that terrible Battle of Los Angeles, and the other being the lame remake of Clash of the Titans.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[TrekkieGod]

My sympathies lie entirely with CBS. The law is on their side, the basic fairness of "they paid for it, they should be able to control what they paid for" applies, and the behavior of people saying "we will take anything we want anytime we want" is infantile.

I would be inclined to agree, had it not been so long since the script was written. One of the collective gripes among most here in slashdot is the length of copyright, and I see no reason why a script written more than ten years ago (and this case much more than ten years) should not be public domain by now.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek New Voyages is art?

Only for distressingly small values of the term.

Can you make a better episode of Star Trek? Or anything? Until you can make a superior product, don't disparage others attempts, please.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[martin-boundary]

Not so fast. Authors' rights cannot be given up, they remain with the writer for as long as he lives. I'm not certain they are enough to liberate the work from a publisher who decides to "bury" it, but I don't think it's straight out impossible either. The publisher only gets a limited economic right to exploit the work, but they can't do anything they want if the original author doesn't like it, eg if he feels the work is being ruined or he isn't receiving the credit he deserves.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Americano]

From your very own link, your statement is completely incorrect:

The economic rights are a property right which is limited in time and which may be transferred by the author to other people in the same way as any other property (although many countries require that the transfer must be in the form of a written contract).

You don't think he signed a contract assigning his rights to the work to CBS? I'd bet a lot of money that he did just that.

As far as his "moral" rights, those generally allow that he has the right to be identified as the author (or a co-author) of the work, and that he has the right to object to "distortions or mutilations of the work that would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."

Unless he did not sign away his rights to the script (and it seems pretty clear that he *has* or CBS wouldn't have copyrights to assert), then author's rights are irrelevant to this case.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[1u3hr]

IANAL, but I would imagine it has to do with precedent. As I understand it, if you have a copyright on something, you have to protect it. If you don't, you lose it.

No, that's for trademarks, not copyright.Though there are probably trademarks involved in the name "Star Trek", "Enterprise", "James T Kirk", etc, etc. (I don't know if New Voyagers uses any of that.) The script, as a story, is just copyright. And CBS just had to give permission, they don't have to put it in the public domain. There is no damaging precedent.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[martin-boundary]

While he most likely did transfer the right to exploit his work economically, that's not the same as the right not to exploit it, ie to keep it locked up in a basement forever. He most likely did not transfer that right.

The simplest way to see that moral rights are actually at play is that, if the script is buried forever, then he (the author) can't show the script to his friends, and he can't get any credit, prizes or celebrity that might be due to him because of the work. So his moral rights are being cheated. Whether that's enough for a judge in this case, I don't know, but it's clearly not as simple as you put it.

Unless he did not sign away his rights to the script (and it seems pretty clear that he *has* or CBS wouldn't have copyrights to assert), then author's rights are irrelevant to this case.

The point is that authors' rights cannot be signed away. Only the rights to exploit the work economically, which means actually making a product for sale or similar. If the work never enters any market at all, then there's no economic exploitation happening, so the contract with Paramount/CBS is either broken, or inapplicable for this script. This is particularly relevant since the Phase II fan created movies aren't supposed to be profitable, so that the use of the script wouldn't necessarily fall under Paramount's original contract rights.

From here:

CBS (and previously Paramount Pictures), which owns the legal rights to the Star Trek franchise, allows the distribution of fan-created material as long as no attempt is made to profit from it without official authorization,^[2] and Phase II enjoys the same tolerance.

Like I said, it's not as clear cut as you put it.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Stormwatch]

At least people have properly savaged those. Trek'09 is so full of plot holes, canon inconsistencies, and contrived coincidences, yet it gets widely praised!

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[1u3hr]

. Or is CBS planning to create a new CG-based Star Wars:Retro series using all the old unused scripts

This is the only complete, unused script that I've heard of.

But in the early 70s they made the (animated ) "Star Trek", which had most of the original cast doing voices, and some quite good stories, including one by Larry Niven, and aliens that weren't just humans with lumps on their heads.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's relevant if you want to include in the argument the validity of the purchase, instead of the license, of copyrights. Maybe the parent poster thinks all artists should own their work, and producers should only be able to lease it for production.

The problem with this story, to me, is that it seems less like someone "protecting" their cherished IP and more like someone looking at short-term revenue projections and making sweeping, potentially PR and art-harming decisions, all for the sake of profit. As previous commenters have said, it's less about how legal it is, and more how moral it is.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[ATMAvatar]

Unfortunately, it is not an issue of wisdom, but one of corruption. Millions of dollars have been spent to repeatedly extend copyright duration.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Ash-Fox]

This is exactly why copyright should have been left at the previous very generous 20 years. Now some fans can't use an unpublished script written almost 55 years ago?

When you put it that way, it seems to me like a niche thing and not worth the time changing the law again.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I would imagine it has to do with precedent. As I understand it, if you have a copyright on something, you have to protect it. If you don't, you lose it.

That's a trademark, not copyright.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhhh technically haven't both RIAA and MPAA affiliates been doing this to extend copyright on existing works for years, and hasn't congress or the supreme court or someody rules that it is in fact legal for extending copyright?

Hell, I think I heard even just media conversion to DVDs got copyrights extended on all the works that were in them, so how is this any different?

Either it's a derivative work (which should fall under the initial copyright's limitations), or it's NOT a derivative work in which case it should be given it's own unique copyright based on when it was published.

IANAL but hopefully one around here versed in copyright law can respond.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Americano]

While he most likely did transfer the right to exploit his work economically, that's not the same as the right not to exploit it, ie to keep it locked up in a basement forever. He most likely did not transfer that right.

Now you're just making shit up. The economic rights he would have transferred are the "property rights" to his script - i.e., the script is CBS' to do with as they see fit.

if the script is buried forever, then he (the author) can't show the script to his friends, and he can't get any credit, prizes or celebrity that might be due to him because of the work.

That has nothing to do with his moral rights. Moral rights say that they can't take something and distort or misrepresent it in such a way that it reflects negatively on him, and that they can't take his name off it and say "No, he didn't write it." They have no affirmative duty to "exploit the script that he created for them and assigned rights to them for," so that he can "enjoy celebrity" as a result of it. This *does not* infringe on his author rights.

The point is that authors' rights cannot be signed away.

And THAT POINT IS WRONG - from your VERY OWN ARTICLE on author's rights. There are two categories - economic, i.e., the 'property rights' to the script, and moral, i.e., the 'attribution and distortion' rights. He CAN and DID sign away his economic rights to the script. He retains his moral rights, but those rights of his mean that CBS can't just slap a new author's name on the script, and give him a minor say in whether or not they produce the script in such a way that reflects negatively on him or his work. That's it. His moral rights do not obligate CBS to produce the script so that he can enjoy "fame" as a result of it. It simply allows him to challenge their specific production of it if he feels their production misrepresents or distorts his work in such a way that it would reflect negatively on him as an artist.

If they don't produce it, he cannot challenge their production of it. If they don't produce it, it's their choice to not economically exploit it. It really *is* that clear cut, as your own links show.

Even your final quote does nothing to support your point. "CBS allows," meaning the decision is up to CBS. Not, "CBS is obligated to allow." The script is OWNED by CBS, because the author signed away his economic rights to it as part of the writing contract he signed with CBS. CBS can do whatever they damn well please with it, up to and including "letting it rot away in a cardboard box somewhere in a basement."

That this may happen is unfortunate for the author & start trek fans, but there is no "obligation" on the part of CBS to let anybody make this film.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Dahamma]

Not bad, I'd watch it... ;)

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[martin-boundary]

Now you're just making shit up. The economic rights he would have transferred are the "property rights" to his script - i.e., the script is CBS' to do with as they see fit.

I'm not. What would those property rights include exactly? For a start, I can guarantee that they wouldn't include internet distribution rights, since the internet didn't exist in the 1960s. Unless they called him up in the late 90s to make him sign an amended contract, he's never signed away those rights. It's just not the case that CBS can do with the script anything they want without consulting him, even if neither of us has seen the exact contract wording.

They have no affirmative duty to "exploit the script that he created for them and assigned rights to them for," so that he can "enjoy celebrity" as a result of it. This *does not* infringe on his author rights.

Many book publishing contracts expressly require the publisher to actually publish and sell the book, otherwise the publisher loses the rights and they revert to the author. This is actually a common scenario, for books that haven't been (re)printed in 20 or 30 years. Of course I don't know the wording for screenplay contracts written in the 1960s, but it's unlikely they are as precise and comprehensive as modern contracts of the same type.

He CAN and DID sign away his economic rights to the script. He retains his moral rights, but those rights of his mean that CBS can't just slap a new author's name on the script, and give him a minor say in whether or not they produce the script in such a way that reflects negatively on him or his work.

At the risk of repeating points already made, I think you simplify too much. You assume that the economic rights were comprehensively signed away (I doubt it), and you assume that moral rights aren't relevant to the question of resuscitating a buried script (so to speak).

Even your final quote does nothing to support your point. "CBS allows," meaning the decision is up to CBS. Not, "CBS is obligated to allow." The script is OWNED by CBS, because the author signed away his economic rights to it as part

No, the final quote is relevant because it establishes noncommercial intent by the fans, a fact that CBS has acknowledged. And being noncommercial is important *if* an argument based on moral rights is to be made, as the economic rights don't necessarily apply, especially given that CBS demonstrates no intention of using the script for commercial purposes anticipated by the contract.

That this may happen is unfortunate for the author & start trek fans, but there is no "obligation" on the part of CBS to let anybody make this film.

Yes, we agree here, except that this may not be solely at the discretion of CBS as there are two parties with rights.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Dahamma]

True. But at the same time, *big surprise*, like many of the rest of us the primary goal of most artists is to make a living. My brother and several of my uncles are artists, and guess what? 99.5% of artists are, if not starving, at least very underpaid. They would LOVE to sell their works to make a reasonable profit, and if someone else wants to shelve it that's their RIGHT AS THE BUYER. If they want *control* over their art they shouldn't have accepted money for it...

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[gravis777]

Totally agree. Its not like CBS is shutting down production of Phase 2. They are just saying they can't use a script that has already been copyrighted. Its a perfectly valid argument. It may suck, but its valid.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully reject the idea that once I create a work of art that I'm morally or in any other way required to give it to the world to use as they see fit.

I completely agree. However, I fully reject the idea that once you give that work of art to the world, you should have a say about how they see fit to use it.

This isn't rocket science. Allow consenting adults to do whatever they like, including exchanging copies of data that someone else has produced. None of this "obligation to make works available" strawman that you've cooked up.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Ginger Unicorn]

If he's not allowed an opinion, then neither are you.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[chrismcb]

We need to get away from the idea that you can just sit on something (anything, really) and take it out of usefulness to society for a worthless end result (nothing ends up being done with it, the item doesn't get better, and it doesn't gain value).

Just because you can doesn't make it moral.

So if I have a creative idea, it is immoral for me not to write it down?

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[chrismcb]

That's OK. I am sure you will come up with some pro-corporate excuse why the desires of CBS should override the guy who wrote it in the first place

Sure.
Let us say you are an author. Happily writing stories and giving them away (presumably you are living on mana from heaven). I come along and say "Please write me a story about X. I'll pay you so you can eat something better than mana."You say great, and write a fabulous story about X, a story you wouldn't have otherwise written. You give me the story, I decide I don't like it and sit on it. The original author like it, but he took his money for it. But the real issue is he never would have told the story in the first place.
Life isn't always as black and white as some people like to think it is.
Of course that doesn't mean our current copyright situation is sane.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Teancum]

The issue at hand is perpetual copyright and changes to copyright law that have made the current situation. Had the copyright laws that existed at the beginning of the 1960's (much less the original copyright act of 1790) still been in effect today, that script very likely would have entered the public domain and this entire conversation and thread would have been moot. For a "worthless property" (meaning the script itself) I highly doubt that CBS would have bothered to renew the copyright and it would have long ago had its copyright expire.

There is a reason for stuff like this to enter the public domain. I'm not talking theoretical issues here as well, as there have been television shows from the 1960's that have entered the public domain. A clear example of that can be found on Wikipedia with The Beverly Hillbillies. The first time I read the article, I was shocked to see an entire episode of the series was posted on the article, then I realized the episode was in the public domain (and could be put there by Wikipedia policy). It was sort of refreshing after a fashion to see something like that. Interestingly enough, this television series is also one that was "owned" by CBS once upon a time.

My point is that it was changes in copyright law that has led to this current situation in regards to the Star Trek script. It didn't need to be this way and as a matter of legislation initiatives and public policy I really don't think people should sit on scripts in this fashion for so long before it becomes something that is a cultural heritage for all. Constitutionally, it is supposed to be a time-limited monopoly.... but that time limit has now become essentially perpetual for eternity with no reasonable limit in sight. That hasn't always been the case in the American Republic (much less elsewhere in the world) and I don't think the case can be reasonably made that earlier "weaker" laws were necessarily harmful for artists and producers of television shows and movies.

If I have written something forty or fifty years ago and somehow you found that bit of prose I wrote, I really don't mind if you decide to do something with it. The incentive is for me to write something new right now, not sit and expect royalty checks for work I've done in the distant past. I think it should be the same for movie producers and composers as well, much less computer programmers. Do you really think that software written for the PDP-11 should still enjoy copyright protection today? I don't.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Teancum]

CBS is the current owner of the copyright.

Are they? This work is some 40+ years old. The copyright term probably expired. Did CBS renew it? There would have to be a record of this at the USPTO. Although, they have [and need to] renew copyrights on the series episodes that are well known, a script that was never made into an episode probably slipped under the "renewal radar".

Copyright laws changed about the time the original Star Trek television series was aired and produced. For earlier television series, the networks and/or the production studios which owned the show. This is also a change that happened about the time Star Trek was produced... it was Desilu Productions (aka Lucille Ball and her husband Desi Arnaz) which actually owned the show, and was "sold" to Paramount Pictures when the studio closed and through some other buy-outs and mergers ended up in the hands of CBS, rather than the network that originally broadcast the show which was in fact NBC (which is now owned by General Electric... well half of it at least... the other half is now owned by Walt Disney, Inc. as the American Broadcasting Company). The ownership by CBS is even relatively recent so it wasn't even theirs to renew when it was eligible even had the laws stayed the same.

BTW, I should also note that it isn't the USPTO that even deals with copyright. I know you are under the mistaken notion that there is something called "intellectual property". I'm sorry you've bought into the myth, and it is unfortunate that such miseducation exists. Copyright is something administered by the Librarian of Congress, which is not just in another agency but a whole different branch of the U.S. government (as the Librarian of Congress reports directly to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, not the President of the Untied States). The "record" that something was copyrighted would be finding a copy of the script in the Library of Congress and a catalog record of that item. That is sort of how the Library of Congress has become one of the largest archives in the world as you are required to give a copy of your creative work to the library if you want copyright protection in the United States.

I do agree though that this is something which likely wouldn't have had its copyright renewed and that it should have entered the public domain some time ago.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Americano]

For a start, I can guarantee that they wouldn't include internet distribution rights, since the internet didn't exist in the 1960s.

They didn't have a "distribution" deal - they had a "writer on contract" deal. The contract he signed would have said, basically, "When you finish, CBS owns the script and all distribution and production rights associated with it." At that point, they don't have to consult with him about "putting it on the internet," or "putting it on TV," or "using it as the basis for a feature film," or anything else. They *own* the script. It was produced for them by a writer on contract, and I can guarantee you that the CBS lawyers were not so dumb, even back in the 1960s, that they would have said "if any new form of distribution medium comes along, well, I guess you can have the script back."

Many book publishing contracts expressly require the publisher to actually publish and sell the book, otherwise the publisher loses the rights and they revert to the author.

Yep... and? This wasn't a book. CBS still owns the rights - if they didn't, they couldn't have stopped this production from moving forward. The writer was working with the team of fans to produce this show. If he had the rights, if they somehow reverted to him... CBS wouldn't have had any say in the matter.

