The legalities of using scientific ideas

JoeJett · Sep 2, 2009

Last year I watched a YouTube video about a possible scientific breakthrough in the area of physics. It gave me an idea for a screenplay and I'm currently researching the subject.

Attempting to go directly to the source for help, I contacted one of the scientists from the film. Predictably, he never answered me. I gave it a shot.

To quote Alec Baldwen from Glengarry Glen Ross: "Well, I'm goin' anyway."

I'm pretty certain that scientific ideas aren't copyrighted. In fact, I think the scientific method is all about sharing your work so that others can help support (or demolish) your ideas. I hope this "sharing" also extends to those of us in the creative fields.

Truthfully, my entire plot revolves around this one idea, so if it was ever made into a movie, it would be pretty obvious (to anyone who studies this stuff) where I got my inspiration.

My question is simple: is any of this a problem? Legally speaking, that is. Of course we all know the best science fiction relies heavily on real scientific ideas, which is basically what I'm doing. But while the makers of Star Trek merely take the idea of faster-than-light travel and then build their own ship (with all the techno-babble you could want) to reach that lofty paradigm, I'm taking a set of real blueprints for a theorized FTL drive and surrounding it with a bunch of fictional characters and events. This is just an analogy. My idea isn't really about starships. But I hope I've clarified my concerns. In other words, if you're a scientist and you have an idea about how the cosmos works, how to go faster than light or how to build a better mousetrap, and if, in turn, you plaster yourself all over the internet to explain these ideas, is it open season for scribblers like us to dramatize your work? (Even if part of the drama necessarily entails twisting your innocuous vision into a horrifying, world ending event?

)

Any advice anyone can give would be greatly appreciated.

Libbie · Sep 2, 2009

Scientific ideas are not copyrighted. However, a lot of stuff that gets talked about early on ends up being disproved at a later date. Science is always flexible, and new theories are subject to lots of subsequent testing and, therefore, alteration or outright obliteration.

If you're concerned with being scientifically accurate in your fiction, I'd wait for this theory to mature and be tested more.

If you just think the idea is cool and you don't care whether the theory proves to be sound later on, go for it.

JoeJett · Sep 2, 2009

Thank you Libbie. And you bring up an excellent point. I should be more concerned about the viability of this rather "far out" science than whether its inclusion in a film will incur the wrath of its few proponents. What production company in its right mind would invest in a script about a science that, three years down the line, is debunked?

My answer, then, is obscurity. Not only will obscurity help me fill the gaps (or ignore altogether) the areas where my own scientific knowledge is lacking, but it'll allow me to concentrate more on the story and less on the "science" behind it. Finally, no pesky defamation of character suits from anyone.

Thank you again.

Cyia · Sep 2, 2009

Scientific discoveries can't be copyrighted, but breakthroughs leading to physical objects or technologies can be patented, not sure about the legal ramifications there, but most high tech stuff is guarded for good reason.

And you have a couple of faulty assumptions:

1. Science is NOT always altruistic. Scientists working on common projects are usually racing against each other for serious money (which goes to the first one to get the project to work in the form of research grants). Because of this, they don't go around handing out specifics of what they're working on or the intricacies of how those things work. No one wants to aid in the reverse engineering of their own life's work. And for some of the men and women in theoretical science positions, you're talking decades of work that's blown if they get scooped by giving away their secrets.

2. Producers couldn't care less if the science is sound or not. That's a secondary (or less) concern. They want a movie that will make money, and should you write one and actually get it optioned or purchased, it's not likely that the version you write will be the version on screen anyway. It'll go through rewrites by people who aren't you and who also don't care if the science is sound. If the plot requires that a device works a certain way, then that's how it will work - the facts of the science don't matter.

IceCreamEmpress · Sep 2, 2009

JoeJett said:
What production company in its right mind would invest in a script about a science that, three years down the line, is debunked?

We are talking about the industry that brought us Krakatoa, East of Java. Scientific accuracy is at even less of a premium than geographical accuracy in Hollywood.

It's all unobtanium and red matter.

Libbie · Sep 2, 2009

JoeJett said:
What production company in its right mind would invest in a script about a science that, three years down the line, is debunked?

Just about all of them, apparently. Have you seen Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site? He lists various movies that have either ignored well-known science or used goofy pseudo-theories. Most production companies are not at all concerned with getting their science right, though I applaud you for caring about it. Real science is often way cooler than pseudoscience or even straight-up fiction. I wish more writers and producers cared about portraying science correctly.

But if the idea is cool and it will work for you, I doubt a production company would have any reluctance to go with it.

cscarlet · Sep 2, 2009

What production company in its right mind would invest in a script about a science that, three years down the line, is debunked?

Don't forget too, they're catering to the masses. This means something obscure (like a physics theory) is not going to have large sway in their decision making process. They will likely assume that the majority of the population is not "up" on their physics-lingo.

... shoot, now that I'm thinking of it, I don't even think it would matter if it was an UNobscure discovery. If someone had an awesome SF movie based on the world being flat, and they thought it would be a blockbuster, they'd say "Well crap. The world's gonna be flat now, isn't it. Go-go magic CGI."

The legalities of using scientific ideas

JoeJett

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

JoeJett

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

cscarlet

AW = Procrastination.