• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Details of Ellison's Repent Harlequin/In Time Lawsuit

Sir Rhosis

Commodore
Commodore
First, I'm aware that there was a recent thread that dealt with this matter. However, the inflammatory thread title (which the OP, it should be noted, apologized for) and the fact that the thread devolved into a debate about copyright law leads me to open a new thread, one which I hope will remain civil and on-topic.

That said, a site called moviemavericks.com purports to have a copy of the actual filing, a portion of which I will quote below, which shows the similarities between the two works. I don't know if this is the entire list or not.

In order that my fellow posters may be better informed, the rest of this post is from Ellison's filing:

The similarity between In Time and Repent, Harlequin! is obvious and, indeed, widely noted by critics who have seen advanced screenings. For example, Richard Roeper states in his Fall Movie Preview that “In Time is based on a brilliant story by the great Harlan Ellison…” Similarly, the E-Street preview states that In Time is “ased on the Harlan Ellison story ‘Repent, Harlequin, said the Ticktockman…’”

In Time copies key plot elements, themes, characters, events, sequences and settings of Repent, Harlequin!, including without limitation, the following:

Repent, Harlequin! takes place in a dystopian corporate future in which everyone is allotted a specific amount of time to live. The precise amount of time each person has left to live is known, tracked on a time card, and subject to monitoring by a government authority known as the “Master Timekeeper”. In Time also takes place in a dystopian corporate future in which everyone is allotted a specific amount of time to live. The precise amount of time each person has left to live is known, tracked on a luminescent clock displayed on the arm, and subject to monitoring by a government authority known as the “Senior Timekeeper.”

In Repent, Harlequin!, the amount of time an individual has left to live may be manipulated, and breaking the rules of society results in the deduction of time from the perpetrator’s life. For example, tardiness to work results in revocation of a commensurate amount of time from one’s life. Similarly, in In Time, the amount of time one has left to live may be manipulated, and violation are punished by deducting time from the perpetrator’s life, such as for tardiness to work or failure to meet one’s quota.

In Repent, Harlequin!, when one’s allotted time to live has expired, instant death occurs by stoppage of the heart. This is precisely what happens to In Time characters, as well.

In Repent, Harlequin!, the constant threat of advancing the time of one’s death by time revocation is the system used to force conformity with a highly regimented and oppressive society in which the masses are forced to adhere to a strict time schedule in their daily lives as they serve their corporate masters. Similarly, in In Time, the constant threat is imminent death by running out of one’s allotted time is the system used to force conformity with a highly regimented and oppressive society in which the masses live short, brutish lives of poverty in service to the wealthy corporate elite.

The protagonist in Repent, Harlequin! rebels against the system in the hopes of destroying it and restoring freedom to the masses. He becomes an outlaw and a hero of the people by sabotaging the system in ways that disrupt the strict schedule and encourages people to enjoy their time. The protagonist in In Time also rebels against the system in the hopes of destroying it. He becomes an outlaw and hero of the people by sabotaging the strict time distribution system by giving others more time to live.

In Repent, Harlequin!, the protagonist’s acts of defiance present a threat to the system of strict schedule control enforced by the Master Timekeeper and his staff, who monitor infractions from a central command post. The Master Timekeeper and his staff proceed to hunt down the protagonist, at first using wanted posters and eventually by resorting to informants and torture. Similarly, in In Time, the protagonist’s acts of defiance present a threat to the system of strict time distribution control enforced by the Senior Timekeeper and his staff, who monitor infractions from a central command post. The Senior Timekeeper and his staff proceed to hunt down the protagonist, at first using electronic wanted posters and eventually employing a street gang that uses intimidation, torture and murder.

Sir Rhosis
 
I dunno... most of those things are logical outgrowths from the core premise "What if lifespan were bought and sold like money?", which is a pretty natural idea for a critique of poverty and economic injustice in our society. So it all boils down to a single core idea that two creators could've easily enough hit on independently. (I find it hard to believe that these are the only two stories ever to use the concept of lifespan as a tradeable resource; can anyone think of other examples?)

Ideas resemble each other all the time. It's just part of creativity. The way to demonstrate that there's merit to this case is to demonstrate that the writers of In Time had prior familiarity with Ellison's story; otherwise I don't think it can be proven to be more than a coincidence, or rather, a consequence of different creators in the same culture drawing on the same conceptual zeitgeist. Then again, any SF-literate reader should have read "Repent, Harlequin" at some time in one's life; I've read it myself, though it was long ago.
 
Take the specific lifespan element out of it, and both of those stories are yet another version of 1984, nothing more.

Soylent Green did kind of touch on this idea (trade with life/lifespan), too. Or The Island. Or even Star Trek: Insurrection. Eventually it probably goes way back to Dorian Gray in some form. The idea that you pay for longer life is very old (it doesn't have to be money specifically).
 
Well, the resemblances as laid out are not trivial. This isn't a frivolous suit.

