Cool Script Writing Site

[awrigh01]

I started this project called www.wikiscripts.org (http://www.wikiscripts.org/), which I think can help aspiring screenplays. I am trying to promote, and also get some feedback from people who know something. A friend told me this was a site that had a vibrant community of screenwriters, so I previously posted a "spam like message," because I am, frankly, an idiot.

Wikiscripts is trying to "decentralize" the scriptwriting process by encouraging collaborative scriptwriting, hopefully lessens the pressures on aspiring writers.

On the site people to post concepts for scripts and freely edit all ideas and text on the website. The site is premised on the idea that collective creativity surpasses the unique talents of a few individuals, leading to higher quality scripts.

What do you guys think about this? Any feedback or comments would be appreciated. If you have time, please check out the site too.

[StephieM]

It sounds fishy to me. It seems like the creator of the site is using the creative abilities and talent of others to create scripts s/he can sell. Sure it might be fun to add your own little tweak to it, but it doesn't get you anywhere, or anything.

Not only that, but I'm not sure how well it's going to work out. Imagine a hundred writers working on the same script. A hundred different voices, ideas, writing styles, all mushed together in one script. Hmmm.

I could imagine it being hard enough working with a writing partner.

Thanks for taking the time and posting the link, although I'm not sure I'll be taking part. :)

I have my own ideas that in time I hope to get full credit for. :Sun:

Steph

[clockwork]

Sounds like a Sisyphean nightmare. What's to stop someone changing /deleting all your hard work and who gets to decide what's in the best creative interests for the project anyway?

My biggest gripe with Hollywood is too many cooks spoiling the broth but this sounds like too many cooks completely evaporating the broth and leaving a charred, indestructable crust of god-knows-what fused to the pan.

"For each purchased script, Wikiscripts will receive 30-50% of the purchase price to cover production costs and fund additional Decentralized Media (http://wikiscripts.org/mwiki/index.php?title=Decentralized_Media)substantial edits (http://wikiscripts.org/mwiki/index.php?title=Substantial_edits&action=edit) projects. The remaining 50-70% will be distributed pro rata to those registered users who make substantial edits (http://wikiscripts.org/mwiki/index.php?title=Substantial_edits&action=edit) to the purchased scripts."

I think I have a headache. No offence, awrigh01, if you want to give it a shot more power to you sir, but IMO, "Definitely a package you don't want to open or touch."

[StephieM]

After reading the fine print, it seems more and more like a scam.

The purchase price for each script is individually negotiated. For each purchased script, Wikiscripts will receive 30-50% of the purchase price to cover production costs and fund additional Decentralized Media projects. The remaining 50-70% will be distributed pro rata to those registered users who make substantial edits to the purchased scripts.

Say a script sells for $300,000, if Wikiscripts takes 50%, which they will regardless of what it says, that only gives $150,000 to be divided among the writers. Say there are 30 writers who share the credit. Each writer would only get $5,000. That's if it isn't a scam. What's to keep them from saying there were a thousand writers working on the script. It all works out great for them, they get half the profit just for doing nothing and we'll be lucky if we get a measely ten dollars in the mail.

And I second what clockwork9 said. I don't know how I'd feel if I spent all my time editing a script then have someone else come in and change everything I did.

Like I said, this doesn't get you anywhere or anything.

This should be on the "beware of scams" list.

Steph

[Aldenard]

Uhm, I can't seem to find any of the 'scripts in production', even on IMDb. Would you mind clarifying, and perhaps providing more insight on each project (such as director, company, ect.) Why is each script copyrighted by Scott Fener as well? So he wrote all of those? Did he register them with the WGA? I can't find his name on IMDb, nor the scripts. And why are you stealing the idea from Wikipedia?

[Mac H.]

It seems like a reasonable idea for hobbiests.

I don't understand the references to 'purchase price' . This can NEVER result in a script sale.

Why not? According to the Terms of use, materials you submit are licensed to the 'Creative Commons' Deed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

This means that filmmakers are free to copy,distribute, display and perform the work. Free. They don't have to pay anyone!

If the makers of the site accepted that, it would be a lot easier on everyone.
(And since this site is a Wiki, this change has now been made)

Mac.
PS: Aldernard: 'In Production' just means it is on the site. It doesn't mean somebody is making the film. 'In Progress' would be a better title. And Scott Fener may have 'copyrighted' the scripts as well, but once he submitted them to the site he agreed that it could be used under the Creative Common license - so it is free to use.

And the idea wasn't 'stolen' from Wikipedia - There are plenty of "Wikis" out there. Wikipedia is just the most famous of them.

PPS: awrigh01: I suspect this was just a drive-by spamming (so you'll probably never read this) but it is ILLEGAL in the USA to market the site like you have. You can NOT say "I found this cool site" when, in fact, you are not just an enthusiast who found the cool site. If you don't believe me, just research FTC findings against 'Georgetown Publishing'.

Even if you didn't know that it was illegal (in which case you probably shouldn't be marketing a website, since you are unaware about the laws governing marketing !) you MUST have known that it was misleading.

What will make us sure that you haven't been misleading the users of your site about anything else ?

[clockwork]

"The collective creativity of humanity far surpasses the unique talents of a few individuals, and together, will lead to higher quality, more entertaining scripts."

Is it just me or is there a distinct whiff of Marxist-Leninism about this? Change 'entertaining scripts' to 'communally owned means of production' and you've got yourself a manifesto.

[Optimus]

You can drink the Kool-Aid if you want, Stego, but I've seen enough snake oil to know not to waste my time with that "service."

[Mac H.]

I think writing with others and seeing how others create is invaluable to us as artists...and where's the scam? do they charge you join the site? No. The only thing is that somehow...somewhere if they the sky rips open and someone actually buys a script from the site (and lord knows that happens all the time...uh...right?) then we might not get any money from it? Who cares? I'm agreeing that it might be fun (or frustrating!) for hobbiests.

However, let's be clear. It is not free. The cost is that you lose ownership of EVERYTHING you submit. That's what the 'sharing' license of the Creative Common means. You no longer 'own' it. If that's zero cost, then fine.

Also, Wikiscripts, despite what they think, can NOT sell the finished script. It's not about lawsuits. The 'sharing' provision means that any derivitive work from something covered by the Creative Common license' is also covered by the license.

This means that if a filmmaker makes a movie from the script, then cinemas can show the film WITHOUT PAYING the filmmaker. DVD makers can distribute the film WITHOUT PAYING the filmmaker. That is the whole point of the 'sharing' license.

If he/she had put the proposal forward as a way of sharing, and been upfront that it was impossible to make any money from it, then there would not have been the same reaction.

But people may mistakingly believe that there is a possibility to be financially rewarded for their time.

Mac
(PS: There have been some very good short 'Publically Shareable' films.
eg: http://www.undergroundfilm.org/media/2005/1017942_lar.mov (http://www.undergroundfilm.org/media/2005/1017942_lar.mov)

It'd be fun to make one. However, you don't even get credit, as you agree that 'WikiScripts' will be considered the author of the final script - not you)

[clockwork]

I agree screenwriting exercises are fun and I've been to a few classes myself but I can't imagine a more endless and ineffective exercise than changing a person's work to suit your style only to have it changed back a few days later by someone else, without discussion, for reasons unknown.

But the main reason I responded so strongly is I don't like the idea of aspiring writers (however naive) thinking they could be due some sort of payment for contributing to a script when it's clearly not going to happen. The site should not make reference to payment percentages being distributed amongst substantive contributors - it's confusing and deceptive. They shouldn't mention money at all. And the whole, "revolutionize television, Hollywood, and Bollywood by organically producing consistent high quality and entertaining scripts" sits badly with me even if they're being tongue in cheek, which I hope they are. Talk about high horses.

[StephieM]

I agree screenwriting exercises are fun and I've been to a few classes myself but I can't imagine a more endless and ineffective exercise than changing a person's work to suit your style only to have it changed back a few days later by someone else, without discussion, for reasons unknown.

But the main reason I responded so strongly is I don't like the idea of aspiring writers (however naive) thinking they could be due some sort of payment for contributing to a script when it's clearly not going to happen. The site should not make reference to payment percentages being distributed amongst substantive contributors - it's confusing and deceptive. They shouldn't mention money at all. And the whole, "revolutionize television, Hollywood, and Bollywood by organically producing consistent high quality and entertaining scripts" sits badly with me even if they're being tongue in cheek, which I hope they are. Talk about high horses.

My thoughts exactly. Just because you don't have to pay to be on the site, newbie screenwriters will see it as an open door. Lots of people will not read the fine print or realize exactly what all of it means. They'll submit thier life's work, thier one pride and joy, without even realizing that they've lost it. Thinking even if they don't get full credit, they'll get something out of it. To me if you're not going to tell it straight and it envolves the mention of money, then your running a scam. If they would of said they were running an experimental site where screenwriters can come together and share there ideas by working on the same scripts as a possible way of learning more about the craft, then I would of said... heck yeah, that sounds great! But they didn't tell it like it is. So they lose. If you want to be apart of something that will inevitably crush the dreams of a newbie, because they lied, more power to ya.

Steph

[Maryn]

I found this cool new scriptwriting site, that I am thinking about using to start writing my first script. It's called www.wikiscripts.org (http://www.wikiscripts.org/). I am not one to promote sites, but I thought you guys would be interested.

The site is trying to "decentralize" the scriptwriting process by encouraging collaborat ive scriptwriting, which they claim lessens the pressures on aspiring writers.

On the site people to post concepts for scripts and freely edit all ideas and text on the website. The site is premised on the idea that collective creativity surpasses the unique talents of a few individuals, leading to higher quality scripts.

What do you guys think about this?

(Sorry for the duplicate . . . I think I put this in the wrong area)Oh, I love the internet, I really do. So much information out there!

Domain Name:WIKISCRIPTS.ORG
Created On:25-Oct-2005 23:18:35 UTC
Expiration Date:25-Oct-2006 23:18:35 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Abacus America Inc dba Names4Ever (R14-LROR)
Registrant Name:xxxxx Wright
Registrant Street1:xxx xxxxx xx
Registrant City:Brooklyn
Registrant State/Province:NY
Registrant Postal Code:11231
Registrant Country:US

Me again. Looks like the gentleman didn't find the site but founded it. I stopped copying and pasting before Mr. Wright's phone number and email address, but they're around for the taking, too. If you'd care to write him a letter, though, you've got everything you need but the stamp. Tell him how much hope you have for his site, and how much his spamming means to us all...

Maryn, occasionally helpful

[Richard]

It doesn't look like a scam, just incredibly pointless. A pretty much out of the box MediaWiki installation, running the Fantasy Writer online RPG.

However, let's be clear. It is not free. The cost is that you lose ownership of EVERYTHING you submit. That's what the 'sharing' license of the Creative Common means. You no longer 'own' it. If that's zero cost, then fine.

Not true. If it's your script, you still have the right to do anything with it, including seperately sell the rights to someone to make a film out of it without having to release it as Share Alike (although that's only if it's all your own work). Although obviously, this is a hypothetical situation - the odds of that happening are roughly zero squared.

What you /can't/ do is retract a license that's already been given, so although you might do a re-write that isn't CC licensed, anyone could still use and build on the draft that you made available.

[StephieM]

I never thought a website could crush someone's dreams. So let me guess...you all copywrighted your little entries in this last contest too.

I think you're worrying about the wrong stuff.

Uh, no. I don't think it's the "wrong stuff". It's important for us, as fellow screenwriters to warn newbies of possible misleadings. But hey, if you think it's so great, join.

Maryn,
Ever think of becoming an investigator? :Sun:

I think once word gets around, he'll realize what a waste of time his efforts were. :)

Steph

[Maryn]

Well congrats! you guys did it! you thoroughly trashed some guys website without ever actually trying it...and did it with such style and grace too. I'm sure all the newbie screenwriters really appreciate all that time and effort you put into investigating and ultimately deciding how useless and stupid it was...I'm sure it was all for the newbies...had nothing whatsoever to do with your need to feel superior to someone else or some crazy highschool click mentality where everyone needs to be excluded.Well, I for one had a problem right off the bat, with the poster lying about finding it when it's his own creation. An inauspicious start.

And the fact that you're all obsessing about someone stealing your work without paying you for it makes you all look like newbies yourselves. I've never EVER met a pro who was scared about putting his stuff out there.We must not know the same people. While it makes sense to many to post scenes that aren't working, for critique and suggestions from their peers, I don't know any professional screenwriters who would post their stuff once it's polished.

and you also never know where that break is gonna come from. Don't deny someone else the chance to develop something. if you don't dig it, don't join.What I don't dig is people lying to and spamming their fellow screenwriters, and I'm fully at ease with pointing that out.

Maryn

[dpaterso]

stegosaurus, creative objections aside, it would appear that the site owner has told a little fib about "finding" the site, which does not endear him or his site to me.

All right, let's accept that the idea might fly, that it may benefit writers (even if it's only by stimulating them to write). The choice of whether to sign on is up to the individual. I personally am not attracted to it, not out of some irrational fear of someone stealing my work (which I'm pretty open about) but because it amounts to voluntarily surrendering control of my work with no guaranteed benefit or ownership claim on said work. Who does something like that? It's incontheivable.

-Derek
My wittle web page - hack stories, failed novels, dud screenplays, terminal writer's block. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)
My evil self is at the door, and I have no power to stop it.

[Joe Calabrese]

Hey Guys!

I just read this great, fantastic, sure-fire money making script, called "Inferno" by Joseph Calabrese. You got to read this and get producers to buy it. It's awesome!

Signed,

Bob (really Joseph Calabrese if you check my ip)


How credible do I sound?

Spam is spam. Even the best intentions or the greatest opportunity doesn't change that.

If the poster is afraid to tell us the truth about his identity then why should we believe that site's purpose and intentions is honest. All the scripts being reworked could be his (and we are now doing his work for him) or worse.

I'm all for collaborating when there is a clear, well defined contract in place, but this is too dependent on the good graces of all involved.

If you want to do it for practice, fine, but as a viable method for polishing and selling your work? I doubt a producer would be interested in working with possibly 20+ writers on something he just optioned. It's bad enough when they have to work with one writer.

[clockwork]

Well congrats! you guys did it! you thoroughly trashed some guys website without ever actually trying it...and did it with such style and grace too. I'm sure all the newbie screenwriters really appreciate all that time and effort you put into investigating and ultimately deciding how useless and stupid it was...I'm sure it was all for the newbies...had nothing whatsoever to do with your need to feel superior to someone else or some crazy highschool click mentality where everyone needs to be excluded.

I didn't think the site was useless and stupid because I'm superior-suspicious. I thought it was useless and stupid because it's a bad idea. I would have said just as much even if he wasn't a confidence spamster.

[Rainy Night]

While it seems that WIKISCRIPTS may be a scam there is some good news... I just saved a bunch of money by switching my auto insurance to GEICO.

[StephieM]

While it seems that WIKISCRIPTS may be a scam there is some good news... I just saved a bunch of money by switching my auto insurance to GEICO.

:ROFL: That's too funny.

Steph

[gp101]

To (mis)quote one of my favorite books: Hollywood doesn't have a problem with plagarism...it has a problem with good screenplays.
.

It's not Hollywood we're talking about here. Hollywood may never, or rarely, steal an idea. But it's all the peripheral rackets you have to be vigilant against. The ones that have little if nothing to do with real Hollywood. Wherever there's a big-money-making industry like Hollywood, and thousands trying to find their own fortune in that industry, you'll find scammers.

And beware whenever you see the word collective. For learning purposes, a lot of voices may be helpful; then again, look at how many voices on these boards contradict each other. Even collaboration with people you know may be a good thing. But allowing hundreds of novice voices to chime in on one script when it comes to selling it? Good luck getting anything accomplished.

I feel that script-writing is one of the few endeavors better served by a dictator than a democracy. At least something gets accomplished, whether good or bad. Look at the process after the screenplay is written: dozens of "professional voices" add their little inspirations which, as of late, hasn't added up to very good movies. Whether it's an army of script doctors, or the producer and his nineteen-year-old girlfriend who has a cute idea, it's a hellish process. Imagine the mess you get when the starting point--a first draft--is subjected to this.

[scripter1]

Even made some changes to see what would happen.
Actually, it's not a bad site once you figure it out which didn't take me that long.

NOW awrigh01, a few issues.

Do YOU own the site, as in it is YOUR work, YOUR effort to get feedback on YOUR scripts or do you WORK at the site which was conceived of by someone else? I think it's time you came clean and were honest about your intentions.

[note, all the scripts currently posted seem to be awrigh01's own work.]

May I suggest that you create an additional option for providing basic feedback along with the edits. It will be more beneficial for writers who post scripts to know WHY and HOW something works or doesn't then to simply change it with no explanation. This will also help other contributers to understand why the changes were made and may help avoid excessive over editing.

The site mentioned works COPIED from other sites. You may wish to clairify this. You CANNOT take another's script or pages from a different site and copy paste it onto your own site without the original writer's permission.
The rule should be that you can ONLY post YOUR OWN writings.

I don't have any problems with you coming to several forums and saying "I'm starting up this site, this is what I would like to do, and I'll start by posting my own work. Call it an experiment of sorts, it's a kooky idea I have."
You just should have been honest about it from the start.

If you want reviews and help with your scripts there are several ways to get it. The first step is to post five to ten pages on a site like this and then contemplate the feedback.
Then you can post the whole script at zoetrope and ....contemplate the feedback.
Perhaps you will develop some relations with people on the board by asking questions and responding politely. Then one of those might be willing to help you a bit more.
Next there are several people who offer script services at varying degrees of pricing and ability. You could interview them and choose the one you think best suits you.

I don't begrudge you the effort and the obvious time and skill it took you to set up the site, but you really needed to be honest about it and then "we" wouldn't have taken issue with it. "We" might have even supplied you with some useful feedback.

Oh, if you are interested in me explaining the changes I made then you can send me a private message through this site.

Best of luck to you.
Happy writing.

[clockwork]

Stegosaurus, you have a truly heroic talent for melodrama. But you are also quixotic to the point of charming. I humbly agree to let this thread die.

(So tell us the truth now - you're sponsored by Wikiscripts, aren't you?)

[Annabanana]

The site seems pretty harmless if used as intended, though utterly pointless for the serious or quasi-serious writer. Collaboration can be a wonderful thing, however collaborating on one script with hundreds of strangers sounds like a surefire mess.

[scripter1]

I could possibly see is if those who make changes explained why they made them and how they reflect the concepts/ideals of screenwriting.

If the site focused on one script at a time for say, a month, and there was a discussion board for bantering back and forth the what nots and where fors of the script, then it might be a worthwhile site.

[StephieM]

My conclusion is this, awrigh01 may have had good intentions, he may have very well created the site to help other screenwriters, and we (I) may be turning a molehill into a mountain, and his little white lie could just be an innocent ploy to get others involved...........

And I'm Queen Latifah.

If I'm wrong, I'll invite awright01 over for tea. :)

Steph

[awrigh01]

Wikiscripts allows people editing a script to list their comments on why they changes a certain aspect of the script. There is a section on each page, called "discussion" where users are encouraged to post reasons for their changes. I think most serious, non malicious, users would take the time to explain their edits.

Moreover, there are several advantages to a system like Wikiscripts. First, on an open source script writing sites, the errors becomes shallower. I am not talking about storytelling errors, but rather grammatical, spelling, etc. With so many eyes pouring over the same text, the errors are easier to spot. This means that you can have a clean script without the tediousness of editing by yourself.

Second, Wikiscripts allows input from potentially thousands of different people. This diversity of thought has the potential to reshape unintentionally awkward parts of diaglogue. Or, to alter a screenplay's trajectory for the better.

With thousands of people injecting their thought and input into a script, there is a potential to create something great. I am not saying that professional screenplays do not produce modern masterpieces. But, I think we can all agree that Hollywood produces and selects some shoddy scripts.
New people contributing their ideas, might mean that there will be more interesting movies in the future.

Third, writing screenplays is extremely risky and time consuming. It could take years to write and properly tune a script. Many talented people cannot invest the requisite time and effort to help "create." We live in a society where creation has been replaced by corporate paper-pushing. Many people, unfortunately, never get to be part of something bigger. I think these people should get the chance to contribute.

If you have a great concept and don't have the follow-through, or if your have a gift for dialogue but lack that brilliant concept, Wikiscripts gives you an oppurtunity to work in a fairly anonymous creative playground.

Plus, there is a little reward. You potentially get to see your work on the ever elusive big screen. While it might not be 100% yours--an awesome accomplishment--you have done something pretty cool. There are additional rewards too, you might get a portion of the script proceeds. The larger the sale, the less the website takes (mostly of which will go to improve the and maintain the community) and rest gets distributed in an egalitarian way based on your level of contribution to the sold scripts.

I think it comes down to this: if a million monkeys with typewriters can produce Shakespeare; imagine what a million humans with keyboards can do. If you believe, as I do, that all people have some creative spark. I think Wikiscripts might be a community you should consider contributing to. However, if you believe you have the talent and balls to go it alone, I tip-my-hat to you and wish you the best of luck.

[awrigh01]

I am sorry if my language seemed like a spam. I should have been more forthright about my intentions. I simply wanted to get some input on something I think would be useful for aspiring screenwriters.

The concept is in an alpha-stage and I was hoping to get some feedback.

[awrigh01]

I also wanted to clear up the licensing scheme, for those interested. The licensing scheme is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 license, which basically means that the information can be used for any non-commercial purpose if credit is given to the Wikiscript community.

If anything ever gets produced that is good enough for the big screen, then Wikiscripts can negotiate to sell the script to an interested buyer. Overtime, the site will becomes a repeat player in the arena, and if successful enough gain some bargaining power when negotiating a purchasing price.

[awrigh01]

In the legal jargon there is a bunch of language about only being allowed to submit your own work. That's going to be a challenge for the site, making sure that members don't post up others work. Right now, since the project is in its infancy, it will be easy.

If the community continues to grow, it will becomes a bigger problem and we are trying to figure out ways to avoid them, such creating an avenue of communication with the public, if they see any copyrighted work on the site.

[awrigh01]

Again, I apologize if my language seemed like a SPAM. I made the wrong decision when writing my initial post, and am quite impressed at your anger for spammers. I didn't think being direct would work, but I realize that if I said this, I wouldn't feel like such a douche right now:

"Hi, I started this project with a bunch of friends, we graduated from decent schools and met all of these amazingly creative people who I am watching slip into dead end jobs. We think its amazingly depressing that all of these great ideas go to waste animating America's corporate culture. We figured lets try to use a cool technology and give people with a passion for writing, and especially scriptwriting, a creative playground, We think that people should be creating, instead of just working, and want to give them that space.

We are going to try to see if it works and if it doesn't we will melt back into the workforce.

If you could check out this project, Wikiscripts, and tell us what you think, we would appreciate it. If you think its stupid, we appreciate it to.

(sorry again, and changed title of "Featured . . . in Production" to "Featured . . . in Progress" to make things clearer. )

[dpaterso]

awrigh01, these are plausible answers. And polite, too, considering the amount of flak you've received in this thread.

However, you still haven't sold me on the idea (not that you have to), and the reward for contribution isn't as clear as I'd like it to be. But, if it gets the creative writerly juices flowing then I can't see any harm in it, as long as participants realize that what they submit is likely to remain writing practice and nothing more, that a magic doorway to Hollywood won't automatically swing open.

Point of fact, the "million monkeys with typewriters can reproduce the works of Shakespeare" idea is an unproven hypothesis. No one has ever given a million monkeys typewriters plus an infinite amount of time to see whether or not it's true. Nor have computer simulations produced results that go anywhere near to validating the hypothesis. If this is the foundation of your grand vision, the seed from which everything grows, then may the Force be with you.

Regardless of my personal doubts, and that's all they are, good luck with it.

Could be that this thread has exhausted itself. If anyone else has fresh opinions, voice them now.

-Derek
My wittle web page - hack stories, failed novels, dud screenplays, terminal writer's block. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)
Warning, this message may contain personal views which I am entitled to by law, at least in theory.

[scripter1]

Honesty is ALWAYS the best policy.

[Joe Calabrese]

I repeat and elaborate from a previous response....

If you want to do this as an exercise or as a way of communicating and/or networking with peers, then this is fine. Go for it and enjoy. It will help you get a feel for working with others and will show you how many different people will attack the same problem.

But if you expect to sell any script done this way, you are expecting the impossible.

Producers will shy away from any project written by a "group." The legalities alone make it an impossible venture.

Let's say a producer wishes to buy one of these scripts, the credits alone would look ridiculous (most films have a hundred or so credits for production. Imagine that for the writers alone. Technically writers are to be listed up front and not end credits.)

Legally all writers must be listed if they contributed into the overall script. Also there is no way of determining what percentages each writer contributed, therefor it would be impossible to list the writers based on high to low contributions.

There is a process called clearances in which all people must prove authorship and ownership. Again, there is no way of determining who did what and how much.

Second, with a script purchase averaging around 100K split between possibly over a hundred people, there won't be much to go around and again how do you determine what percentage does each writer get?

Finally a producer will certainly expect rewrites. Who does them. The group? I hardly think that a producer will be willing to work with a workshop environment to polish and/or rewrite a script. Technically all writers involved must be offered the task and paid accordingly.

NO PRODUCER WILL WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS.

So, if you expect to sell one of these scripts, it will never happen based on my explanations above. Any producer or agent who sees one of these scripts will laugh at the absurdity of it.

Also, Agents and managers want to represent the writer, not a dozen or more for a project. They have a hard time repping one client, imagine getting dozens in one shot-- all of which need to be repped for the next year (average contract)

On a last note. Too many cooks spoil the pot. You may end up with a script free from grammatical errors and may have instances of brilliance but over all the work will suffer from not having one clear and focused vision and execution.

So if you want to do it for fun-- do it and enjoy the experience.

But do not advertise the rewards because it will never happen and do not expect them for the same reason.

[awrigh01]

If each users of a website grants the website a license to use their work, there are no legal problems. Its a binding agreement that will be enforced by our legal system. If someone is not comfortable, or doesn't think the deal is right for them, they don't have to use the system and are encouraged not to. Caveat empter.

As for the other legalities mentioned, credit can be given to the community, Wikiscripts. This will satisfy the ownership and authorship requirements, quite easily. The Wikiscripts community is the author and the Wikiscripts website is the owner. (we are considering giving additional credit to the user who thinks of the concept, if the user would like such credit, i.e., written by Wikiscripts, concept by John Doe.).

As for the rewrites, once a script is purchased, the owner is perfectly free to re-write the script. Scripts can be worked on until the script is purchased by a willing buyer. After that the script, and its ownership, is given to the buyer.

Also, agents wouldn't be necessary under our system. Wikiscripts fills the void of agents by negotiating for the sale of ths script and hopefully as the site develops some clout becomes a repeat player enough to generate some needed leverage. The fee that Wikiscript charges, I would assume is not much different from an agent . . . http://wikiscripts.org/mwiki/index.php?title=Wikiscripts:About

I don't disagree with you to some degree that collaborating with a small number of people can spoil the pot. The reason for this is simply "ego." Two people can't agree on a common concept. However, there ego is limited when the number of peope involved increases and if the concept for a given script is clear.

At the top of each script, there is a "Concept" section and the "Main Characters" section where the person who starts the script can hash out their vision for the script.

If you are working on a script with 1,000 different people, there is little room for ego. Your changes will be redacted (you can easily compare changes and redact them on the site, if you click on any page and look at the history tab you will see how the mechanism works), and the community won't embrace you. If your ego is too large to work with out people in such a setting, you probably wouldn't enjoy contributing to the site either. Hence, the users becomes a self-selected group, of people who are working together to reach a common goal.

[StephieM]

awrigh01,

Thankyou for coming back and clearing up the confusion, however Joe has some very good points.

I'm still sticking by my previous posts.

Steph

[Joe Calabrese]

If each users of a website grants the website a license to use their work, there are no legal problems. Its a binding agreement that will be enforced by our legal system. If someone is not comfortable, or doesn't think the deal is right for them, they don't have to use the system and are encouraged not to. Caveat empter.Again, the legal problem would be from a producer's standpoint, not the writer(s).



As for the other legalities mentioned, credit can be given to the community, Wikiscripts. This will satisfy the ownership and authorship requirements, quite easily. The Wikiscripts community is the author and the Wikiscripts website is the owner. (we are considering giving additional credit to the user who thinks of the concept, if the user would like such credit, i.e., written by Wikiscripts, concept by John Doe.).The Motion Picture Association doesn't allow for that and the WGA wouldn't allow it either if it is a guild signatory company. Each writer must be listed separately and their real names at that.

As for the rewrites, once a script is purchased, the owner is perfectly free to re-write the script. Scripts can be worked on until the script is purchased by a willing buyer. After that the script, and its ownership, is given to the buyer.Again, the producer's are legally bound by the MPA and the WGA to offer all writers the rewrite job and clearances would need to be established by all parties involved. Otherwise any writer may jump in and lay claim to a rewrite. Your legal page does little to waive those specifics rights.

You website is good for the amateur and hobbyist, but will not work for the pro or for a sale. Too many restrictions set by the industry.

Keep in mind that the industry has developed in the past 100 years to end out the days of anonymous credit and the unions and guilds have worked very hard to make sure all people get proper credit and pay. Lucas gets fined millions each time for putting no credits at the beginning of a Star Wars films. And that is but one small rule. You need to have an Entertainment Lawyer or a Guild Lawyer for the WGA go over your rules to make them fall in line with the industry standards, otherwise the industry won't touch you.

Of course you can always make the films yourself, but the industry works a certain way and doesn't provide for your system, no matter how appealing it may be to deliver quality work.

[Joe Calabrese]

Keep in mind that websites like Zoetrope, Triggerstreet and even here does not promise anything to the people who critique and/or contribute to a script for just such reasons. If you do a co-op scriptwriting site you are legally bound to follow within the rules governed by the Associations and Guilds, otherwise the industry will not touch you with a ten foot pole, no matter how great the script is.

[awrigh01]

Thanks for that information. We will make sure to do that.

[awrigh01]

Do you know a website, which lists the MPAA guidelines, by any chance? I can't seem to find them on-line. Any help would be appreciated.

[Joe Calabrese]

There's a saying. Only a fool would have himself as his lawyer.

But if you insist, check out the WGA creative rights handbook at: http://wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=1028

WGA credits manual at : http://wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=1029

and finally the US's stance of copyright law at: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

[Annabanana]

WGA signatory agents most definitely don't have 50% fees...and how can wikiscripts expect to compete with CAA and William Morris? You ought to remarket your site.

[clockwork]

Keep in mind that the industry has developed in the past 100 years to end out the days of anonymous credit and the unions and guilds have worked very hard to make sure all people get proper credit and pay. Lucas gets fined millions each time for putting no credits at the beginning of a Star Wars films. And that is but one small rule.

Can you tell us a bit more about this? Should there always be credits at the beginning of a film? I've seen other films that don't credit anyone at the start (The Mummy springs to mind.) Does this result in an automatic fine or can a director negotiate no credits for artistic reasons?

[scripter1]

of the spotless Mind seemed like 30 min in before I saw any credits.

I know that Lucas had serious battles with the studios over the opening scroll of Star Wars, it had never been done before, and that it changed the normal format of films forever, but I didn't know he was fined for it, that he still gets fined for it.

[awrigh01]

Our fee scheme has been modified, after getting some more input. I am assuming this is more reasonable: http://wikiscripts.org/mwiki/index.php?title=Wikiscripts:About

[Joe Calabrese]

With regards to opening credits, the studios/producers have been able to get some relaxed rulings in the past ten years, most likely to Lucas' insistence in the absence of such in the Star Wars films. In some cases, waivers are signed, in others "donations" to the guilds have allowed it more easily. There must be a viable reason for doing it and ultimately it is the guilds and associations that have the final say (or run the risk of getting fined). Correction. In Lucas' case it was the Director's guild that fined him, not the MPAA. Subsequently, Lucas left the Director's Union and has been an outsider to this day.

Anonymous credits are also frowned upon. A director must show a valid reason to use a fictitious name and if ruled with can only take a pre-approved name, like Alan Smithee (there's another name used now I can't remember). Writers use their real name but in some cases may have their names changed (or dropped) if proven that the end film is so different then what they wrote that it was ruined. But again, there must be proof.

Keep in mind that a director or producer may have artistic reasons for doing something, especially when it comes to credits, but that shouldn't undermine the contributions made by the other key players in the film. They deserve credit as set forth by union rules. It wasn't long ago when a lot of workers on a film didn't get any credit (stunt performers come to mind) . This is why the guilds have fought so hard for opening credits.

[clockwork]

Thank you, sir. :cool:

[FolkloreFanatic]

Good points, Joe.

Legal hurdles aside, I simply cannot imagine spending my time and creative thought reading a script, adding to it, and then seeing someone else erase my work for absolutely no good reason. If others want to do that, fine. I personally think the outlook is gloomy.

For instance, an extracurricular I was involved with had maybe fifteen active members in the group, all of whom had vastly different opinions on how to run things. The group had no hierarchical structure (i.e., the point was to be a collective). I suppose someone thought this would be a clever way of making everyone's ideas worthwhile, but the only thing it accomplished was to tie up our time in petty squabbles and tarnish our reputation when one person said something controversial to the press and we had no official spokesperson to say that it was not our official opinion.

Same thing with a playwriting project on which I collaborated. We only had six writers, and I wanted to scream with frustration at our inability to see eye to eye. In the end, it turned out all right, but I'm never, ever doing that again. If I flop, I want to flop on my own terms. Same goes for succeeding.

I'm all for collectivist policies like Social Security, but I'll be darned if I'm going to put my sweat and blood into a creative project and then have someone trash it simply because his/her taste is different. JMHO.