Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the to-boldly-say-no-and-cackle-with-glee dept.

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.

23 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. It's a perfectly valid by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Desler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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!

    4. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:It's a perfectly valid by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    8. Re:It's a perfectly valid by JATMON · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Fned · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    11. Re:It's a perfectly valid by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:It's a perfectly valid by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    13. Re:It's a perfectly valid by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    14. Re:It's a perfectly valid by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:It's a perfectly valid by liquidsin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    16. Re:It's a perfectly valid by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. lawsuits by k6mfw · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  3. Seems valid... by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  4. Why copyright should be 20 years (1 generation) by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  5. Re:This is a lame story. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. AC is wise by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:This is a lame story. by Bucky24 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents