Don't know how to take this (Enterprise related)

[Dark Primus]

Went to Star Trek.com and in to Enterprise forum and guess what i found.


From a B. Spinner interview in Starlog magazine..

"Paramount weren't too enthusiastic about sending the TNG crew out for a fourth big screen adventure. In fact, he reveals that the studio may have been open to an oft-suggested alternative for future STAR TREK movies--an entirely new cast--in lieu of NEMESIS"

All Star Trek fans should consider "Enterprise" as a stand alone series, loosely based on words and phrases from the original Star Trek legacy. "Enterprise" is not the fifth Star Trek series, but the first (and most likely last) one in Paramount's "Enterprise" series. The facts are there in black and white, Paramount is trying to bury Roddenberry's version of Trek. The huge drop in the number of viewers also proves that Star Trek fans are not interested in "Enterprise".

"Enterprise" fans can enjoy and discuss the new series all they like, but it's time to put the truth out in the open. "Enterprise" is not the fifth Star Trek series.

Click here to go to the Star Trek message boards {very long link altered to fix page formatting- DW}

May Star Trek finally RIP [/i]

[Vendetta]

In other words:

We realise that our continuity is irreconcilable.

[Stormbringer]

Star Trek won't rest in peace until Voyager is stricken as well. And B&B are flayed alive. There are at least as many crapfests still in canon as have been booted.

And that still isn't official. Just hearsay.

[Ender]

So can we declare it noncanon, like TAS? Or are the other series going to be noncanon when B&B/Paramount get done with this? The latter is possible.

[Dark Primus]

Honest i do hope that article is real, but don't know if it is. If it is a hoax....
Well we all have dreams don't we.

[Cpt_Frank]

[dream]If that was true..... Perhaps they'd even bring ST back to life.... ST like it was before TNG....
Perhaps a pre-TOS series with these ships which have that ball head and whose name I always forget, or one about the Romulan-Earth war (even earlier).[/dream]

[Kuja]

From a B. Spinner interview in Starlog magazine..

"Paramount weren't too enthusiastic about sending the TNG crew out for a fourth big screen adventure. In fact, he reveals that the studio may have been open to an oft-suggested alternative for future STAR TREK movies--an entirely new cast--in lieu of NEMESIS"

All Star Trek fans should consider "Enterprise" as a stand alone series, loosely based on words and phrases from the original Star Trek legacy. "Enterprise" is not the fifth Star Trek series, but the first (and most likely last) one in Paramount's "Enterprise" series. The facts are there in black and white, Paramount is trying to bury Roddenberry's version of Trek. The huge drop in the number of viewers also proves that Star Trek fans are not interested in "Enterprise".

"Enterprise" fans can enjoy and discuss the new series all they like, but it's time to put the truth out in the open. "Enterprise" is not the fifth Star Trek series.

Fuckin A right!

[Admiral_K]

Its like I've said all along. Think of it as an "alernate timeline". Many of the events in Enterprise are different from those of ToS. Some have said this is the timeline post ST:FC and that seems as good an explanation as any.

[Master of Ossus]

Unfortunately, Brent Spinner has no ability to determine what is and is not canon.

[Darth Wong]

Neither does Paramount. There are two kinds of intellectual property rights: moral rights and copyright. Paramount owns copyright. However, moral rights reside with the original creator in perpetuity (not sure if this varies from country to country).

Moral rights define the creator's ability to limit the modification of his creation in any ways that might reflect badly upon him or which might violate his original intent. Copyright merely defines someone's ability to sue somebody else for unauthorized duplication or market substitution.

When discussing "canon", it is obvious that moral rights are much more important than copyright. To take an extreme example, if B&B bought the copyright to LOTR and produced a "Lord of the Rings 2: the Klingon Invasion from Sto'vo'kor" trilogy, not only would they be killed and eaten, but no one would accept it as canon regardless of copyright, because the new copyright owner does not have the moral rights to the property.

