Zoom-in Online

If you have attempted to get a spec script read without having an agent, manager, or lawyer to make the submission for you, it's likely that you've encountered a release form asking you to sign away the right to sue if the company makes a movie that tells a similar story, with scary language that looks like this:

3. I will not assert against you, your affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees, assigns, officers, agents or
employees any claim based on plagiarism, infringement, confidential relationship, implied
contract, unfair competition or otherwise arising out of any alleged use by you of the Project.
4. If, notwithstanding my release contained above, I should hereafter claim that you have used the
Project, or any portion thereof, without my consent or authorization, I specifically agree and
understand that I will suffer no damages in excess of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) and that such
damages up to said limit shall be my sole remedy and shall be payable only in the event a court of
competent jurisdiction shall find that you have wrongfully appropriated the Project from me and
that the Project is original with me.

Or, you haven't been able to submit your script at all because the company has a policy of not reading unsolicited manuscripts. The companies have these policies in order to protect themselves from lawsuits that might tie up a completed film in litigation and create a revenue-threatening delay in release.

Today's New York Times features an article about John A. Marder, a lawyer involved in some very high-profile cases involving "idea theft." Art Buchwald's successful suit against Paramount for stealing his idea and turning it into Coming to America is the most famous example. This paragraph spells out one of the reasons that these types of lawsuits - even when justified - are so feared:

In an unsuccessful brief opposing the 2004 appellate decision, one lawyer went so far as to predict that studios might close the door to all but well-known insiders. "Companies engaged in the development of entertainment programs may well find it necessary to refuse all contact or submissions from unknown writers -- chilling the exchange of ideas, limiting the career prospects of many aspiring authors and potentially depriving the public of the production of new programs," wrote Kelly Sager on behalf of Viacom Inc., parent to Paramount Pictures and other entertainment operations.

I think this is a legitimate point, but not because of any precedent set by court cases. There's plagiarism, and there's stealing, and both need to be dealt with in order to protect the rights of artists and their work. However, copyright protection of work does not protect the basic idea, only the execution.

But how do you determine what is idea, and what is execution? I did festival reading for about 8 years, so I was reading an average of 300 unproduced, generally unrepresented scripts every spring/summer. It started to be funny how many stories/themes/types of characters/plot elements just kept recurring, and not just in scripts that were on-the-nose stereotypical genre pieces. I'm talking about well-written, original unproduced scripts that just happened to read like several other well-written, original unproduced scripts. These writers weren't plagiarizing each other, because they would have had no access to each other. It was practically Jungian - the same ideas bubbling up through different writers, as if these stories were demanding that someone, anyone, get them told. I mean, you show me a 10-year-old girl on summer vacation, and if it's an indie drama I bet there will be a swimming pool, an older sister (17) who's like a mother figure, a quirky mom who loves the younger sister best, and some type of fantasy element. Maybe all these writers read the same screenwriting book, but I've read all those books and I don't think that accounts for it.

Everyone's conservative when it comes to this stuff, because nobody wants to be the one that brought in a project that got slapped with a lawsuit, and we've seen in other corners that litigation has led to an unnecessary restrictions on creativity. That's why Sager's idea can't be dismissed. I think it's unfortunate that the appropriate pursuit of justice for aggrieved writers is likely to lead to fewer opportunities for original works by new writers to get a fair shake in the marketplace.

If producers or agents can't risk reading new writers at all, then we'll have squandered everything that was achieved in the 90s indie revolution, and let fear dictate what movies are worth making. Best case scenario is that we see more book adaptations (though not all books, no matter how wonderful, should be made into movies), but worst-case scenario is that the studios keep churning out remakes, sequels, and TV-show adaptations. And with good reason to go to the movies in increasingly short supply, it'll take a lot more than just snazzy technology to get people to buy tickets.