Fictionwise SF Sale!

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I'm not planning on buying the books; I don't care for Ellison's fiction. (I'd jump all over a collection of his non-fiction - that stuff's good.)

An Edge In My Voice is available in ebook form. I have a physical copy and it's fucking fantastic.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Yes, I do. Unless Mr. Ellison had a special, super-duper contract unheard-of in Hollywood at the time, his scriptwork and all the characters in it, were works-for-hire and there are no residuals owing. This has been standard Hollywood practice since sound came out. He effectively acknowledges this in his forward to his book printing of his I, Robot script.

Yes, individual contracts can be cut, but I doubt even Harlan had the clout in 1966 to get a ground-breaking one made; especially for a marginal TV show (at the time).

This is the world of Hollywood, which has no correlation to anything we think of as "reality".

Harlan Ellison is a friend of mine. If he were here, he would say, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to an INFORMED opinion."

"Work-for-hire" or not, Harlan Ellison has separated rights to City of the Edge of Forever. At least, that's his argument. It's not that they can't rebroadcast the episode endlessly; they paid him for that. But they did not pay him to re-use substantial elements of that script in books and now movies. Now, I'm not a lawyer and you're not a lawyer and neither of us have seen the original contracts so neither of us really knows. But Harlan believes he has a case, and win or lose I applaud him for standing up for the rights of authors. He's even suing the WGA because they *won't* stand up for author's rights. Harlan has been a strong supporter of WGA for decades, but on this he feels they are in the wrong.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

But Harlan believes he has a case, and win or lose I applaud him for standing up for the rights of authors.

Precisely my view too.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Harlan Ellison is a friend of mine. If he were here, he would say, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to an INFORMED opinion."

"Work-for-hire" or not, Harlan Ellison has separated rights to City of the Edge of Forever. At least, that's his argument. It's not that they can't rebroadcast the episode endlessly; they paid him for that. But they did not pay him to re-use substantial elements of that script in books and now movies. Now, I'm not a lawyer and you're not a lawyer and neither of us have seen the original contracts so neither of us really knows. But Harlan believes he has a case, and win or lose I applaud him for standing up for the rights of authors. He's even suing the WGA because they *won't* stand up for author's rights. Harlan has been a strong supporter of WGA for decades, but on this he feels they are in the wrong.

I agree about not having enough information to have an "informed" opinon about this particular case. I merely note that traditionally, Hollywood scripts were written as "work-for-hire" with the copyright to said work vesting with the studio, as part of the "work-for-contract" agreement. In most writing, the author maintains the copyright and therefore all ancillary rights associated with it. However, under "work-for-hire" (which is explicitly separated and defined in copyright law) those rights devolve to the copyright holder, which is not the author. That is why, say, programmers don't receive royalties for their coding every time it's used. It's copyrightable, but being hired as "work-for-hire", the original author of the code has signed away all subsequent rights.

If Mr. Ellison has a contract that allows some form of ancillary rights, good luck and God Bless him. If he is just trying to turn over "work-for-hire" rules, I don't think he has a legal leg to stand on. I will watch with interest, because of the potential ramification to the entire concept of "work-for-hire", having been a computer programmer for nearly 30 years....

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If Mr. Ellison has a contract that allows some form of ancillary rights, good luck and God Bless him. If he is just trying to turn over "work-for-hire" rules, I don't think he has a legal leg to stand on. I will watch with interest, because of the potential ramification to the entire concept of "work-for-hire", having been a computer programmer for nearly 30 years....

It's not a matter of changing work-for-hire. The difference is writers have a union, the WGA, which does collective bargaining with Hollywood to secure certain rights. Programmers do not.

Here's the relevant section of the complaint:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

10. Defendant WGA and defendant Paramount are parties to a collective
bargaining agreement known as the Television Film Minimum Basic Agreement
(MBA). The particular MBA at issue in this case was entered into in 1960, and
amended in 1966. The 1960 MBA as amended covers work that WGA Members,
including Ellison, duly performed during the period of the operation of that
particular MBA, including Ellison’s City teleplay, which aired in 1967.