In other words, Gene Roddenberry once said that "it isn't Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek". If we want to be strict about canon, that is the only valid criterion; in other words, nothing since Gene Roddenberry's death is canon.

We generally try to be more flexible than that, but honestly, if we were HALF as anal about canon as some people are about SW and the EU (no names ), we would dismiss everything since the first season of DS9. At least Lucas has been involved with the EU; Roddenberry has been dead for most of DS9, all of Voyager, and all of Enterprise.

[Stormbringer]

No self respecting Tolkienite would eat B&B.

No, we'd impale them up their asses on a stake (ala Vlad the Impaler) and then set them on fire.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

When discussing "canon", it is obvious that moral rights are much more important than copyright. To take an extreme example, if B&B bought the copyright to LOTR and produced a "Lord of the Rings 2: the Klingon Invasion from Sto'vo'kor" trilogy,

AH! Don't even joke about that man!

[Alyeska]

FYI under that line of reasoning anything said by the creator of something has more standing then the copyright holder. That would mean novels written by the creator are canon and hold higher status when contradicting copyright canon.

[Stravo]

Roddenberry has been dead for most of DS9, all of Voyager, and all of Enterprise.

And I think he would be grateful about that after seeing how they ass raped his great vision and creation. Trek is not even a shadow of its former self, for me it died a long time ago

[Darth Wong]

FYI under that line of reasoning anything said by the creator of something has more standing then the copyright holder. That would mean novels written by the creator are canon and hold higher status when contradicting copyright canon.

Correct. Can anyone seriously dispute that the creator of a fictional universe is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't true for that universe, and not a bunch of lawyers in Armani suits?

[Master of Ossus]

Roddenberry has been dead for most of DS9, all of Voyager, and all of Enterprise.

And I think he would be grateful about that after seeing how they ass raped his great vision and creation. Trek is not even a shadow of its former self, for me it died a long time ago

I don't think he would be grateful. I think that when he saw the season premier of Enterprise he'd be rolling around in his grave!

[Cpt_Frank]

Well actually I believe TOS also wasn't his vision but TNG was (urgh).

[Alyeska]

FYI under that line of reasoning anything said by the creator of something has more standing then the copyright holder. That would mean novels written by the creator are canon and hold higher status when contradicting copyright canon.

Correct. Can anyone seriously dispute that the creator of a fictional universe is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't true for that universe, and not a bunch of lawyers in Armani suits?

Hmm, gives significant standing to the TMP novel that Roddenberry wrote. Course I have always argued for its inclussion, but some people stated copyrights are more important then the vision of the creator.

[Alyeska]

Roddenberry has been dead for most of DS9, all of Voyager, and all of Enterprise.

And I think he would be grateful about that after seeing how they ass raped his great vision and creation. Trek is not even a shadow of its former self, for me it died a long time ago

I don't think he would be grateful. I think that when he saw the season premier of Enterprise he'd be rolling around in his grave!

FYI his ashes were taken into orbit on one of the shuttle missions.

[VF5SS]

And I think he would be grateful about that after seeing how they ass raped his great vision and creation. Trek is not even a shadow of its former self, for me it died a long time ago

I don't think he would be grateful. I think that when he saw the season premier of Enterprise he'd be rolling around in his grave!

FYI his ashes were taken into orbit on one of the shuttle missions.

He'd be rolling in his glass tube!!!

[Darth Wong]

Hmm, gives significant standing to the TMP novel that Roddenberry wrote. Course I have always argued for its inclussion, but some people stated copyrights are more important then the vision of the creator.

Who says that? Anyway, I think that a lot of people have not performed even the most superficial study of copyright law, to see what they're talking about. I'd wager that 99.9% of the people who spout about copyright and canon have no idea that the concept of the creator's "moral rights" even exists at all.

[Stormbringer]

I only had the vaguest notion of it. This has certainly been an enlightening discussion.