And that's the thing about Ellison ... He doesn't do frivolous suits. His lawsuits are as a last resort, after trying to work with whoever "borrowed" from him. And he doesn't sue unless he is convinced he can win.
 
That said, a site called moviemavericks.com purports to have a copy of the actual filing, a portion of which I will quote below, which shows the similarities between the two works. I don't know if this is the entire list or not.

Is there some kind of link to it?
 
Well, the resemblances as laid out are not trivial. This isn't a frivolous suit.

Well, that's the key point, right there. Of course the filing is going to play up whatever similarities they can find. Personally, I'm not sanguine about the fact that the second half of the argument is asserting that Ellison has creative control over the idea "Guy rebels against corrupt government, corrupt government declares him an outlaw and he goes on the run." Something seems fishy when they actually resort to saying it's evidence of theft that a character the government doesn't like has his picture printed up on wanted posters, or that the bad guys have a base of operations(!). We could have a thread that was just a round-robin game of thinking of stories the last three paragraphs apply to. Robin Hood! The Empire Strikes Back! 1984! Wall-E!

Comparing the description in the filing to the other summaries I've seen of the film and Ellison's story, it strikes me as being about as much of a stretch as that joke that "Star Wars" and "Harry Potter" are exactly the same story. Broadly similar, yes, and good for a quick joke, but that's not going to get you your injunction in court. It could be good enough for a settlement, but that depends on whether or not he's bluffing when he says he wants to stop the release completely to prevent competition with the authorized adaptation of the story.

Ironically enough, I wouldn't be surprised if filing suit actually makes it harder for Ellison to get "Harlequin" made into a movie. Before he asserted the similarities, it probably just would've ended up being a case of dueling movies, but now, anyone who's looking at it will assume that "In Time" was a straight adaptation, so there's no point to doing another one that soon, no matter how differently the concept is attacked. Just like how a lot of people have pretty off-base ideas about the plot of "Soldier" or "Demon With A Glass Hand" because "The Terminator" was ostensibly such a direct, blatant rip-off.

Incidentally, is there a list or something of Ellison's previous infringement suits and how they went? He's got a reputation, and people have referred to his history in this area in the plural, but I looked it up and could only find the "Terminator" case and a collection of suits regarding online ebook piracy, which is a totally different ball of wax.
 
Well, the resemblances as laid out are not trivial. This isn't a frivolous suit.

Well, that's the key point, right there. Of course the filing is going to play up whatever similarities they can find. Personally, I'm not sanguine about the fact that the second half of the argument is asserting that Ellison has creative control over the idea "Guy rebels against corrupt government, corrupt government declares him an outlaw and he goes on the run."

It's much more specific than that.
 
Only because it references arguments established in the first three paragraphs. The concepts unique to the latter half that aren't just reiterating the involvement of the former half are overly broad. It'd be like if he threw in a seventh paragraph relating to the anticipated film adaptation of "Harlequin":
Hypothetical Seventh Paragraph said:
In Repent, Harlequin!, the film concludes with text scrolling upwards identifying actors and production personnel involved in the creation of the film, specifically citing the actor who portrayed the Senior Timekeeper. Similarly, in In Time, a scrolling collection of text appears at the end of the film, identifying key personnel, including the actor who played the Master Timekeeper.

You can't copyright an idea, or a premise. "What if lifespan could be bought and sold?" is not enough to prove infringement. He needs to exhibit that In Time develops in ways that are similar to "Repent, Harlequin," but are not obvious extensions of the root premise. His strongest arguments are in the first three paragraphs, where the lifespan-economy is government-regulated (with a specific departmental head), "bankruptcy" is automatically and fatally enforced, and lifespan is regularly deducted by punitive fines. Those are his best points, and the filing would be much stronger from my layman's perspective if it had omitted the last three paragraphs altogether. A short filing would be succinct, but including the latter half seems like padding, and padding means he isn't confident that he has enough good points to make his case. It's inclusion diminishes the rest of the filing.
 
Only because it references arguments established in the first three paragraphs. The concepts unique to the latter half that aren't just reiterating the involvement of the former half are overly broad.

I imagine that's why the first three paragraphs are included in the brief.

To be clear, my sympathies going in are with Ellison - my bias is that individuals going after copyright infringement in the entertainment industry are the "white hats" until there's some specific reason to think otherwise because that's usually the case.
 
On the whole, I agree that you can't infringe on the idea. And since I'm a consumer and not a content producer, I'm generally going to fall on the side of wanting to view the content, regardless of who owns the IP.

But you gotta admit, the similarity of the titles of "Master Timekeeper" and "Senior Timekeeper" is pretty damning. If its not pure chance, the only other way to get something so similar would be direct parody, and direct parody pretty much admits theft.

So unless In Time is a comedy, this seems pretty solid.
 
And since I'm a consumer and not a content producer, I'm generally going to fall on the side of wanting to view the content, regardless of who owns the IP.

Since I'm an account holder and not a banker, I'm generally going to fall on the side of wanting to have all the money in the vault, regardless of who it belongs to.

The tellers at my bank are recalcitrant on this point.
 
Well, the resemblances as laid out are not trivial. This isn't a frivolous suit.

Well, that's the key point, right there. Of course the filing is going to play up whatever similarities they can find.

Exactly. It's easy to claim that two things are very similar if you cherrypick the evidence and phrase your descriptions in ways that play up the similarities and ignore the differences. I see people on the Internet do it all the time to support foolish arguments about one movie or show being "ripped off" from another (which usually just betrays their ignorance of the dozens or hundreds of earlier stories that used the same elements). And what I see here seems to be playing the same game, so I think there are grounds for skepticism.


But you gotta admit, the similarity of the titles of "Master Timekeeper" and "Senior Timekeeper" is pretty damning. If its not pure chance, the only other way to get something so similar would be direct parody, and direct parody pretty much admits theft.

But it's not like Harlan Ellison was the first person in history to use the word "timekeeper." A timekeeper is someone or something who keeps track of time in any of a number of contexts, like a sporting event or a job paid by the hour. So it's a natural title for an official who keeps track of how much time people have left to live in a story like this. Therefore, if they both independently came up with the same idea, it's not at all unlikely that they would've independently chosen the title "Timekeeper" for a character in that position. It could easily be coincidence.
 
To the earlier poster who wanted to know of other suits Ellison has won. Google "Ellison Bova Brillo," and you should find results relating to suit brought by him and Ben Bova against a production company. Around 1970, Ellison and Ben Bova co-authored a story called "Brillo," and in the late-70s/early 80s, they won their suit agianst the producers of a short-lived TV show called, iirc, "Future Cop" for infringement.

Sir Rhosis

http://www.terminatorfiles.com/media/articles/moviesfacts_013.htm

An article that mentions Ellison's Terminator and Brillo suits (as well as the Van Vogt/Alien suit).

Sir Rhosis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just sad the the movie, this lawsuit, and Ellison's age probably means that a real Harlequin movie is out of the question any time soon.
 
It's interesting that Richard Roeper's review matter of factly said In Time was based on "Repent Harlequin", as if he gleaned that information as matter-of-factly as seeing it in a credits sequence.

I can see what people are saying about the idea of time as money itself being beyond Ellison's copyright (I'd swear one of Terry Pratchett's early sci-fi novels used exactly this idea, but it's been over a decade since I read 'em) and it's also true that the basic 'man on the run from dystopian government' idea is one of the most relentlessly exploited cliches in science fiction, but... well.

One will see. The case looks pretty strong at a glance, but it's a glance that's neither read the story nor seen the film. Perhaps I should do both (because we all know this film will be released, eventually) and evaluate retroactively.

I'm just sad the the movie, this lawsuit, and Ellison's age

I can see how hypothetically the movie and the lawsuit are important here, but why would Ellison's age matter? Plenty of elderly writers have seen their works adapted into movies decades after they were published. Hell, dead writers have also done pretty good for themselves, this year did see the nine billionth cinematic adaption of the late, great Phil K. Dick (the fairly solid Adjustment Bureau).
 
It's interesting that Richard Roeper's review matter of factly said In Time was based on "Repent Harlequin", as if he gleaned that information as matter-of-factly as seeing it in a credits sequence.

I can see what people are saying about the idea of time as money itself being beyond Ellison's copyright (I'd swear one of Terry Pratchett's early sci-fi novels used exactly this idea, but it's been over a decade since I read 'em) and it's also true that the basic 'man on the run from dystopian government' idea is one of the most relentlessly exploited cliches in science fiction, but... well.

One will see. The case looks pretty strong at a glance, but it's a glance that's neither read the story nor seen the film. Perhaps I should do both (because we all know this film will be released, eventually) and evaluate retroactively.

I'm just sad the the movie, this lawsuit, and Ellison's age

I can see how hypothetically the movie and the lawsuit are important here, but why would Ellison's age matter? Plenty of elderly writers have seen their works adapted into movies decades after they were published. Hell, dead writers have also done pretty good for themselves, this year did see the nine billionth cinematic adaption of the late, great Phil K. Dick (the fairly solid Adjustment Bureau).

Ah I should have mentioned...Ellison only recently seems to have actively tried to get the story adapted, or at least that's what I am seeing on the net. So I doubt he'll see his attempts come to fruition.
 
Is there some kind of link to it?
Well, there's the link I posted on the other thread on Sept. 24:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/65510308/Complaint-Harlan-Ellison-in-Time

Ah I should have mentioned...Ellison only recently seems to have actively tried to get the story adapted, or at least that's what I am seeing on the net. So I doubt he'll see his attempts come to fruition.
That's likely why his suit wants to stop the release altogether. The script has already been written.

Jan
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top