speaking of copyright

Lake Films

Lake Films

Veteran
Does anyone know the law on copyrights with a script? Here's the situation, a guy who used to write for me is now gone from my company. I wanted to 're-do' one of the stories he had written, but of course change characters, title and the story somewhat. Would this be legal to do the story, as he threatened a lawsuit if I proceeded. Thanks.
 
The answer to the question comes down to who the copyright holder is. Did he write this for you, as a work-for-hire while under your employment... or, did he write this on his own when he worked for you? In what capacity did he work for you? As a camera operator or tomato sauce can labeler or as a writer?

Did you ever option it? Were you writing partners with a letter of intent?

If you have no legal, provable interest in this property, you should option it for your own use and adaptation or be prepared to go to court over it.

e
 
It was one of those things, you're friends and he writes a script for me to produce. There was no employment involved nor a contract. Basically, he only wrote for me and helped here & there on set. If it possess a big problem I will move on and find another story, I just wanted to know what the real deal is.
 
Lake Films said:
It was one of those things, you're friends and he writes a script for me to produce. There was no employment involved nor a contract. Basically, he only wrote for me and helped here & there on set. If it possess a big problem I will move on and find another story, I just wanted to know what the real deal is.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney. I have a good amount of experience in optioning both concepts and written collateral for production. Based on your statement above, I'd say two things:
  1. The screenplay is absolutely his. If you pitched him a concept, story or original idea, then talked it forward until he had a finished script, you have a basis for disputing the ownership. Still, if you have no letter of intent, (e.g., Tom had an idea, Dick is going to write the script for it, both Tom and Dick will try to get it financed for production) you have little to stand on in court.
  2. Even if "1" is true, you still have the option to option the work for development. That door, unless he is already under an option for development is always open. Now, if he doesn't like you or the color of your money, well... he has all the power in that scenario.
Good luck.

e
 
One last question.
If the story, characters and title are changed with the same basic premise, does he have a case? I thought it was only if someone copied the script verbatim, that they would have a case?

For example, can't someone make a film about a shark terrorizing a small town, with characters trying to kill it. But name it let's say, 'swiming fear' ?

Forgive my ignorance, I do not know the law when it comes to this.
 
Substantial Similarity, an allegation the original writer may claim against you. What is 'substantial'? 51%? All the facts and circumstances of a particular case would be reviewed by a Court and a decision made. Not legal advice. :D
 
The fact that you've already had a "conversation" with the author about appropriating the story, or elements therein, probably assures you a court-appointed "writing partner" if you decided to throw caution to the wind and go for it without purchasing the right to do so.

It's easier to pay now than to pay later.

Art Buchwald did little for Paramount's reputation (calling into question both the general ethics of the studio and the legality of their accounting department's practices) when the King For a Day debacle made a very loud clashing sound heard across the country. That illustrates neatly the ultimate pay later scenario.

e
 
Christopher Barry said:
Substantial Similarity, an allegation the original writer may claim against you. What is 'substantial'? 51%? All the facts and circumstances of a particular case would be reviewed by a Court and a decision made. Not legal advice. :D
Click to expand...

my two cents, what you just said about 51% only applies to scenerios involving the WGA. the fact is that the origianl writer wrote the script and it belongs to him.

substantial similarity my arse! copy infringement is copyright infringewment no matter how you cut it. Yes their is fair use but you're talking about using his story with changes in character and some dialogue and or scenes.

You know what i think I'm going to take a song from madona and change some lyrics around less than 51% of course and make sure it passes the subtantial similarity test -- I''ll make sure that i use just one or two of her lyric lines. THis should definitley pass the similarity test! Right(?)

madonna will eventually find out and will FRY MY ARSE.

copyright law is coryright law what applies to lyrics applies to writing. IF it's not yours don't use it. You will eventually get caught and Judges lean towards the copyright owner.
 
Just so there is no misunderstanding from what I said above, I am not suggesting adapt material to less than 51%. I am all for protecting copyright and have my own works I need to protect and soon will work in with another writer, etc, and will also need to figure out how to do this respecting both parties interests. I never meant to reference WGA and the 51% rule. I was canvassing more of an Australian/English common law reference to what 'substantial' would mean in a Court, failing definition by say, The Copyright Act (Australia). Here in an interesting US read on Substantial Similarity.

End game. strike a deal with the other party, get it in writing and use an entertainment lawyer if you don't have a standard precedent that you know works. All the best in solving it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top