You assume that the economic rights were comprehensively signed away (I doubt it),

Show me a precedent.

and you assume that moral rights aren't relevant to the question of resuscitating a buried script (so to speak).

Again, show me a precedent. One single case where moral rights were asserted to resuscitate a buried script, and a court upheld that. If you can't show a law, or a precedent, then you're simply talking about how you "wish" these rights worked. Which is great that you wish the writer retained more control, but that's not how it works in real life.

No, the final quote is relevant because it establishes noncommercial intent by the fans, a fact that CBS has acknowledged

Their intent is irrelevant. That was the original stipulation CBS added when they gave the green light for other episodes: "We're okay with this, but only if you don't sell the stuff you produce for profit without our authorization." As the sole rights holder, they can revoke or amend their agreement at any time. "We're no longer okay with this, we think you're doing damage to our franchise, you need to stop."

Or, "We're so pleased with the job you're doing, we'd like to work out a licensing deal and hire you as a production company to create a new Star Trek series that will make all of us huge gobs of money."

Or, "Look at what the fans are doing, that's so cute, we don't care, but you can't use this single script because we might have some plans for it."

This decision is solely at the discretion of CBS. It's their franchise, their script, and they can change their approval at any point they wish. If the author retained any significant rights to the screenplay, CBS would not have been able to kill its production.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Teancum]

Most Star Trek scripts were written by a single author.

And re-written by the cast, producers, catering staff, and many other people (usually professional writers, but not always).

Yes, the original script was written by a single person, but by the time it shows up on the television screen in your home it has gone through the hands of a great many people. Any one of those can complain that "their contribution" wasn't properly compensated... particularly on a script that wasn't actually put into production.

The original script writer certainly deserves the primary credit for the script, but they aren't alone in who is adding or reworking the script.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

U don't get it do u? Nobody cares about ur opinion idiot.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

"I fully reject the idea that once I create a work of art that I'm morally or in any other way required to give it to the world to use as they see fit. The creator of a work does own the copyright for that work, and can do with it as he sees fit."

The thing is, those two sentences mean very different things. Yes, you can own a copyright. It's a license, artificially generated by a government, and can be bought and sold. You can't own art or science because, in a material sense, they don't exist. Once a work of art leaves your office/studio/garret you have already given it to the world, whether you "fully reject the idea" or not. The monopoly right to use it is still yours, for as long as copyright applies, but you can no more own art than you can own truth or beauty.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[gottabeme]

You're right--although in this case we're talking about the script unaltered, as written by the author.

All of that is why I think copyright boils down to a farce. Originality is a myth. No idea is born in a vacuum. If royalties were paid to everyone who inspired or influenced or contributed to something, we'd still be paying royalties to descendants of cavemen. The only way to draw the line is arbitrarily, and as the current system demonstrates, that's doomed to failure.

For the greater good, copyright should be eliminated, and freedom advocated. Yeah, big upheaval and all that--the world could adapt. In the end, there would still be jobs making movies and music, etc, and society would continue on. Besides, it might even be better if there was less new media being created--there's way more than can be consumed now, yet the attitude seems to be that there's infinite room for more. Until we add more hours to the day, that's not the case.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Forever Wondering]

CBS is the current owner of the copyright.

Are they? This work is some 40+ years old. The copyright term probably expired. Did CBS renew it? There would have to be a record of this at the USPTO. Although, they have [and need to] renew copyrights on the series episodes that are well known, a script that was never made into an episode probably slipped under the "renewal radar".

Copyright laws changed about the time the original Star Trek television series was aired and produced. For earlier television series, the networks and/or the production studios which owned the show. This is also a change that happened about the time Star Trek was produced... it was Desilu Productions (aka Lucille Ball and her husband Desi Arnaz) which actually owned the show, and was "sold" to Paramount Pictures when the studio closed and through some other buy-outs and mergers ended up in the hands of CBS, rather than the network that originally broadcast the show which was in fact NBC (which is now owned by General Electric... well half of it at least... the other half is now owned by Walt Disney, Inc. as the American Broadcasting Company). The ownership by CBS is even relatively recent so it wasn't even theirs to renew when it was eligible even had the laws stayed the same.

I'm a long time Trekkie so I know Star Trek aired on NBC originally as I watched episodes in network first run. I'm also familiar with Desilu because that was formed in the 1950's by Desi to do "I Love Lucy". He was able to convince CBS that Desilu should own "I Love Lucy" as most shows at that time were owned by the networks and not production houses. By the 1960's, Lucy and Desi were divorced and Lucy was running Desilu. I was just saying "CBS" to simplify the history.

BTW, I should also note that it isn't the USPTO that even deals with copyright.

You are correct--I should have said "US Copyright Office" [which is part of the LOC].

I know you are under the mistaken notion that there is something called "intellectual property". I'm sorry you've bought into the myth, and it is unfortunate that such miseducation exists.

You are quite incorrect as my "notion" has always been against "intellectual property". I'm not sure how you could so completely misinterpret this. I've even been known to cut-and-paste the part of the Constitution that deals with copyright on other Slashdot posts regarding the "limited time" aspect. BTW, I'm a computer engineer and I'm also against software patents--just in case you were wondering ...

Copyright is something administered by the Librarian of Congress, which is not just in another agency but a whole different branch of the U.S. government (as the Librarian of Congress reports directly to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, not the President of the Untied States). The "record" that something was copyrighted would be finding a copy of the script in the Library of Congress and a catalog record of that item.

No! You have copyright protection from the moment you create the work. If you never publish the work, you are protected. If you publish, you have protection by merely slapping a copyright notice on the work. If you want a registered copyright [which most studios/publishers do], you need to file a form with the copyright office. They will give you back a certificate.

That is sort of how the Library of Congress has become one of the largest archives in the world as you are required to give a copy of your creative work to the library if you want copyright protection in the United States.

No! You do not have to give a copy of the work to the Library of Congress. The LOC has a vast collection because that is part of its mandate [so Congress has a vast resource to use when researching

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[c64web]

When he sold the work he would have done so with the wish of seeing it published! not put away and never used. It's like selling a picture to a gallery and then watch them put it in a safe never to be seen again! also when he sold the work the copyright was not for the length of time it is now. CBS knows the fans want more Star Track they own the rights give the people what they want. Shane.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

It really does not matter what his wishes were. The fact is that he sold the rights and did not put and stipulations in the contract. You might not think that it is right but no one put a gun to his head and forced him to sell it.

Re:It's a perfectly valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Copyright also exists to allow the creator a reasonable amount of time to make money for the time, money and effort they put into the creation to begin with. It's a monopoly created for a limited amount of time. In this case, CBS are the ones who own the copyright as they paid Norman Spinrad to write the script (as a staff writer or contractor etc). Eventually when the copyright runs out, Star Trek fans will then be able to create the piece without fear of copyright issues. There is also the possibility that if fans REALLY, REALLY want to see it, they can pay CBS for the use of the script. In this case the copyright act is protecting CBS's rights on works they paid for the creation of, so that CBS can use any money they make to further create other pieces of work. If CBS lets it slide that anyone can make productions from their scripts written by their staff writers, eventually CBS will go broke and there won't be any staff writers creating works of art for them.

not hurting anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

CBS's heart must not be *truly* Klingon.

Re:not hurting anyone

[kpoole55]

No, the Klingons wouldn't pull this sort of thing. They have more honor and respect those that honour them. The fan based activity are meant to honour the memory of the Star Trek that was.

No, this is purely a Ferengi move. Now where did I put my copy of the Rules of Acquisition.

Or we could cross franchises and use the Pirate's code, "Take what you can, give nothing back."

On second thought, it amounts to the same thing, after all.

Re:not hurting anyone

[zlives]

+1 funny

lawsuits

[k6mfw]

It seems entertainment industry spends more time on lawsuits, copyright issues, piracy, etc. rather than producing new entertainment material.

Re:lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to these people copying material from a 45 year old scripts for creating a derivative of a 45 year old series of shows? Clearly that is the height of creativity and original ideas.

