CBS Uses Copyright To Scuttle Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II Episode 268
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.
Why not just license it? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:It's a perfectly valid (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's a perfectly valid (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.