11. Paramount’s predecessor-in-interest, DesiLu, hired Ellison to write a
screenplay for the Star Trek series. Ellison delivered the City script and the
episode based thereupon was aired during Star Trek’s first season. This episode
receives continuing accolades, has become one of the all-time money making
commercial favorites, was ranked as one of the “100 Greatest Television Episodes
of All Time” by T.V. Guide in 1997 as part of its 50 year survey; and “One of the
100 Most Memorable moments in T.V. History” in the 29 June 1996 nationwide
survey; and as recently as in its 20-26 April 2002 issue, T.V. Guide celebrated
Star Trek’s 35th anniversary featuring, of the hundreds of episodes since its
debut, the “35 Greatest Moments!” City was # 2.

12. Pled in haec verba, the 1960 MBA, as amended by the 1966
Amendment, provides in relevant part in Article XVIII (N) on page 27:
“ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN USES OF SERIAL OR EPISODIC
SERIES MATERIAL[:] Additional compensation shall be paid to the writer of a
story or a story and teleplay for an established serial or episodic series television
film as provided in this Paragraph N…. If the Producer licenses or grants to any
third party the publication rights to such material … Producer will pay to the
writer an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the Producer’s net receipts
derived therefrom. The net receipts to the Producer shall be computed by
deducting from the gross amounts paid to the Producer on account of such
license or sale of the publication rights, all costs, expenses and charges incident
to such licensing or sale, including royalties, commissions and other amounts
which the Producer is contractually obligated to pay by reason of such
publication or measured by receipts derived therefrom.” The 1966 Amendment
modifies that section by stating: “Article XVIII Compensation – The following
additions and amendments shall be made to Article XVIII (Compensation): …(viii)
In subparagraph (g) of Paragraph N the words and figure fifteen per cent (15%)
should be deleted and the words and figure twenty-five percent (25%) shall be
inserted in lieu thereof.”) Regarding merchandising rights the 1966 Amendment
provides on page 2: “(x) Insert a new subparagraph (m) of Paragraph N providing
for a five percent (5%) royalty on Producer’s net receipts as defined in
subparagraph (g) for merchandising rights under this Paragraph N.” Other
similar provisions entitle the WGA Member to receive 25% of the exercise of
dramatic rights, 50% of the radio rights, etc. Importantly, there is no language in
the 1960 MBA or its 1966 Amendment that abrogates or diminishes these
substantial rights accorded union writers under its terms, or narrows the
meaning of the term publication rights to include only word-for-word replications
of teleplays.

You can read the full complaint here.

Edit: The question hinges on what "publication rights" means. I don't have a copy of the 1960 or 1966 agreements so I don't know how it was defined then. The WGA contends this means only a word-for-word reproduction; Ellison claims this is unfairly narrow. It would be trivial for a company to get around such a narrow interpretation.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'd like to suggest you don't purchase anything Ellison wrote.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/15/harl...ing-royalties/

I'm aware of (many of) Ellison's controversy's involving copyrights. I'm undecided on where I stand on all of them; I know he's fought hard against studios that grabbed his material & ran with it w/o permission, and won some of those cases--and it takes a lot of nerve *and* a good legal foundation to do that.

OTOH, Ellison's often a jerk, and a sexist pig. On the other, his books are DRM-free, and there's damn little speculative fiction released that way. On another, his writing, fiction & non, had a big impact on me growing up; I'd kinda like to find out if it still does (and I can barely stand to read paper anymore).

I like Ellison personally (have met in passing at sci-fi conventions); he's a blast to hang out with. (If you don't mind being in the same room with an ego the size of Cleveland.) I find his commentary (on various topics) insightful, funny and useful, if not always accurate.

I'm much in favor of suing large corporations that have a long habit of absconding with creator's works and counting on the fact that many of them can't afford to sue, or were coerced into contracts. I'm less in favor of the idea that "copyright infringement is theft;" I'm in the crowd that thinks copyrights should last maybe 28 years, 40 at the most, and then end--and in the meantime, a lot of noncommercial uses are fair use.

[sirbruce]

While there are many tall tales and jokes about Harlan that put him in the role of "sexist pig", I've never experienced it or heard about it first hand from a trustworthy source. Well, he did grab Connie Willis' breast onstage at a convention in a comedic way, which he sort-of apologized for. Does that make one sexist? I think it takes more than one grope in more than one context to make one sexist. I've played touchy-feely with women playfully before; if they're the right sort of friend they don't mind. If I've misjudged them and they turn out to object, am I automatically a sexist? I think not. It's not like I'm groping random women in the street or the office secretary just to get some kicks.

The closest thing I *have* heard him say that was sexist was a rant about how bad most female authors were in speculative fiction, and how their work was unfairly lauded as good precisely because they were authored by women. Mind you, this was 15 years ago; perhaps his opinion has changed. At the time, I agreed with him, at least on the first part; I'm not really qualified to judge the latter. But neither of us believed that there were not or could not be good female writers of sf.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Well, he did grab Connie Willis' breast onstage at a convention in a comedic way, which he sort-of apologized for. Does that make one sexist?

Yes, it does. And that's the incident I was thinking of.

I think it takes more than one grope in more than one context to make one sexist. I've played touchy-feely with women playfully before; if they're the right sort of friend they don't mind. If I've misjudged them and they turn out to object, am I automatically a sexist?

It makes you guilty of assault. Probably unprosecutable, but not less guilty.
People don't have the right to grope others w/o permission. Not even their friends.

Women are certainly not given a free pass if they go around grabbing random men's balls. (And as much as many men might say, "woo hoo! Bring it on!" keep in mind that the men who are prone to groping women, are often decades older and a hundred pounds heavier than the women they grope--allowing women the same permission would mean unattractive, sleazy-looking middle-aged women having the right to grope college boys.)

I am NOT advocating an all-groping society; I'd much prefer people kept their hands to themselves unless they were fairly certain they had permission to touch. And "her tits were OUT TO THERE!" is not permission.

It does take more than one grope to make a person sexist. The question is, why did he think public groping would be funny or acceptable? *That* is what makes him sexist--that he thought it would be okay, and *of course* nobody would be seriously bothered by it.

The closest thing I *have* heard him say that was sexist was a rant about how bad most female authors were in speculative fiction, and how their work was unfairly lauded as good precisely because they were authored by women.

Wonder what he thought of Tiptree's works.

I enjoyed Ellison's company, the few minutes I was in it. When I listed "5 famous people from anytime in history you'd like to have dinner with" on my LiveJournal, he was one of them. But he does have plenty of biases, including sexism.

(I think of him as mildly sexist. Combined with a huge and active ego, that makes for "sexist pig;" there are people who are much more sexist but who are less public about it because they're shy, or worried about people's reactions. He's not shy.)

I love Ellison's writing, and I like him as a person. But I'm aware that plenty of people find him horribly abrasive and rude for a great number of reasons, most of which are perfectly valid. (Me, I enjoy intelligent, clever men with huge egos; I could happily spend hours listening to him rant. And feeding him lines to keep ranting with.)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

It's not a matter of changing work-for-hire. The difference is writers have a union, the WGA, which does collective bargaining with Hollywood to secure certain rights. Programmers do not.

Here's the relevant section of the complaint:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

10. Defendant WGA and defendant Paramount are parties to a collective
bargaining agreement known as the Television Film Minimum Basic Agreement
(MBA). The particular MBA at issue in this case was entered into in 1960, and
amended in 1966. The 1960 MBA as amended covers work that WGA Members,
including Ellison, duly performed during the period of the operation of that
particular MBA, including Ellison’s City teleplay, which aired in 1967.

11. Paramount’s predecessor-in-interest, DesiLu, hired Ellison to write a
screenplay for the Star Trek series. Ellison delivered the City script and the
episode based thereupon was aired during Star Trek’s first season. This episode
receives continuing accolades, has become one of the all-time money making
commercial favorites, was ranked as one of the “100 Greatest Television Episodes
of All Time” by T.V. Guide in 1997 as part of its 50 year survey; and “One of the
100 Most Memorable moments in T.V. History” in the 29 June 1996 nationwide
survey; and as recently as in its 20-26 April 2002 issue, T.V. Guide celebrated
Star Trek’s 35th anniversary featuring, of the hundreds of episodes since its
debut, the “35 Greatest Moments!” City was # 2.

12. Pled in haec verba, the 1960 MBA, as amended by the 1966
Amendment, provides in relevant part in Article XVIII (N) on page 27:
“ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN USES OF SERIAL OR EPISODIC
SERIES MATERIAL[:] Additional compensation shall be paid to the writer of a
story or a story and teleplay for an established serial or episodic series television
film as provided in this Paragraph N…. If the Producer licenses or grants to any
third party the publication rights to such material … Producer will pay to the
writer an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the Producer’s net receipts
derived therefrom. The net receipts to the Producer shall be computed by
deducting from the gross amounts paid to the Producer on account of such
license or sale of the publication rights, all costs, expenses and charges incident
to such licensing or sale, including royalties, commissions and other amounts
which the Producer is contractually obligated to pay by reason of such
publication or measured by receipts derived therefrom.” The 1966 Amendment
modifies that section by stating: “Article XVIII Compensation – The following
additions and amendments shall be made to Article XVIII (Compensation): …(viii)
In subparagraph (g) of Paragraph N the words and figure fifteen per cent (15%)
should be deleted and the words and figure twenty-five percent (25%) shall be
inserted in lieu thereof.”) Regarding merchandising rights the 1966 Amendment
provides on page 2: “(x) Insert a new subparagraph (m) of Paragraph N providing
for a five percent (5%) royalty on Producer’s net receipts as defined in
subparagraph (g) for merchandising rights under this Paragraph N.” Other
similar provisions entitle the WGA Member to receive 25% of the exercise of
dramatic rights, 50% of the radio rights, etc. Importantly, there is no language in
the 1960 MBA or its 1966 Amendment that abrogates or diminishes these
substantial rights accorded union writers under its terms, or narrows the
meaning of the term publication rights to include only word-for-word replications
of teleplays.

You can read the full complaint here.

Edit: The question hinges on what "publication rights" means. I don't have a copy of the 1960 or 1966 agreements so I don't know how it was defined then. The WGA contends this means only a word-for-word reproduction; Ellison claims this is unfairly narrow. It would be trivial for a company to get around such a narrow interpretation.

Thank you Sirbruce, I was going to ask you for this information as a PM. I now have some (as you note, not all) facts to read and form an opinion. - RSE

[Moejoe]

Never liked Ellison, not the writing, not the man. He reminds me of one of those blowhards down the pub who have one-too-many and start mouthing of. Is he talented, I wouldn't know, having read only a few of his shorts and not liking any of them, it would be a hard judgement to make. Didn't know about the groping incident, which further taints my impression of him. Same happened with Asimov, once I found out about his 'wandering hands', just put me off completely. I'm not even going to mention Orson Scott Card and the bile he produces in my throat.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm not even going to mention Orson Scott Card and the bile he produces in my throat.

Gee, I think you did.

But I don't think that we need character reviews of authors here, do we?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It makes you guilty of assault. Probably unprosecutable, but not less guilty.
People don't have the right to grope others w/o permission. Not even their friends.

"Horseplay" is a commonly recognized reason for consent even when it's not explicit. People joke around. Not everyone so uptight, and I don't think a reasonable woman would feel threatened by such a grope in such a context.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Women are certainly not given a free pass if they go around grabbing random men's balls. (And as much as many men might say, "woo hoo! Bring it on!" keep in mind that the men who are prone to groping women, are often decades older and a hundred pounds heavier than the women they grope--allowing women the same permission would mean unattractive, sleazy-looking middle-aged women having the right to grope college boys.)

Indeed, I have given women a "free pass" when they've grabbed my balls. I think you will find very few cases where a man has successfully prosecuted a woman for grabbing his balls without his permission. It's quite convenient of you to dismiss any attempt at fairness as a priori self-serving.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It does take more than one grope to make a person sexist. The question is, why did he think public groping would be funny or acceptable? *That* is what makes him sexist--that he thought it would be okay, and *of course* nobody would be seriously bothered by it.

The same thing that allows one to make "black jokes" or "white jokes" without automatically making someone a racist. Oh, but I suppose you don't believe that's possible in your PC-compliant universe, either.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I love Ellison's writing, and I like him as a person. But I'm aware that plenty of people find him horribly abrasive and rude for a great number of reasons, most of which are perfectly valid. (Me, I enjoy intelligent, clever men with huge egos; I could happily spend hours listening to him rant. And feeding him lines to keep ranting with.)

I don't dispute you on those points; I have the same faults, though not as extensive as Harlan's. He does not suffer fools. However, I think the constant charge of sexism against him is simply not supported. Hell, I wouldn't even claim Bill Clinton is sexist, although he certainly is a womanizer.

[ficbot]

Back on topic, I did a filter on the SF category to only show multiformat and then skimmed past all the magazines and obvious 'not my thing' titles. I browsed the whole remainder in about ten minutes and bought eight books with micropay credit. Fun times! Since I got the Sony, I am much less likely to buy secure eReader. I can read it on my iPod Touch, but not on the Sony so the multiformat is a much better value.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

Gee, I think you did.

But I don't think that we need character reviews of authors here, do we?

Perhaps we are getting off-topic.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

Gee, I think you did.

But I don't think that we need character reviews of authors here, do we?

Yes I did, didn't I -- whoops