Re:lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

What, another 16 episodes of Senior Versus Junior on Discovery isn't new?

Re:lawsuits

[houstonbofh]

As opposed to these people copying material from a 45 year old scripts for creating a derivative of a 45 year old series of shows? Clearly that is the height of creativity and original ideas.

Are you taking about fan art, or most new Hollywood productions?

Re:lawsuits

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yes, it would appear that way to someone who mostly hears about the entertainment industry via slashdot and other similarly biased sites, instead of actually following what they output. In truth, the man hours spent on lawsuits are far, far outweighed by the man hours spent on production.

Re:lawsuits

[jedidiah]

Next thing you know they will be using some tired old script from the 1500's.

Re:lawsuits

[k6mfw]

Yes, it would appear that way to someone who mostly hears about the entertainment industry via slashdot ...

Well yes, I don't follow the entertainment industry much (no Connie Francis or Gina Lollobrigida in the mainstream media these days)

Definition: Amicably

[Lumbre]

Amicably (am i ka blee): An adverb meaning money exchanged hands to simulate a friendly conflict resolution.

Re:Definition: Amicably

[Luyseyal]

Surely this is a Ferengi episode!

(OK, I know it's not.)
-l

Re:Definition: Amicably

[Eponymous Hero]

yeah, it was only amicable for cbs. they sure as shit weren't concerned with the people who wrote the script and for whom it was written (the fans).

Seems valid...

[N0Man74]

That sounds disappointing, but it seems valid. It is obviously a fact that works from that time period are still protected by copyright.

Whether it is sane, or whether it promotes the progress of science and useful arts is another matter completely...

This is a lame story.

[Shotgun]

Why is this news? Someone wants to directly copy material from a large corporation's profitable franchise, and the franchise says no. I think a big "Duh?" is in order.

If orignal author of the episode most likely wrote it under contract with CBS, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the piece was not his to be enthusiastic about once he accepted money for it. If he did not do it under contract, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the franchise was not his to be enthusiastic about. CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.

Re:This is a lame story.

[vux984]

Why is this news?

Do you think an original unproduced script writer for star trek tries to direct his script on his own every day? Do you think star trek fans would find that interesting if one did?

Isn't that the definition of news? Something somewhat out of the ordinary happens involving something that people are interested in... sounds like the definition of new.

What I can't figure out is why so many people on slashdot can't figure out why things are considered news.

CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.

That's a completely unproven assertion.

Re:This is a lame story.

[DerekLyons]

Why is this news? Someone wants to directly copy material from a large corporation's profitable franchise, and the franchise says no. I think a big "Duh?" is in order.

Because this is Slashdot - where perfectly ordinary and understandable occurrences are [faux] news because it draws eyeballs (ad revenue), and provides the daily Two Minutes Hate.

Re:This is a lame story.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so full of righteous bullshit it makes me fucking puke. What are 'ownership rights' on 'intellectual property'? Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. You can't own ideas. Ideas spring from entire cultures. They may be mediated by individual members of those cultures but they cannot be owned. They do not come into being because of some lone genius. That's just mythology. But in a world in which business has taken on cult status, in which sociopaths like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are idolized as heroes, such talk is hardly surprising.

Re:This is a lame story.

[Bucky24]

What I can't figure out is why so many people on slashdot can't figure out why things are considered news.

A lot of people here follow the "if it's not important to me why would it be important to anyone else?" line of thinking.

Re:This is a lame story.

[jamstar7]

CBS's position is, the script was a 'work for hire', the way any script for an episodic tv show is. Writers were hired specifically to write for that show. Not all scripts or script ideas are used. Those that aren't used go on the shelf, probably to never be seen again. It would have been different if Norman had approached Desilu (the studio that was doing the original Star Trek) with a 'spec script', but that wasn't the case.

Re:This is a lame story.

[Dputiger]

Do you know what a sociopath is, or do you just use the word because you like the way it sounds in your mouth?

What are 'ownership rights' on 'intellectual property'? Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all

Factually incorrect. Arguing that something *shouldn't* be true is not the same as arguing it *is not true.* There are plenty of ownership rights regarding IP. Why? Because we, as a society and civilization, created them. The idea that intellectual property can and should be owned and protected in some form is enshrined in the laws stretching back centuries.

We can certainly discuss the nature, evolution, and scope of such protection, as well as the moral/ethical considerations, but attempting to claim that such structures don't exist is ridiculous. Of course they do.

"Ideas spring from entire cultures." Ideas spring from cultures. Ideas spring from people. The process is inextricably linked. The fact that you can trace the evolution of an idea in culture doesn't change the fact that it finds new expression (or simply hits the right place / right time) in the hands of a particular person.

Re:This is a lame story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we, as a society and civilization, created them.

Factually incorrect. I do not belong to the 'we' of which you speak. Nor do the majority of people. Intellectual property is a fiction created by members of the power elites who still maintain them. It's true the concept may occasionally provide an opportunity for individual creators to profit. But its primary purpose is and always has been to allow power holders to gain greater control -- in this case, even over ideas.

The idea that intellectual property can and should be owned and protected in some form is enshrined in the laws stretching back centuries.

Factually incorrect. Or barely correct. The notion of copyright extends back a couple of centuries and in its origins hardly resembled what is currently called 'copyright'. In fact, the real beginnings of such notions as a species lie in the the bald attempt to maintain control of profits by English kings who granted corporate status and exclusive trading rights to rich nobles in exchange for a cut of the action.

Re:This is a lame story.

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to use a script that was written FOURTY-FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO and they are not making any money from it. Unless CBS has active plans to use that script, it is obscene for CBS to stop others using it. And I would also like to point out that 45 years is over 3 times longer than the length of a copyright term when copyright was introduced.

If the fucking greedy scumbag media companies hadn't had their way with the legislators getting them to pass legislation extending copyright terms that is not in the public interests then this work would have fallen into the public domain long ago.

Re:This is a lame story.

[Shotgun]

CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.

That's a completely unproven assertion.

It has been conclusively proven throughout history, and continues to be proven in various places in Africa today. Think Somalia.

Re:This is a lame story.

[vux984]

a) The context was intellectual property rights. For most of history they did not exist and society was productive.

b) Even in "modern western society" there are many situations where we have collective ownership of things, and it works just fine. Parks, Streets, Mass transit systems, libraries, mathematical proofs...

Respecting the "rights of ownership" are important, but equally important is realizing that everything needs to be owned by someone.

Re:This is a lame story.

[vux984]

-sigh- ... is realizing that NOT everything needs to be owned by someone.

Phase II is more Comedy than Sci-Fi

[na1led]

Everytime I watch one of the episodes, I can't help LMAO they way they try to act like the old casts. Especially Spock!

Why not just license it?

[FrankieBaby1986]

Why can't CBS just license it for a dollar? Copyright is enforced, license is legit, fans get something that CBS must know they're never going to do anything with. How many unproduced scripts can they have? Would they really ever re-make the series using the old scripts and use this one? Greed, pure and simple. "If we can't use it, nobody can"

We seriously need copyright reform. Copyright terms should be 14 years again. I think as a society, the we (the US) should just ignore copyrights after that time.

Re:Why not just license it?

[BMOC]

What if the law were changed such that any lawsuit challenging the use must demonstrate efforts to use said copyrighted material? i.e., a grace period under which a copyright/patent/trademark owner may let material sit on a shelf, but beyond which they lose control if they have not created anything from it.

Re:Why not just license it?

[Desler]

Or, you know, these peole could come up with their own original idea or an episode? Nooo. That would be silly...

Re:Why not just license it?

[FrankieBaby1986]

I like that idea better, but the tricky part is what counts as using it? Or efforts to use it? This may become difficult to enforce and create additional court cases arguing over proof of efforts. Far more effective to just set much shorter terms.

Re:Why not just license it?

[FrankieBaby1986]

Because, no matter how they try, they aren't one of the original writers, living in the same timeframe, experiencing the same world that the writer was. This script presumably in some way is influenced by the era in which it was written. This is the work that I would want to see performed, as it would be more like the Original Series. While I've enjoyed the New Voyages episodes, this would have been a great opportunity to see something that CBS will simply let rot until it is forgotten and too late.

Re:Why not just license it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't be Star Trek for the last ~10 years...

Re:Why not just license it?

[ae1294]

Or, you know, these peole could come up with their own original idea or an episode? Nooo. That would be silly...

What is your problem? The original author is involved with this episode. Secondly it wouldn't mater if they wrote a new script CBS would still sue for using their ancient star-teak IP. I don't understand people like you other than you're just negative little do-nothings who will never add anything of value to the world or help in anything that doesn't profit you. It's really fucking sad.

Re:Why not just license it?

[jamstar7]

Yeah, that would seriously fuck the mouse, now, wouldn't it? Disney wouldn't be able to keep all their old stuff in the vault for decades to keep prices sky high for when they do rerelease stuff.

So when was the last time anybody saw 'Steamboat Willie'?

Re:Why not just license it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the law were changed such that any lawsuit challenging the use must demonstrate efforts to use said copyrighted material?

i.e., a grace period under which a copyright/patent/trademark owner may let material sit on a shelf, but beyond which they lose control if they have not created anything from it.

Honestly, a good idea in theory.

In practice, however, this would quickly turn into that traditional lawyer game of "Find The Loophole", wherein they would find the bare minimum definition of "use", both in monetary cost, creative effort, and legal wrangling, so they can automate their way back to unlimited copyrights again.

Re:Why not just license it?

[Oligonicella]

Why didn't the movie makers ask first?

Re:Why not just license it?

[Oligonicella]

Just put in my DVD of 200 old cartoons in and watched it expressly for the purpose of telling you that it, and the other 199, cost me $5.

Is your point that 2.5 cents for a digital copy is excessive?

Re:Why not just license it?

[Fned]

Greed, pure and simple. "If we can't use it, nobody can"

Pride, Envy, Sloth, and Wrath, yes, but not Greed so much.

Re:Why not just license it?

[Oligonicella]

"The original author is involved with this episode."

On material he has already been paid for and contractually relinquished copyright of.

What, pray tell, is your problem with honoring contracts?

Re:Why not just license it?

[0123456]

What, pray tell, is your problem with honoring contracts?

Copyright is effectively a contract with the public: 'we let you have exclusive rights for a limited time so that we get more material in the public domain'. When big copyright holders breach their side of the contract by pushing ever-longer contract terms, the public don't see much reason to respect them.

Re:Why not just license it?

[Githaron]

We seriously need copyright reform. Copyright terms should be 14 years again.

Agreed. I never understood why copyright was for so long. Much of what is copyright has become part of our culture and society. They have become common experiences that bind us together. Assuming the content creators plans on creating new content within a franchise, I can understand having rules to protect the actual characters/worlds themselves in order to keep outside people from destroying the franchise; however, if they are never going to create new content, why protect the characters? 15 years should be more than enough time to protect individual works so that the creators can make money.

Re:Why not just license it?

[Gavagai80]

Most likely, CBS fears that licensing it for $1 will reduce the value of other unprocessed scripts they own that might be worth something someday. Though it probably wouldn't.

Re:Why not just license it?

[jamstar7]

You've got Steamboat Willie on that DVD???? How old is it, and is it 'real Disney'??

Re:Why not just license it?

[Anonymous Coward]

A commonly proposed approach with the same goal as that is to require an increasing license fee periodically to maintain copyright. One suggested scale is 2^n dollars in the nth year after release. So the year of release, $1, but the 10th year, $1024. and so on -- naturally this scale could be adapted depending what you want the "typical" term to be.

This proposal would permit a few years at negligible cost (good if e.g. a show gets cancelled by one network, and you're shopping it around to others, or to preserve rights for a few years while selling DVDs), and the bigger a hit the work is, the longer you could justify it. But eventually, the expected value of future earnings from any work will end up below the cost to renew it, and it hits the public domain. Individual, unused scripts would certainly be permitted to lapse long before released episodes, permitting exactly this sort of thing.

Re:Why not just license it?

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, some licenses are like that.

There was the low-budget 1994 Fantastic Four movie, which was never released, but was an an effort to retain the rights to Fantastic Four. Or Warren Beatty's various attempts to keep the rights to Dick Tracy, such as having Nancy Kerrigan skate with him. Arguably, the Sony "reboot" of Spider Man is another attempt to hold onto the rights they acquired from Marvel.

Re:Why not just license it?

[ae1294]

What, pray tell, is your problem with honoring contracts?

No what is CBSes problem with honouring a contract. When this script was written copyright wasn't 11 billion years...

Re:Why not just license it?

[gottabeme]

Why not?

Re:Why not just license it?

[camperdave]

Just have copyrights cost money, on a growing scale. First year, it costs a dollar to hold a copyright. Each subsequent year, it doubles. After 10 years, it'll cost $1024; after 20, over a million; after 30, over a billion dollars. Nobody will be able to stranglehold a work for more than a generation.

Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[cpu6502]

With possibility of renewal if the original human is still alive.

This script is just sitting around, unused. If it were in the public domain, CBS could use it, or New Voyages could use it, or anybody could use it. Public domain PROMOTES artistic endeavors while the copy monopoly stifles it.

IMHO

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a baseless claim. Copyrights may annoy copycats, but the existence of copyrights in their current form do not stop anyone from creating new ideas. Your idea of promoting artistic endeavors means giving artists shortcuts by "borrowing" public domain work. If the path of least resistance is simply taking someone else's IP and making some changes and reselling it, you don't think media corporations would almost exclusively be doing that now instead of trying to create new original ideas?

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[cpu6502]

>>> Your idea of promoting artistic endeavors means giving artists shortcuts by "borrowing" public domain work

Yes.
Exactly.
And this copyright blocked the New Voyagers people, and even the original author, from converting a script to video form. It very, very clearly STIFLED creativity. The whole point is that Art is meant to be shared with EVERYONE, not locked up for 150 fucking years like YOU want it Anon. Coward

What's even worse is when the copy monopoly is used to deprive artists of their fair pay, as is typical in music contracts. Or when the record companies stole nearly 1 billion dollars from Canadian artists by taking their songs, putting them on greatest hits compilation CDs, and never paid the artists. All legally.

20 years should be enough time for the original author to make money. Then let it fall into the public domain (unless the author renews the copymonopoly).

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[oxdas]

I challenge you to name one truly "new" idea. Not an incremental change to an older idea, but something done without "taking someone else's IP and making some changes."?

I can't think of one.

Human ideas seem to me to be more about incremental improvement and changes. This is what makes the concept of copyright so valuable. It encourages people to release their changes so others can build upon them. If people are no longer allowed to generate thought through incremental changes to others ideas however, I would view this as damaging to long term human progress.

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[jamstar7]

Copyrights may annoy copycats, but the existence of copyrights in their current form do not stop anyone from creating new ideas.

Yes, they do. With a reasonably high priced team of lawyers, you can 'prove' that just about anything is derived from anything else, and derivatives belong to the original copyright holder. If I write a science fiction story and mention Vulcan as a planet, I have 'derived' the story from Star Trek. If I reference Vulcan as an industrial orbital platform, I've 'derived' the story from Cole & Bunch's 'Sten' series. The problem with the information age is two-fold. First, there's tons of media and information out there that can be accessed easily. It's almost impossible to prove you weren't influenced by any particular work. Second, everything is squirrelled away behind copyright and not going back into the public domain. Thus, the 'original artists', or the studios who aquired the copyrights of said works, can stomp on anyone they want.

Your idea of promoting artistic endeavors means giving artists shortcuts by "borrowing" public domain work. If the path of least resistance is simply taking someone else's IP and making some changes and reselling it, you don't think media corporations would almost exclusively be doing that now instead of trying to create new original ideas?

In a word, Disney. About the only 'original' work to come out of the Disney studio that I can think of offhand was 'The Black Hole', and everybody wants to forget that one. Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, The Lion King? All Disney captures of public domain works. John Carter? Yet another Disney capture of the public domain Edgar Rice Burroughs books. Who's 'taking shortcuts' now?

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[jordanjay29]

Imagine if Newton or Leibniz had copyrighted Calculus. Now try to invent something without using that system of math, you've just lost the basis of modern engineering, computer systems, physics and economics. Good luck!

Even Newton himself admitted to using the works of others in his own. It was he who said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." The ancient philosophers had the idea, even the Renaissance artists, what's the problem for modern times?

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure which movie theater/TV you've been in front of, but the media corporations are almost exclusively copying old IP instead of making new original ideas (sequels, prequels, reboots). They can't use each other's IP's (unless they buy them from one another), but they definitely keep making the same stuff over and over from their own repertoire.

By the way, using old ideas in a new way is how new properties are created to begin with! Disney wouldn't exist without the ability to use old stories and creating beautiful animation to tell the story in a new and appealing way.

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[Fned]

That's a baseless claim.

That's a strong statement, and sadly misguided.

Copyrights may annoy copycats, but the existence of copyrights in their current form do not stop anyone from creating new ideas.

You are put in danger by publishing anything that a sack of lawyers might later decide is too similar to something their client has published within the past several generations. If you don't see that as a chilling effect, you haven't tried to create anything lately.

And just to keep things relevant to the topic, producing an actual episode of a TV show from a fucking manuscript is ABSOLUTELY creating something new. The manuscript DID NOT come with sets, props, actors, acting performances, direction, visual effects, music, video editing, audio editing, foley, stunt-work, any of that shit. And yet, because the dialogue came from a particular script, none of that can be done, ever.

Sure, they could do all of those things with an original script. But what they WANT to do is Star Trek, because they think Star Trek is cool. They're inspired to do those things by Star Trek. Coming up with something that's

1) similarly cool, but
2) not a parody, because they want to do a serious take on it, and
3) sufficiently different from Star Trek that it's not lawyerable ...is way, way more difficult than it should be, and it's that difficult entirely because of 3).

Your idea of promoting artistic endeavors means giving artists shortcuts by "borrowing" public domain work.

That's how creativity works: you alter, recombine, and change things you've been exposed to. Copyright does encourage people to be clever about it, but that doesn't mean that good things can't be derived closely from public domain works. Unless you believe that no good movies have ever been based off of Shakespeare, fairy tales, mythology, or novels written a hundred years ago.

Humans are recombinant memetic mutation engines. We generally have to start with memes to mutate. "new original ideas" are a phantom, a myth. Only new works based on those ideas are real.

If the path of least resistance is simply taking someone else's IP and making some changes and reselling it, you don't think media corporations would almost exclusively be doing that now instead of trying to create new original ideas?

I take it they've never heard of Disney under that rock you've been living under? Seriously, though -- what you just described is NEARLY ALL media corporations are doing right now. John Carter of Mars. Battleship. Hunger Games. Wrath of the Titans. 21 Jump Street. That is the path of least resistance, and it's how things are already working. Do you know why? Because COPYRIGHT IS WHAT MAKES THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE PROFITABLE, that's why! You don't have to convince the public to patronize the creation of your neato new thing, because you've already taken their money by selling them copies of your last thing. And what's the safest bet as to what they'll give you money for next time? whatever they gave you money for before, that's what!

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[cpu6502]

>>> This is what makes the concept of copyright so valuable. It encourages people to release their changes so others can build upon them

If you build upon them, then the corporation sues you. So really copyright stifles the incremental improvement, rather than help it, especially when it's extended to 150 years (almost 8 generations).

Also note I didn't say I was against copyright. You setup a strawman and put words in my mouth I never said. Jackass. You probably work for the RIAA.

Re:Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation)

[oxdas]

Actually, I was responding to the anonymous coward, not directly to you. I would contend that the idea of people building upon others ideas in order for progress to occur would naturally lead to a very limited copyright system. The AC's contention was that copyright encourages the creation of new "original" ideas, juxtaposed with my contention that it could allow for more progress by "taking someone else's IP and making some changes." In my system, a short copyright length would be ideal because it would allows ideas to coalesce more quickly. In the AC's world, if creation of original content is not predicated on existing knowledge then the indefinite extension of copyright would have no ill effects. In other words, I suspect you and I agree on this point.

copyright trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the company that halted the distribution of a fun little app called Tricorder for the Android Smart phones. It tied all the different sensors from the phone into a neat little app with a screen appearance that looked passingly like the LCARS interface from Star Trek: The Next Generation. The app was FOSS, ad free, just a wonderful little homage to Star Trek that you could carry in your pocket. CBS said it infringed on their intellectual property rights and issued a cease and desist order of its distribution. They just didn't realize that this sort of fan based activity keeps the franchise in the public eye and really costs them nothing. It's free advertising and, if they work with the fans, good public relations.

I have several more things to say about the situation and the CBS legal department in general but they'd just get the posing banned for bad manners, bad language and all that sort of thing, so I'll leave it up to your imagination what I'd be saying.

IP yeah u know me

[jollyreaper]

Thankfully the era of media conglomerates owning pop culture will soon be over. With fan efforts like Kickstarter, new IP can be made with a Creative Commons or Copyleft scheme that will preserve it from being captured and abused by corporations while allowing fans free creative reign.

Can you imagine what western culture would be like if Homer's descendants were the Greek Disneys?

public: Hey, he didn't even make up the original myths, he just retold them!

Greek lawyers: Doesn't matter. Copyright extents to the author's death plus 3,000 years.

public: But what about culture?

Greek lawyer: These temples don't pay for themselves, bitch. Now we've gotta take it up with the Hebrews on this Samson character. Clearly they're infringing on our Herakles IP.

Hebrew lawyers: Get in line. We're already filing a lawsuit against those Messianics for unauthorized derivative material. They lifted our entire Torah and just added new material at the end.

St. Paul Diddy: It's called sampling. This book wasn't nothing before I got here.

troll lawyers: Cease and desist all of you. We bought the IP rights to the Sumerian tablets. All of you are in violation.

Re:IP yeah u know me

[cpghost]

Greek lawyer: These temples don't pay for themselves, bitch.

As a matter of fact, Eurozone countries are already paying back the Greek for the privilege. They just do it under a false pretext.

Re:IP yeah u know me

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully the era of media conglomerates owning pop culture will soon be over.

It's a nice dream.. and I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt this will be coming any time soon (or ever).

At least in most cases, you still need "the big guys" to make "the big money". Much as we love to talk about media producers as selfless artists, most of them want to make money. When the big media companies come calling offering to make their dreams come true, most are gonna go for it. This will keep them in power for a long time.

There will always be an indie scene, but I think it's gonna stay just that... a scene. I don't see it ever taking over for big media. Lots of people like indie content for what it is, but the big budget stuff we all love to put down is popular for a reason.. it's what most people want.

Re:IP yeah u know me

[Fned]

At least in most cases, you still need "the big guys" to make "the big money".

When a production company sets a budget for a director to produce a film, where does that money come from?

Think hard. I'm sure you'll figure out the answer soon.

(Hint: "They just... already had it, somehow..." is not the correct answer)

Re:IP yeah u know me

[jamstar7]

Lots of people like indie content for what it is, but the big budget stuff we all love to put down is popular for a reason.. it's what most people want.

No, the big budget stuff is what the studios tell us we want. From everything I'm hearing, even with Disney hyping and advertising it beyond the stars, John Carter is reputedly a flop, and they spent a ton of money telling everybody they want to see John Carter.

Re:IP yeah u know me

[Anrego]

I don't know enough about either side of the argument to figure it out. I did assume they "just already have it" and are banking on the movie bringing in more then they spend (that is, an investment of sorts).

On the actual topic, I'm on the fence. On one hand, most indie stuff sucks. People who like it tend to like it specifically because it's indie. Not saying there arn't some real gems out there, but I think claiming that we have an over-abundance of high quality indie material out there is pushing it fairly far. We certainly arn't at a level where it's going to topple the major budget stuff.

On the other hand, technology is really lowering the bar. When we look at the level of stuff people are producing to put on youtube, there is definitely some hope. That and as said, social media and sites like kickstarter are nibbling away at what I see as the two big hurtles: exposure and financing.

Re:IP yeah u know me

[Shadow99_1]

The fact that it only loosely tells the story (by having the same characters and some of the same plotting and redoing everything else) may have alot to do with it. As is I've read the books and they were not that great for sci-fi. The interesting thing from them was a mars with people on it (and for some the fact that the marsians were nudists), neither point was really used by Disney to tell an interesting story. So that may have far more to do with the failures of Disney's take on Barsoom.

That said the changes were probably made to 'bring the story in line with modern ideals' that are dominated by hollywood and I'd love to see actual fans try their hand at it...

Re:IP yeah u know me

[Fned]

I don't know enough about either side of the argument to figure it out. I did assume they "just already have it" and are banking on the movie bringing in more then they spend (that is, an investment of sorts).

*sigh*

This is what happens when people grow up playing MMOs that have NPC-driven economies. Unless your entire business is brand-new, MONEY COMES FROM CUSTOMERS.

On the other hand, technology is really lowering the bar. When we look at the level of stuff people are producing to put on youtube, there is definitely some hope. That and as said, social media and sites like kickstarter are nibbling away at what I see as the two big hurtles: exposure and financing.

Technology hasn't just moved the bar, it's fundamentally changed the playground. Pre-computer, it wasn't physically possible for people to form collective patronages to create works that could be distributed for free in the public domain, because cost-free distribution couldn't exist.

Now that it does, the entire concept of copyright is basically providing a monopoly right to sell something that no longer has any intrinsic value. This is not a condition that has ever existed before.

The only thing to nibble away at is people's habitual attachment to that now-obsolete model.

AC is wise

[Picass0]

Yes, clearly a new Charlie Sheen sitcom is more artistically valid than a fan effort to bring an unseen script to the web.

After all, all stories older than 45 years are void of legitimate artistic merit. How about all those poor saps continually regurgitating authors like Dickens, Hugo, Homer, Shakespeare... so sad. What did they contribute to the 2012 pilot season?

Re:AC is wise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, clearly a new Charlie Sheen sitcom is more artistically valid than a fan effort to bring an unseen script to the web.

After all, all stories older than 45 years are void of legitimate artistic merit. How about all those poor saps continually regurgitating authors like Dickens, Hugo, Homer, Shakespeare... so sad. What did they contribute to the 2012 pilot season?

Bad example.

The train-wreck potential alone makes that art.

Re:AC is wise

[jordanjay29]

Let's talk about Shit My Dad Says instead, and see what you think. Or is that just the case of actors over 75 years being void of legitimate artistic merit?

Re:AC is wise

[Anonymous Coward]

...now that you bring up Charlie Sheen, now he could be a fantastic Captain Kirk in a Space Balls-esque spoof.
"I'm full of monkey blood, Dr. McCoy!" or whatever other babble Sheen was spewing during his recent manic phase... and get his girlfriends at the time to play a group of alien Amazons that have been plotting to get some of that monkey blood out of him because of his off-the-charts midi-chlorian count in his blood, or whatever...

Uh-oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the New Voyages site has been Slashdotted....the site won't load!

Dog. Manger. Same old, same old.

[msobkow]

It's a shame the episode won't be made. Nothing like stuffing creativity in a vault to protect it from ever being recognized.

Re:Dog. Manger. Same old, same old.

[na1led]

If CBS can't make money with it, than no one shall enjoy it.

Re:Dog. Manger. Same old, same old.

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly.

Star Trek as a Religion

[bashibazouk]

Why could we not just declare Star Trek a religion? It pretty much is one at this point. As long as what is produced is not for profit, I would think the creation of "religious materials" might get better protection.

Of course IANAL constitutional or otherwise...

Re:Star Trek as a Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Religions do get copyright protection too... I believe that is how scientology was able to file a lot of their lawsuits... copyright violation

Re:Star Trek as a Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I once wrote a 40-page thesis in high school about exactly that. (seriously)

Watching the show is like going to church, periodic worship, it speaks to public morals (the IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination), "the first duty of any starfleet oficer is to the truth...", what constitutes life and how should one treat it, etc).

One stumbling block i ran into was that I was told that religion deals with what happens to someone after they die (heaven, the wheels of life, reincarnation, hell, etc) but Star Trek doesn't do that. Sure, Star Trek has presented some ideas, but only as plot elements (Sto'vo'kor, Q bringing Picard to the "afterlife" in what really could have just been a dream sequence, Neelix dying and finding absolutely nothing on the other side, Sisko joining the Prophets) and nothing comprehensive. It promotes these as moral and ethical issues, what should one do and why should one do it in response. Do we all go to the Barge of the Dead if we're dishonorable? Do we join the Black Fleet as Klingons wish and fight our worthiest opponents for all eternity? Do we go to the great Counting Room or whatever the Ferengi variant is called?

While it does promote a moral and ethical code of conduct, it does not seem to be a religion in and of itself - as much as the fanatics may wish it to be.

Even if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if copyright terms were reasonable (20 yrs or so), it seems likely that cbs would still have the trademark for Star Trek, which seems reasonable to me (trademark being the only IP designed to protect consumers rather than producers).

If they called it something other than Star Trek they could get around that, but cbs is bound by law to protect their trademark, or lose it. Admittedly they could license it, and maybe they should but they shouldn't be forced to as this would undermine the whole purpose of trademark law (that the consumer can be assured that a 'known' company's standards were applied to the creation of a given product).

As much as we may hate all the other IP laws, trademark law should stay in place, it may not be perfect, but it does facilitate consumers being 'informed' (ie. I trust company X, company Y does things I don't like) more than nearly any other law.

Is there any possibility...

[roc97007]

...that mindshare of the older star trek properties, designs and interfaces will fade, since CBS isn't doing much with them and they're absolutely forbidding anyone else to keep old Trek in the public eye? It seems like CBS's interests would be better served to provide license at reasonable cost, and keep the properties in the public eye.

Re:Is there any possibility...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying is fair, but so is the owner of the works by not wanting random Joe to publish something that would make official sequels/prequels look inconsistent with their own objectives for publishing stuff belonging in the Star Trek universe. On top of that, the idea of Random Joe making money without CBS getting a share might make them jealous.

Who knows if this piece of work happens to be in the pipeline for future Star Trek films/series? They don't have to justify themselves as the legitimate owners.

Re:Is there any possibility...

[roc97007]

What you're saying is fair, but so is the owner of the works by not wanting random Joe to publish something that would make official sequels/prequels look inconsistent with their own objectives for publishing stuff belonging in the Star Trek universe. On top of that, the idea of Random Joe making money without CBS getting a share might make them jealous.

Who knows if this piece of work happens to be in the pipeline for future Star Trek films/series? They don't have to justify themselves as the legitimate owners.

Re: consistency -- Have you read sanctioned novels set in the ST universe? Many of them break canon and some rewrite origins. It seems to me that ship has sailed, so to speak. Regardless, (this is the important part) CBS isn't doing anything new with the properties, and to my knowledge (feel free to correct) they have no current or future plans to do so. Now *were* the script in the pipeline for something in the future, maybe a point would exist, but there's no indication that this is so.

Regarding, profits, then have CBS get a modest percentage. If it's fan produced, a percentage of nothing much is nothing much.

wah

[Anonymous Coward]

They own it you don't boo hoo, go cry over it you 99%ers

Re:Is someone making money

[TaoPhoenix]

Not really, except maybe donations and a stipend for food.

The point of Star Trek Phase II was that it is one of the best attempts at fan-indie TV, and they were originally granted lenient copyright clearance precisely because they had no real commercial ambitions - they just wanted to both provide new actors some work and the fans some new stories. The original actors got involved and volunteered for some episodes.

That's why this story is irritating, it's pure "Sit On It" Copyright Meanness.

How do you think this is remotely similar?

[KingSkippus]

This isn't a best-selling book, this is an unpublished script. The original author is one the record of stating that it's perfectly fine. There is a time window of 40 years in which CBS could have chosen to do something productive with the script. How do you think this is similar at all?

The quick answer is that yes, if I wrote a book and 40 years later Warner Brothers decides to make a movie of it without paying me any royalties, I'd be fine with that. Why? Because I don't buy into the BS line of reasoning that just because I write a book, I should have the final indefinite say-so over what happens to it for my entire natural lifetime plus some ungodly number of years after. At some point, society's interest in having creative works in the public domain outweigh an individual's (or a company's) need or desire to profit off of it. Or more to the point in this case, reserve the right to highly unlikely profit at some indeterminate point in the future off of it.

That's one of the things that really pisses me off about people these days. Everything is about me, me, ME!, with no concept of owing anything to advancing society. Your post is a perfect example of this attitude. By couching it in terms of, "Don't you think it's okay to be greedy and indefinitely keep your stuff all to your own self, and to hell with everyone else?" To some extent, I would agree; I'm not in favor of forcing people to live on communes and share everything. But we're not talking about physical property which necessitates Person A having to go without if Person B takes it. And, like I said before, it's not like I'm advocating having no copyright at all.

But the reason our founding fathers put a reasonable limit on the length of copyrights and patents is precisely because they never had this romantic notion that people assign to them now that one's individual liberty is sacrosanct. They knew that the best society is one in which there is a reasonable balance between individual liberty and the good of our collective civilization, admittedly tilting towards individual liberty. Of course, thanks to massive amounts of corporate money buying our federal government, that balance has been all but completely eliminated, which is why we are falling behind other countries that have a much more sane balance than we do.

Re:How do you think this is remotely similar?

[Progman3K]

But you see, the "ME! ME! ME!" attitude is a reflection of the attitude of grubby corporations.

The only difference is the power is all on the corporate side now

Big Bang Theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, last night CBS was kissing up to Star Trek fans with Nimoy's voice on BBT.

Today, their lawyers are spitting on Star Trek fans.

Somebody over there needs to get their shit together.

No, it doesn't.

[pavon]

The AC pointed out how litigatous the Scientologist and LDS Churches get when their secret texts are distributed to the general public. But even mainstream religions get in on copyright as well. For example the most commonly used English translations of the Bible are protected under copyright law, for some and this copyright is rigorously enforced.

The Doomsday Machine

[steveha]

[Norman Spinrad has] been one of the most consistently interesting SF writers ever since, and I can't recommend his work highly enough.

He is also the author of my all-time favorite episode of Star Trek: The Doomsday Machine. That is an outstanding story, and really works as hard science fiction.

Fun trivia facts:

At the time Star Trek was made, model-building was a popular hobby, and you could buy inexpensive Enterprise models at your local hobby shop. The special effects guys went and bought an Enterprise model, and then damaged it, to be the damaged USS Constellation.

According to Norman Spinrad, the doomsday machine itself was actually a wind sock dipped in cement.

Star Trek had limited budget, and they had a policy of trying to alternate between "planet episodes" and "ship episodes". A "planet episode" would involve going to some interesting place (a planet or space station or whatever) and might involve location shots or new sets; a "ship episode" would be shot mostly or entirely on the existing Enterprise ship sets. "The Doomsday Machine" was conceived as a ship episode, and it was one of the most effective ones: they redressed one of the Enterprise sets to be the "auxiliary control room" of the Constellation, and didn't need any additional sets or location shots.

steveha

Re:The Doomsday Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a nice shot of the battered USS Constellation here:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0904/092404.html

Direct link:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0904/0904art/st1.jpg

Note that the Constellation is "NCC-1017". The Enterprise is "NCC-1701". I remember when I was a kid, and I had an Enterprise model; it came with a bunch of stickers, so you could build it and label it the Constellation or the Exeter or whatever. There were 12 names in all, and different NCC numbers were available. But maybe when the series was actually on the air the model kits only came with Enterprise stickers, so the numbers used were the same as the Enterprise numbers, but rearranged.

New series or GTFO

[Vladius]

I find it funny that they are trying to bury a script for a TV show that got cancelled decades ago. If they really, truly cared then they should use the material, not let it sit in some moldy file cabinet never to be seen. And don't give me the line about the new Trek movies. The movie is nice but 1) it's been 3 years and they are just starting filming on a retread of an old movie and 2) Trek has always been at it's best on TV as a series. The current trilogy is a dead end for the franchise.

Norman Spinrad & 1 of my fav TOS episodes... a

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Doomsday Machine"...

* Great stuff...

APK

P.S.=> "Sensors show that the object's hull is SOLID neutronium: A single StarShip CANNOT combat it..." - Mr. Spock to Commodore Decker in "The Doomsday Machine"... apk

Doomsday Machine Rules

[MightyMartian]

Doomsday Machine is pretty much my favorite TOS episode. It had suspense, tension, action, madness, Spock on the bridge, Kirk being heroic, Bones getting to relieve a lunatic of command, Scotty working miracles on TWO starships, one kick-ass killer robotic spaceship (even if it looks like badly rolled joint). Really was Trek at its very best.

Re:Doomsday Machine Rules

[k6mfw]

Scotty working miracles on TWO starships

Especially when Scotty tells Kirk he also got the phasers working (or some other essential system, it's been awhile since I saw it), Kirk says "you earned your pay!" It is that Scotty philosophy i.e. scheduling: If the job takes 6 hours but you tell managment it will take 12 hours. Then if you do get it working in less than 12, let management know it is now ready. They will think you "saved the day" by getting it working in less time than first estimated.

Re:Doomsday Machine Rules

[Tastecicles]

Best K/Sc lines ever (not from TDM):

"Mister Scott, how much repair time?"
"Eight weeks, Sir. But you don't have eight weeks, so I could do it for ye in two."
"Mister Scott, do you always exaggerate your repair estimates by a factor of four?"
"Of course, sir. How else do I keep my reputation as a miracle worker?"
"Your reputation is secure, Mr. Scott."

Re:Doomsday Machine Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Commodore Decker orders the Enterprise to attack the doomsday machine. Kirk gets the view screen working in aux control and the first thing he sees on the screen is the Enterprise about to be destroyed. He calls for Scotty to get the Constellation moving. "Half power, quarter power, I don't care, just get us moving." His plan is to do something, anything, to distract the doomsday machine and give the Enterprise a reprieve. He mutters "I wish I had phasers..." Scotty, hearing this, says something like "You've got 'em. I set one bank charging an hour ago." Kirk says, with some happiness, "Scotty! You've just earned your pay for the week. Fire phasers!"

That was the one time ever you saw a single phaser beam firing from a starship on Star Trek TOS.

I have a solution

[roc97007]

Buy back the script from CBS and use it for a sequel to Galaxy Quest (1999).

hhmm how about a BOYCOTT CBS Call

[Anonymous Coward]

I do wonder if a BOYCOTT CBS call should go out - get them to reconsider their high handedness over stopping the fun of amateurs/
  Perhaps the public need to make the big companies learn they need to let the public have fun.
If this was another corporation wanting to make a series or a one off telemovie to make money - thats one thing - but a group of amateurs - at best CBS can always REDO it with big names and cash in on the free publicity.. this is just pig headed mean.

BOYCOTT CBS
   

CBS ...

[JimCanuck]

CBS allows for a great number of years without issue ST:NV to continue, all they asked for, and then were forced to use their copyright of the script for is that ST:NV not use anything they already paid for the rights of. It might be a lousy script, it might not be worth anything at all, but CBS does have a right to deny the use of something they own.

Hell CBS could squash the entire series if they wanted to, but they do not. So whats the problem? Seems to me /. and the ST:NV people should learn that you cannot have your cake, and eat it too.

no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

post it on tpb or veehd. who needs dinosaurs?

This is simply a case of....what was that?

[rx7chick]

This is simply a case of protecting our unbridled greed....er we mean copyrighted material and the situation has been forcefully...er, we mean amicably resolved.

CBS got a point!

[madhi19]

When you see how many times Star Trek series reuse the same damn scripts I can see why one unused scripts could have value in the future. Provided that CBS get off their lazy ass and produce new Star Trek series!