[ViciousMink]

Indeed, it's very enlightening. What sort of weight is given to moral rights in court? Speaking hypothetically, if someone had purchased the rights to Star Wars* and made 'Episode VII: A Call To Arms'** or whatever title you wish to call it, and Lucas didn't like it, what could he do? Did he sign away any rights and can't do jack-all about it, or does he still have some measure of control as the creator of the Star Wars franchise?

Better yet, how about some examples of moral rights versus copyrights?

* I'd not be suicidal enough to suggest that it might be B&B.
** No similarity to the Babylon 5-related movie is intended here.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed, it's very enlightening. What sort of weight is given to moral rights in court?

Well, in the case of visual arts, the US Congress passed the Visual Artists Rights Act in 1990, 17 USC § 106A that gives visual authors:

• the right to claim authorship
• the right to prevent his/her name from being attached to works that he/she did not create
• the right to prevent use of his/her name as the author after mutilation, distortion, or other modification of the work that is prejudicial to his/her honor or reputation
• the right to prevent any intentional mutilation or distortion of the work that is prejudicial to his/her honor or reputation
• the right to prevent destruction of a work of recognized stature

These rights are not transferred along with copyright. As far as case law, we have from the judgement of Granz vs Harris 1952:

I agree, of course, that, whether by way of contract or tort, plaintiff (absent his consent to the contrary) is entitled to prevention of the publication, as his, of a garbled version of his uncopyrighted product. This is not novel doctrine: Byron obtained an injunction from an English court restraining the publication of a book purporting to contain his poems only, but which included some not of his authorship. American courts, too, have enforced such a right.

Mind you, when we ask about "canon", we are not really discussing law; we are discussing accepted practice. I am only showing how a crucial component of intellectual property rights is not transferred to the copyright holder from the creator.

The LOTR example is a good one to return to: if B&B bought the copyright to LOTR and made "Lord of the Rings 2: Klingon invasion from Sto'vo'kor", it would be rejected as non-canon by everyone. The copyright Nazis would insist that it is canon if the copyright holder says so, but everyone else would disagree, and since copyright merely covers unauthorized duplication, it is really irrelevant to the question of whether something is canon.

Speaking hypothetically, if someone had purchased the rights to Star Wars* and made 'Episode VII: A Call To Arms'** or whatever title you wish to call it, and Lucas didn't like it, what could he do?

He could insist that the use of Star Wars logos, characters, and likenesses not be used, because it constitutes mutilation of his work (not that he intends to sign away copyright to Star Wars; he has been nothing if not a shrewd businessman).

Did he sign away any rights and can't do jack-all about it, or does he still have some measure of control as the creator of the Star Wars franchise?

He still retains some measure of control. The Harvard law school webpage uses the example of a public exhibition of a painting upon which someone puts a moustache; the creator has the right to demand that the new owner of the property either remove the defacement or not show it in public, as he retains moral rights.

[ViciousMink]

Speaking hypothetically, if someone had purchased the rights to Star Wars* and made 'Episode VII: A Call To Arms'** or whatever title you wish to call it, and Lucas didn't like it, what could he do?

He could insist that the use of Star Wars logos, characters, and likenesses not be used, because it constitutes mutilation of his work (not that he intends to sign away copyright to Star Wars; he has been nothing if not a shrewd businessman).

No, I would never suggest that he really would. =) That was entirely hypothetical.

Fascinating, though! Does only the artist retain moral rights, or can his estate claim them as well? Could, in theory, Majel Roddenberry look at the Trek Franchise and say 'I do not want the Trek name assosciated with this, it ruins the reputation of my late husband!'? (Cause, frankly, I wouldn't blame her....) Going back to LOTR2: 'Klingons Get Their Asses Kicked By Uruk-hai' could the estate of Tolkein look at the tripe B&B made of LOTR and, despite signing over the copyrights, have every copy of the filmprint burned and wipe it from the cultural memory of hte human race (not that they'd need to ask us to do that....)

Huh... in fact... I wonder if that's not the reason why 'Enterprise' doesn't have 'Star Trek' in it's name.... Nah, that's too far-fetched!