leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (06/12/85)
A few people have mentioned the legal bruhaha about the film THE TERMINATOR and the payment that Ellison received on copyright infringment grounds for similarities to the two Outer Limits episodes that Ellison wrote. I haven't seen much in the way of opinion about the situation. I want to express an opinion. I think it stinks. Science fiction is a literature that prides itself on freedom of ideas. For a long time science fiction in the magazines was really a dialog of ideas. One author would disagree with another by writing a story along similar lines, but would vary the idea showing how he thought things would work out differently. Writers built on the ideas of previous authors. They came to assume, in fact, that the reader was familiar with earlier works on the same subject. Wells had to explain the concept of time travel in TIME MACHINE, Ellison didn't in Soldier From the Future. Stories borrowed ideas from other stories all the time and nobody paid much attention because that is the way the science fiction game is played. And one reason it could be played that way is that large sums of money were not involved. Then TV and cinema got into the science fiction act and still there did not seem to be much of a problem since science fiction was still not a big moneymaker. Then Ellison and Bova wrote a story called "Brillo" about how a human is better than a robot to act as a policeman. In some ways it reused ideas from Asimov and others, but nobody cared because it was a different approach to some of Asimov's ideas. A TV network considered adapting "Brillo" into a series or a TV movie or something but the project never got off the ground. That same netword did do a series on the concept that a robot policeman would have to overcome initial prejudice, but would be a good thing. It is highly profitable to win a suit against a network and Ellison and Bova sued. They apparently demonstrated that "Brillo" inspired the concept of FUTURE COP and laid claim to ownership of the idea of a robot policeman. They must have had a darn good lawyer but they won that one. Science fiction fans everywhere applauded that a couple science fiction writers had won a suit against a big, bad corporation. After Fox made ALIEN, Van Vogt threatened to sue over similarities to his "Discord in Scarlet." Apparently egg-laying aliens is another owned idea. Now I admit when I saw TERMINATOR I did think of "Soldier from the Future." I thought a whole lot more about CYBORG 2087, a film in which a cyborg is sent back into our present to avert a totalitarian future. I can't tell you what concept Ellison must have claimed was stolen from him. "Soldier" was about a soldier, not a civilian or a robot. Is it the idea of time travellers coming from the future into the present to avert a bad future? Surely that is too broad for Ellison to claim all of it. My impression is that Ellison is just a parasite who claims to be disgusted at how the film industry does not meet his high science fiction standards, yet when they try to play by the same rules that we expect from science fiction writers, he is right in there with his lawyer trying to make a fast buck. Anyone else out there have thoughts on this. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (06/14/85)
In article <826@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > >After Fox made ALIEN, Van Vogt threatened to sue over similarities to >his "Discord in Scarlet." Apparently egg-laying aliens is another >owned idea. > I object, Mark! When I saw Alien I thought so much was taken that I expected to see Van Vogt in the credits. It's not just an egg-laying alien ... it's an alien picked up by an interstellar ship that lays eggs in people and lurks almost indetectibly in the ship picking off a crewman at a time in horrible ways. I don't disagree with your Ellison points -- he disowned his only work that I've ever liked, so he gets no sympathy from me -- but I think your sarcasm is uncalled for on this one. Besides, Van Vogt didn't sue, did he? ------ Plagiarize, plagiarize, that's why the good Lord made yer eyes ... only please to call it "research". -- from "Nicolai Ivanovich Lobatchevsky", by Tom Lehrer -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (06/24/85)
> >After Fox made ALIEN, Van Vogt threatened to sue over similarities to > >his "Discord in Scarlet." Apparently egg-laying aliens is another > >owned idea. > > > I object, Mark! When I saw Alien I thought so much was taken > that I expected to see Van Vogt in the credits. It's not just an > egg-laying alien ... it's an alien picked up by an interstellar > ship that lays eggs in people Sorry, the idea of a creature that lays its eggs in other creatures and uses them distructively to incubate them was used long ago by a fellow named E. Coli. Mr. Coli has been using this idea for millions of years now. Admittedly he is not an alien, but you don't see him every day. >and lurks almost indetectibly in > the ship picking off a crewman at a time in horrible ways. The alien creature was an amalgam of the least esthetic traits of several different Terrestrial creatures. For example, left on the the cutting room floor was the scene in which Capt. Dallas was found alive, trussed up in silk the way a spider would, to be feasted on a bit at a time. (An early review, based on the prerelease version especially mentioned this nightmarish scene--I bet it would have been a good one, too.) Apparently the scene was cut out just before release and I am told it is still in the novel. Other places it looks and grabs like a crab, etc. In any case, it is easy to see that they have it reproduce by pumping genetic material into a victim like a wasp or a virus, and letting it incubate, leaving the victim alive, until they hatch and eat their way out. I really think that the similarities to "Discord" are coincidental. And regrettable but accidental. >I > don't disagree with your Ellison points -- he disowned his only > work that I've ever liked, so he gets no sympathy from me -- but > I think your sarcasm is uncalled for on this one. Besides, Van > Vogt didn't sue, did he? He threatened to, I have heard, and got a payoff, much like the happened in the recent Ellison incident. Forry Ackerman talked at a convention about how he convinced Van Vogt to sue. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/25/85)
>A few people have mentioned the legal bruhaha about the film THE >TERMINATOR and the payment that Ellison received on copyright >infringment grounds for similarities to the two Outer Limits episodes >that Ellison wrote. I haven't seen much in the way of opinion about >the situation. I want to express an opinion. I think it stinks. >... >Then Ellison and Bova wrote a story called "Brillo" about how a human >is better than a robot to act as a policeman. In some ways it reused >ideas from Asimov and others, but nobody cared because it was a >different approach to some of Asimov's ideas. A TV network considered >adapting "Brillo" into a series or a TV movie or something but the >project never got off the ground. That same netword did do a series on >the concept that a robot policeman would have to overcome initial >prejudice, but would be a good thing. It is highly profitable to win a >suit against a network and Ellison and Bova sued. They apparently >demonstrated that "Brillo" inspired the concept of FUTURE COP and laid >claim to ownership of the idea of a robot policeman. They must have >had a darn good lawyer but they won that one. Science fiction fans >everywhere applauded that a couple science fiction writers had won a >suit against a big, bad corporation. >.... >My impression is that Ellison is just a parasite who claims to be >disgusted at how the film industry does not meet his high science >fiction standards, yet when they try to play by the same rules that we >expect from science fiction writers, he is right in there with his >lawyer trying to make a fast buck. Anyone else out there have thoughts >on this. Sure do. I'm unfamiliar with the TERMINATOR matter,and don't know if Ellison had good grounds for claiming plagiarism. But "Brillo" was open-and-shut. "Future Cop" was an outright steal of Ellison's and Bova's "Brillo" script. If you think a plagiarism suit is winnable in court just by having a "good lawyer", you ought to look into the "Brillo" case, and the laws on plagiarism generally, a bit more thoroughly. It's very tough to win a plagiarism case, but Ellison had them dead to rights. You might keep in mind that ABC and Paramount had some pretty good lawyers, too. It's easy to sue someone, and even winning such a suit proves nothing if it's settled out of court, since the defendant may have reasons to want to settle with you even if they're not guilty. But to win such a case *in court*, as Ellison and Bova did with "Brillo", against a team of lawyers from two large corporations, is pretty damn conclusive. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry