Script protection

[macneacail]

Can I please get some info/links/feedback on how best to protect a script when pitching? What about sign prior to reading cover pages?

-A

[SimonSays]

Mac -

You can register your script with the WGA or you can copyright it, but that will NOT protect you while pitching.

You cannot copyright an idea. Chances are that if the producer likes the pitch he will make YOU sign a release protecting HIM before reading your script. This is not because the producer wants to steal from you, it is because many people come up with similar ideas - and they do not want to be sued by you if they wind up producing a film by some other writer that is similar to your idea.

Most producers are not looking for ideas to steal when they let writers pitch them. They are looking for scripts to develop.

If you are attending an organized pitching event or pitching one on one to a legitimate producer that you have access to, then go ahead and pitch your project without concern.

[joecalabre]

I ain't touching this subject again.

I'll go with what Simon says.

[macneacail]

my script is (c) and reg. with the WGA, should I put this info on the cover sheet? Thanks for your info...If there is a good thread on this already please advise.

cheers

[SimonSays]

Do what makes you comfortable.

I have seen producers that require WGA registration for all submissions. If it's required definitely put the info on the cover page, if not it's up to you.

Just remember - protection on intellectual property does NOT proactively prevent anyone from stealing your work, it only gives you proof so that you will have legal remedies should you be ripped off.

Don't lose sleep over it. You will be judged on your writing not what what you do or don't have on your cover page.

[joecalabre]

Here's the thread we debated on a few weeks back with the very same subject. You decide what's best for you.

p197.ezboard.com/fabsolut...=883.topic (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm1.showMessage?topicID=883.topic)

[BROUGHCUT]

There may be some obscure contests that ask for it, but WGA numbers simply do not belong on cover pages.

I would be wary of any producer that regarded WGA registration as a prerequisite. Recommend it, sure, whatever. But not require it.

If the producer is concerned about abstract of title then they should require copyright registration with the LOC.

(btw the "c" has to be in an enclosed circle to be a valid copyright symbol. If you use "(c)" in a copyright notice in lieu of the word "copyright" the notice is legally void in the US and abroad.)

[Hamboogul]

Over the past two years, I've compiled about 100 scripts (sold, not sold, sold and made, from famous writers, from not-as-famous). I've never seen a single script with registration number or even WGA-w marking on any.

Just work with legitimate people.

[JustinoXV]

Do not put that info in the cover sheet. I've not seen any professional scripts, where submitted, sold, shooting, or made scripts that include copyright or WGA info on the sheet.

Legit producers have no interest in stealing your work. Just deal with them.

As for con artists, they tend to be just interested in your money (if you run across them). People on the fringe have no ability to produce anything that will be in the theaters or in cable, so even if they tried stealing your idea it would do them no good.

In other words, just continue submitting until you get something.

[JustinoXV]

I have seen producers, however, that require that you put either WGA registration or Copyright registration numbers in the release forms that you send them. This is almost standard. I've come across one agent that does this as well.

[joecalabre]

Here we go again. I'm staying out of it this time.
Now, you kids don't play too rough!

[JustinoXV]

I have seen producers, however, that require that you put either WGA registration or Copyright registration numbers in the release forms that you send them. This is almost standard. I've come across one agent that does this as well.

[SimonSays]

In the end it's what you have written between FADE IN and FADE OUT that counts.

No one is going to pass on a great script because you write WGA reg. on the cover. No one is going to refuse to read your script because you have a copyright notice on the cover and No one is going to buy a bad script because you don't put this stuff on the cover.

The fact is, most people don't pay close enough attention to your cover page to notice one way or the other and most people don't care.

[dchapma123]

btw the "c" has to be in an enclosed circle to be a valid copyright symbol. If you use "(c)" in a copyright notice in lieu of the word "copyright" the notice is legally void in the US and abroad.

I don't believe this for a second. Copyright isn't determined by whether you put a symbol on the work. When you choose to indicate copyright on your cover page, you're merely stating that you've registered the script with the Library of Congress Copyrights Office. They don't rip up your registration if you type (c) somewhere.

[macneacail]

Thanks to all, and sorry to hit on a touchy subject. I have actually studied copyright law at Uni and I am often reminded of friendly advice from one of my profs: "trust no one", My script is too damn important to take a chance. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but that's just the way I am with this one. Plus why should anyone care unless well you know... Now my next question is thus: which is better WGA , USCO or both? Also, I have a code number from WGA but not one from USCO because they take 4 to 5 months to send out the official docs (damn bureaucrats!!) Can I call them for this info?

I love you guys...

[dchapma123]

Now my next question is thus: which is better WGA , USCO or both?

Be prepared for more conflicting responses. I recommend, unless you're seriously hurting for cash, you just go ahead and do both. Apparently some producers care a lot about the WGA thing, but LOC is the only one that's actually recognized in court. If you're really going to "trust no one", just do them both. You'll have to reregister with the WGA after ten years (I think).

I wouldn't worry about the registration number unless it's requested of you.

[SimonSays]

Mac

Because you are paranoid - put both. You will sleep better at night, and I guarantee that your script will still be read and will not be marked down - there is no place on the coverage form that has little checkboxes for incorrect formatting on the cover page.

The copyright sign and the year is sufficient.

[Writing Again]

I've been writing all my life.

I always figured this: Anyone who stole from me would only have one story: the one they stole: I will create a thousand more.

Only once in all those years was anything ever stolen from me.

A guy broke into the trunk of my car...Found a bunch of my ms: first to third draft; some were hand written synopses: He sent them off to magazines.

Later he told everyone what a lousy writer I was because, "Not one piece of that crap sold to anyone."

[dpaterso]

A great smorgasbord of advice in this thread, as always!

To add to the cheese, I believe WGA registration lasts 5 years not 10 -- that's what it says on the certificate, anyway. ProtectRite and others offer 10 years for a couple bucks less. Me, I don't care who holds an electronic copy of my script, as long as they produce it and confirm date of registration to the judge if and when the need ever arises.

macneacail,

"My script is too damn important to take a chance." -- that good, wow! Remember us when you hit the big-time. By then, use of SUPER: and flashbacks will be second nature to you. ;)

WA,

A guy broke into the trunk of my car...Found a bunch of my ms: first to third draft; some were hand written synopses: He sent them off to magazines.
Later he told everyone what a lousy writer I was because, "Not one piece of that crap sold to anyone."

So did you track him down, and did he die screaming in agony?

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[BROUGHCUT]

I don't believe this for a second. Copyright isn't determined by whether you put a symbol on the work. When you choose to indicate copyright on your cover page, you're merely stating that you've registered the script with the Library of Congress Copyrights Office. They don't rip up your registration if you type (c) somewhere.

You already quoted me back so I don't see why I should have to repeat myself. I said the notice would be void, not the copyright. You would therefore lose any additional legal protections a notice provides (let's not go there again) in the US and abroad if you omitted the word "copyright" and used this shorthand instead of the proper symbol, as "(c)" is legally meaningless the world over. I think the abbreviation "Copr." is only recognised in the United States and even the word "copyright" may not even have legal standing in some countries. The only expression that does have universal recognition is the copyright symbol -- a 'c' within an enclosed circle.

So far as tearing up registration certificates, it is exceptionally difficult to get a copyright registration invalidated. I believe it has to be proven that you wilfully committed fraud on the form.

I kept that quick note down to a single sentence for a reason. The reason these threads become so protracted is because people insist upon colouring simple factual statements with their own opinions.

[BROUGHCUT]

Two sentences, even. Oh well.

[JustinoXV]

You can go to www.scriptsales.com. Call the production companies and agencies that are listed on there (legit, mainstream companies).

But if you are going to be paranoid, I'll describe what happens behind the scenes.

A script that is submitted to a prodco or agency is read by script readers/interns. They write a one page synopsis of your script, whether or not the producers should pass or consider it, and whether or not the producers should pass or consider the writer.

Often your script will be read by several script readers. They are not on the payrolls of the companies general, so there is no proof that any of them worked there.

So it is quite possible that someone will be inspired by your work. But that's true of all levels of the game. I can watch the movie pretty woman, decide I like it, and write my own script about a man falling for a hooker. The deal is, ideas are not copyrightable/protectable. The original expression of them is, which means I can't copy pretty women. My own script about a hooker has to be my own work.

As for someone "stealing your script" that won't happen for three reasons. It is assumed you know about registration, and script readers consider most scripts sent their way garbage. Just look at the comments of some of the people on this forum towards Zoetrope, or look at the things Simon has said. As for the producers, they can't write, so there is no way they'd take a writers work and simply stamp their names on it.

[dchapma123]

I said the notice would be void, not the copyright.

Okay, I'll bite. What protections does a "notice" provide that simply owning the copyright doesn't?

[BROUGHCUT]

For the sake of this forum I am not going to bite back

This specific point was covered almost ad nauseum in a recent thread: http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm1.showMessage?topicID=883.topic (http://http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm1.showMessage?topicID=883.topic)

I apologise for being abrupt earlier. You are not the troll who insists on making factually inaccurate posts, you merely misread what a wrote. :gone

To get this back on topic, a script won't not be read if you put "Registered WGA" or (worse still) the registration number on the title page, but it may well become a lower priority and it will probably be opened with negative preconceptions, since the only scripts submitted with WGA numbers are by amateur writers. Not a good idea to do something that will lead a busy reader to infer that your script more than likely belongs on their figurative 'process' pile, they may allocate their time accordingly and end up giving it short shrift no matter what.

The only time I can see WGA registration coming into its own is if you want to keep a record tracking the progress of material written on a 'work for hire' basis (when the writer can not register the script with the LOC, as they don't own the copyright). That said, I don't think that scripts are called in from registration for credit arbitration and at the end of the day basic convenience is probably the only thing it has going for it.

[macneacail]

It would be a hard task today to find so gracious a fellowship in any forum. Thank you for your replies. Admittedly when I did study © law, it was all primarily within the context of music…so I am embarking on new territory. What seems fair to me is that I have some sort of documentation that logs who reads my script and when. This seems a harmless thing to request of a reader, and it is of course in the best interest of the writer under law to keep track of such details. I will be giving my script to real friends in the business that will in turn pass it along to others. It is not my friends that I am concerned with but rather the “others”. Back to my original question: I just want the who and when documented by a signature. In order that I receive this, is the original cover sheet returned to me, or at some point do I receive a copy of it?

[SimonSays]

BROUGH

"To get this back on topic, a script won't not be read if you put "Registered WGA" or (worse still) the registration number on the title page, but it may well become a lower priority and it will probably be opened with negative preconceptions, since the only scripts submitted with WGA numbers are by amateur writers."

I'm really quite curious to know what you base that statement on. Truth be told, all unsolicted, unrepped scripts are perceived to be written by an amateur unless the first 10 pages or so prove otherwise.

[JustinoXV]

"unsolicted, unrepped scripts are perceived to be written by an amateur unless the first 10 pages or so prove otherwise."

Why on earth would someone send off an unsolicited script? Chances are that it will either be returned to you, or trashed (they'd send you an email or a letter saying that do not take unsolicited scripts.

[SimonSays]

Justino I meant "unreferred" not unsolicited.

[BROUGHCUT]

I'm wondering why you would suggest that a new writer who makes the basic mistake of putting WGA info on a title page couldn't get a referral.

I'm really quite curious to know what you base that statement on.
My statement is based on the fact that scripts by experienced/working screenwriters will not have a WGA number on the title page, rarely if ever will they bear a WGA registered notice.
Truth be told, all unsolicted, unrepped scripts are perceived to be written by an amateur unless the first 10 pages or so prove otherwise.
Why wait until page 2 to start doing this.

[SimonSays]

BROUGH

You explicitly said in your earlier post that a script with WGA registration information "may well become a lower priority and it will probably be opened with negative preconceptions" and I asked you what you based this claim on.

According to your response, it appears you base this claim on absolutely nothing. It is one thing to point out that experienced writers do not include the reg. info - it is quite the leap to then state because THEY don't, those who do will become a "lower priority and will be opened with negative preconceptions."

Chances are scripts by experienced writers may well be a higher priority read - but the script cover format does not denote amateur or professional - any amateur who leaves the info off is still in fact an amateur. Pro scripts will usually come in through agents, or through referrals or their credentials will be stated in their query and their submission will be flagged when it comes in and bumped up the reading pile based on those referrals or credentials.

As I said, it is automatically assumed that unrepped, unreferred scripts are by amateurs unless the writing proves otherwise, and sadly it rarely does.

[Writing Again]

Derek

WA,

A guy broke into the trunk of my car...Found a bunch of my ms: first to third draft; some were hand written synopses: He sent them off to magazines.
Later he told everyone what a lousy writer I was because, "Not one piece of that crap sold to anyone."

So did you track him down, and did he die screaming in agony?


It hurt him more than it hurt me. He is the one who spent time and postage sending unsellable stuff off to magazines. I just did what I was going to do anyway: write the next draft.

Even then I kept my different drafts in different phisical locations...When I was a child we had a fire, lost things like pictures that could never be replaced... yet there were two and three copies of many of them.. If they had not all been in the same house all we would have lost would have been one copy.

I learned an interesting lesson on my second or third novel. I lost an entire chapter, all drafts: Rewrote it from scratch. When I found the original and compared it to the new one, the differences were insignificant: sometimes entire pages were almost copies.

[JustinoXV]

"Chances are scripts by experienced writers may well be a higher priority read - but the script cover format does not denote amateur or professional - any amateur who leaves the info off is still in fact an amateur."

This entirely depends on the development exective. For the ones I've worked for, if writers had major formatting errors, including title page errors, this does mean that they would have taken the writers less seriously.

We, the script readers, asked what their tolerance of errors were. In cases like this we would still be expected to provide coverage on such a script (with the WGA registration number on it). But the development execs said that history has told them said writers are less likely to know how to format and structure a screenplay, so collectively they don't take them as seriously. Nevertheless, in case a writer has come up with a good story, the readers still have to read it.

Of course, this may or may not be standard. But it's the attitude of at least some prodcos.

[BROUGHCUT]

You explicitly said in your earlier post that a script with WGA registration information "may well become a lower priority and it will probably be opened with negative preconceptions" and I asked you what you based this claim on.
According to your response, it appears you base this claim on absolutely nothing.
I based it on the fact that putting WGA registration info on the cover is absolutely not standard practice. You may be new to writing screenplays, but I see no reason to announce this on the cover of the script. It's a bad idea, as is printing title pages in full colour: all these things raise red flags of varying sizes, which are easily avoided by following the basic format. A title page is pretty simple to get right.

You just wrote that "it is automatically assumed that unrepped, unreferred scripts are by amateurs". You also conceded that scripts by "amateurs" will be put lower in the pile and agree that they may be opened with negative preconceptions. You can't have it both ways and assert at the same time that my "claim" that amateur-looking title pages will prejudice a script has absolutely no basis.
It is one thing to point out that experienced writers do not include the reg. info - it is quite the leap to then state because THEY don't, those who do will become a "lower priority and will be opened with negative preconceptions."
Yes, that would be quite a leap. I believe I said "may well become" and "probably will be".

It appears your argument to the contrary is that the script 'already is a lower priority' and, alas, 'will be opened with negative preconceptions anyway'. That's a little defeatist, don't you think?

Chances are scripts by experienced writers may well be a higher priority read - but the script cover format does not denote amateur or professional - any amateur who leaves the info off is still in fact an amateur.
Whilst anyone who puts it on is "in fact an amateur".
Pro scripts will usually
"Usually." Ah, so not every "pro" script will be between agency cardstock and have the agency address on the title page? A 'professional' reader would therefore be wrong to 'automatically assume' anything if the script is properly presented? I thought so.
The object of the sticking to the standard title page format is to solicit an entirely NEUTRAL reaction from the person picking the thing up.
come in through agents, or through referrals or their credentials will be stated in their query and their submission will be flagged when it comes in and bumped up the reading pile based on those referrals or credentials.
But readers don't usually get the covering letters and they aren't often photocopied along with the script if other people want to read it. The title page, on the other hand, may well be (unless they want to keep the writer's contact details for themselves.)

As I said, it is automatically assumed that unrepped, unreferred
Again, why do you discount the possibility that a script with a WGA #/notice could have been referred? New writers can still get referrals.
scripts are by amateurs unless the writing proves otherwise, and sadly it rarely does.
What on earth is your point? Simon Says: "You are an amateur, Put the WGA info on the cover, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone...."?

[SimonSays]

My point BRough is that there are crimes and there are misdemeanors and out of all the mistakes a newbie can make with a screenplay from structure to charcter development to formatting to font size - having the WGA reg or copyright symbol on the cover is the least egregious.

So if it makes some mildly paranoid new writer feel better to have it there, it's no big deal.

And anyone who thinks it is a make or break issue is probably an amateur.

[JustinoXV]

"My point BRough is that there are crimes and there are misdemeanors and out of all the mistakes a newbie can make with a screenplay from structure to charcter development to formatting to font size - having the WGA reg or copyright symbol on the cover is the least agregious."

I agree with you here. The script will still get read, and the coverage will still be submitted. And if everything else is good, then something may still come out of it.

"So if it makes some mildly paranoid new writer feel better to have it there, it's no big deal.

And anyone who thinks it is a make or break issue is probably an amateur."

The problem is, there are those newbie writers that decide that they want to reinvent the screenplay. The person you validate by telling them it is okay by putting the WGA registration number or the C copyright notice on the front (when official sources go against this) maybe the same person who decides that the main character doesn't have to change, that the screenplay doesn't need to have a beginning, middle, or end, or they may decide to throw away other valid rules in formatting and structure.

Also, if someone must know what prodcos and agents think, www.scriptsales.com has a major list of prodcos and agents. Newbies, should get information directly from industry professionals, even if they have to call them up at the prodco.

I used to not use Final Draft. But I called a bunch of prodcos up and found out that after they decide to buy a script, they want you to send it over in Final Draft format. Writing assignments generally have to be done in fdr format too. (some books on screenwriting will tell you it is okay to keep word if you get the screenplay templates). So I went out and got Final Draft.

[BROUGHCUT]

well hardly in this case, but best to get the title page right, eh?

My point BRough is that there are crimes and there are misdemeanors and out of all the mistakes a newbie can make with a screenplay from structure to charcter development to formatting to font size - having the WGA reg or copyright symbol on the cover is the least egregious.

So if it makes some mildly paranoid new writer feel better to have it there, it's no big deal.
I have not been impolite, SIMON, you just have a habit of misrepresenting everything I write (usually to make some ancillary point) and you continue to do so.

I merely pointed out it was not standard, not required and any consequences it may have are very easily avoided by just leaving it off (and by implication, ignoring your earlier suggestion to include it -- perhaps that's why you took exception to my post). I didn't say that the sky was going to fall in. You are the person who thought it was of sufficient importance to begin this discursive and utterly pointless exchange.

BTW in case you forgot it was about including WGA registration bumf, it didn't have anything to do with the place of copyright notices. The copyright notice on a title page is not common but perfectly proper and -- as any entertainment attorney will tell you -- not without legal justification. So there is no reason to crusade against it.

To be honest, you are beginning to sound like SimonSock-puppet and a foil for His Holiness Pope Justino whatever-the-f-next.

[joecalabre]

Come on guys. Let's play nice. This is an adult forum for civil discussions and opinions. I believe there's a "take it outside" forum somewhere on these boards.

[SimonSays]

BRough-

I think I've responded to something specifically said by you less than 1/2 a dozen times on any of these threads in all the time I've been posting.

I speak my mind whether it's in agreement or in opposition. People can like it, people can hate it, I really don't care.

I don't consider myself a foil to Justino, more often than not - I think he's right and have pointed that out on numerous occasions. Sounds like you're the one who has issues with Justino, not me.

The fact remains this board is for the most part a terrible resource for people who are serious about a career in screenwriting. I can't remember seeing one question that ever received ONE and only one definitive answer even when there is ONLY one definitive answer. There's always debate and disagreement. I will continue to direct people toward better resources and point out erroneous information until I get bored or kicked off.

[JustinoXV]

"When and if they do get therapy, psychiatrists say, people with strong passive-aggressive instincts are usually determined to fail: the therapist becomes the scorned authority figure. The patients will take their medications and then report with relish that they don't work. The patients will follow advice and then complain that it is senseless, useless. "They are not doing this on purpose; it's part of a deep-seated ambivalence about getting better," a determination to expose the authority as incompetent, said Dr. Marjorie Klein, a psychiatrist at the University of Wisconsin."

www.nytimes.com/2004/11/1...oref=login (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/health/psychology/16pass.html?oref=login)

Simon, that's an interesting article on mental health and passive/aggressive behavior.

Many people who want to call themselves screenwriters or other writers, as I've mentioned, have absolutely no intention of ever making money off it. Being a "writer" is their way of rebelling.

So I think to some of these people, you, Simon, are coming off as the mean man in authority "the father/grandfather figure"

I probably come off that way as well. Some people have deep hostility towards anyone who they percieve as being in authority, and it comes from issues with their parents.

After all, in the minds of some so called writers, writing is all about hanging out and being cool. There aren't supposed to be business considerations or rules (they remind people of Ms. Weatherbee, the mean English teacher who used to lay down the law)

[SimonSays]

Justino -

I am cracking up big time at being seen as "mean man in authority the father/grandfather figure". If you only knew.....

Anyway, I am more often than not amused, befuddled and saddened by how vast the lack of knowledge is. And as I said before I really don't care what anyone thinks of me. Although I am surprised that anyone would consider anyone posting anonymous messages on a board like this to be a figure of authority.

I just know what I know, ya know? And if people think I sound like I know more than majority of the people on this board, it's probably because I know that I do.

Think your psychoanalysis might make YOU a target - but I know that you can handle it, J-

Simon

[JustinoXV]

"Anyway, I am more often than not amused, befuddled and saddened by how vast the lack of knowledge is. And as I said before I really don't care what anyone thinks of me. Although I am surprised that anyone would consider anyone posting anonymous messages on a board like this to be a figure of authority."

When you give them advice, all they hear is daddy/granddaddy, or Ms. Weatherbee the English teacher speaking. Your posts make them have flashbacks to their childhoods.:rollin

Perhaps some of mine have as well.

[macneacail]

Can I get a reply on this please...

"What seems fair to me is that I have some sort of documentation that logs who reads my script and when. This seems a harmless thing to request of a reader, and it is of course in the best interest of the writer under law to keep track of such details. I will be giving my script to real friends in the business that will in turn pass it along to others. It is not my friends that I am concerned with but rather the “others”. Back to my original question: I just want the who and when documented by a signature. In order that I receive this, is the original cover sheet returned to me, or at some point do I receive a copy of it?"

Thanks

[joecalabre]

Good luck trying but it just isn't done.

If you mail a script you have proof to whom the person and company sent to, but not who reads it in that company besides the person addressed to.

To ask for a signature of everyone who reads your script is gonna make you look like a paranoid schizophrenic with ideas of conspiracy.

When you say getting back original cover sheet, I am confused. Do you mean coverage report? If so, you'll never see it. I'm sure if asked for it, most companies will tell you is confidential company property.

If you mean getting your script (or the cover which you require everyone sign it) back, that too most likely won't happen. Once you send a script out don't count on ever getting it back.

The only thing you can expect (sometimes) is a rejection letter.

Forget about it and just worry about writing the best script you can. This is something you can not control no matter how hard you try. You'll end up burning bridges.

[SimonSays]

Mac -

Joe is right.

There's a fine line between caution and paranoia and you are crossing that line with your latest request.

Your request more likely than not will result in a "thanks but no thanks" to your query. YOU are the one who will need to sign a release form when you submit in many occasions. It's the way of the world, the nature of the beast. If you don't like it then don't submit.

People need to read your work in order to produce your work. You cannot micromanage the reading process - and you will only be hurting yourself if you try.

Find someone who's willing to read your script and then send it to him. Chances are your script is neither as good or as original as you believe it to be.

[kojled]

macneacail

when an industry insider agrees to read your script he is doing you a favor.

point two: getting caught stealing a script will cost an exec/producer/agent/whoever their career. besides, if you have the money to produce a movie you have the money to obtain a script for same (legally)

asking for proof of receipt of a script is over the line. if it were me i'd say 'no thanks, good luck' and that would be code for something else

usually, the writer submitting must sign a release agreeing not to sue the reader if they develop similar material obtained from another source


zilla
ps - please don't steal the above material - if you do, i'll sue

[MrJayVee]

Really good advice from Joe, Simon and Zilla. So please...STOP THE PARANOIA! Nobody's out to steal your script. (Believe me, chances are pretty decent your script just isn't that good.) Copyright and/or WGA register your scripts, then get them out into the world. Keep a paper trail and don't send scripts to shady companies and you'll be fine. Heck, I give my scripts to pretty much anybody who asks for one!

[macneacail]

Finally consistency! … I’m glad I could bring everyone together even if it was to challenge the bases of my question. If I understood the proper procedure I wouldn’t be mucking about on this forum. Admittedly I know very little about the process and I shall concede in taking everyone’s practical advice. Yet I ponder the usefulness of this statement: “Chances are your script is neither as good or as original as you believe it to be.” I have read similar statements in other places on this forum and fail to grasp it's usefulness. Do I honestly believe that my script is far superior to the rest? Yes as a matter of fact I do…madness I know but I take great pride in my work. Original?…very much so… but who cares what I think…ultimately what do you really know of anyone or their script on this forum to conclude that their work is unoriginal and no good?

[JustinoXV]

Dude, there is a saying that all 6 stories in the entire world were told thousands of years ago. Everything else is just creative plagarism.

Read books. Watch movies. Go to the theatre. Movies are classified into genres (movies of a similiar class of story). Ditto for theatre.

Be honest with yourself. Have you ever seen anything that was truly original?

Example, Love stories are always about boy meets girl. Boy and girl get closer. Boy and girl break up. In the end, boy and girl find true love. There may be variations on this (boy meets boy, girl meets girl, boy meets alien, girl meets god), but the bottom line is that these stories are all variations of the same theme.

I could say the samething for any genre.

I might add, producers and agents aren't looking for you to come up with something original. The needs scripts for movies that the public will pay to see. If the public is paying a lot of money to see martial arts scripts, it helps if you've written a martial arts script.

[SimonSays]

Mac -

I base my statement on life experience and common sense.

There are very few truly original ideas, most novels, plays and screenplays are original spins - or usually not so original spins - on the basic plotlines and themes that date back to Aristotle. I've read hundreds of specs over the course of my career and very few were original. So that covers the 'not as original' portion of our program.

Now onto the not as good.

Of the hundreds of specs I've read, only a very small majority were good enough. Yet each and every writer believed it was good enough.

But this extends far beyond my own personal exposure to bad and mediocre writing. The fact is that far more people believe they can write, than actually can do it well.

98% of all aspiring novelists seeking agents and/or publication never get published or representation - the vast majority of them are rejected because they're not very good. Some will get better - some will not. Many lack the talent even though they have the desire.

It's very similar to the American Idol auditions. Even the worst of the worst believe they are fantastic singers - even those who couldn't carry a tune if it came in a bucket. And even those who have decent voices, or even lovely voices, do not necessarily have what it takes to be recording artists.

This is the universal truth for all arts. A dream does not equal ability.

I have no idea what the talent is of anyone on this board - and I am certainly not making any judgements on any individual's prospects. I just do the math.

[JustinoXV]

I'm not sure it's necessarily a talent issue.

Most people who claim the title of writer at some point don't take writing seriously. Most never bother to get formal training, read books, get internships, go to a script consultant, etc.

Most just think that so long as you just write something down on a piece of paper, that you can be a writer.

Likewise, I've known people who studied music who've said that a lot of so called artists think that everything coming out of one's mouth is music.

[SimonSays]

Justino - I agree not enough people study the craft.


But study or not the bottom line is that there are far more tone deaf people out there with dreams of being a pop star than talented people.

Knowing the craft is not enough to make one a good writer. You need to both know the craft and have the talent to succeed.

[JustinoXV]

"Knowing the craft is not enough to make one a good writer. You need to both know the craft and have the talent to succeed."

Except talent is such a vague concept. The film industry is about making money, not about talent per say.

Plenty of talented people will never get anywhere if their projects don't get into the hands of the right people.

There are those that would say that Britney Spears is a talentless hack. Yet she makes a lot more money than many supposedly excellent singers.

Madonna doesn't have the prettiest voice, but she has sold more records than any other female artist.

A writer whose's strengths like mainly in structure and format could rewrite the work of someone who is stronger in concepts.

Honestly, I think anyone can do it, if they put themselves in the right place and the right time.

And if you look at the credits of film, you'll start to notice a lot of similiar names. A lot of people get work because of family connections.

[JustinoXV]

A lot may depend on your family. A lot of people who made it big as actors or writers had families who gave them a lot of financial and emotional support. Yes, there those that had little or no support, but I think of those who make it big, it's much more common that they had money from their families.

Internships pay little or nothing. But they are away of learning about the industry and of building solid contacts. If you can work for free, it is usually because your parents are paying your bills.

Also, some parents put their kids in schools that have excellent arts programs, or had them take private tutorials from very early ages.

Madonna and Britney are huge hits not necessarily because they are talent songwriters or singers, but because they used sex and their sexuality to get what they wanted.

A script is just a shell for a movie. Much of what makes it good depends on the director, the director of photography, the actors, etc. Have nice effects, excellent filming, and attractive actors on your project, and that goes along way towards bringing people into the box office.

[SimonSays]

Very few writers without talent make it. Of course there is an exception to every rule. But Madonna has a lot of talent = as a self promoter and a performer as well as a talent to reinvent herself -mostly but it's a talent nonetheless.

Unfortunately writers don't have the luxury of relying on their peronsas, charisma, etc. to compensate for a lack of innate creativity. Creativity cannot be taught - and that IS talent.

I look at a screenplay as a blueprint, not a shell. And like an architect, a writer must have the ability to envision all the details of the building, the design, the flow, what every square inch will look like outside and in. And to design something other than a box, an architect must have talent. Very few people could design what Frank Ghery or Frank Lloyd Wright did - even with an architecture degree.

Justino you are wrong to think that knowledge of the craft is enough. And you are wrong to lead anyone to believe that if they hone their craft, that in itself will be enough. Because it won't if they don't have talent as a storyteller. No matter how driven or passionate they are.

[JustinoXV]

"But Madonna has a lot of talent = as a self promoter and a performer as well as a talent to reinvent herself -mostly but it's a talent nonetheless."

Madonna was basically the same slutty Madonna in different clothes, until she got pregnant. Then, since she wanted a different image, she then came out as maternal Madonna. We don't know if her "promotions" are her own ideas, or the brainchildren of her agent, manager, or publicist. The bottom line is, Madonna isn't nowhere near the best singer, songwriter, or dancer. She used sex to bring to the top. After all, sex sells.


"Justino you are wrong to think that knowledge of the craft is enough. And you are wrong to lead anyone to believe that if they hone their craft, that in itself will be enough. Because it won't if they don't have talent as a storyteller. No matter how driven or passionate they are."

The most creative screenwriter isn't necessarily the one who writes the blockbusters.

Spider Man, and X-Men had fantastic success at the box office. Those screenwriters just had to adapt old stories from comics.

And they were paid handsomely from it, simply because they knew the craft.

A lot of other screenwriters have adapted tv shows, books, plays, etc. The person who has the story by credits was the creative genius. In these cases the screenwriter is someone who merely knew the CRAFT, and formatted the story to fit the screen.

"

[JustinoXV]

"X-Men 3 (2006) (pre-production)
Killer's Game, The (2004) (pre-production)
Fantastic Four (2005) (filming)
XXX: State of the Union (2005) (filming) (written by)
Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) (post-production)"

These are the imdb.com credits of Simon Kinburg. Out of the 5 screenwriter credits, he only wrote the story on two of them! The others are all adaptations from comic books, or from a novel.

He also worked on rewriters on these movies.

"including Charlies Angels II: Full Throttle, Catwoman, Fantastic Four and Elektra"

Charlies Angels was an old tv show made into a movie, Catwoman and Elektra are all comic books. So that's 6 projects he worked on that he did not at all conceptualize, but instead merely formatted a story to fit the silver screen.

Let's not even get into the fact that some video games are made into movies.

I don't intend any disrepect towards Simon Kinburg. But he, like a bunch of screenwriters, make a good living from either rewriting the work of others, or from adaptations. And all that's need here is knowledge of the craft.

[Optimus Maximus]

You are dense beyond words.

[JustinoXV]

"You are dense beyond words."

I'm sorry that you can't get laid.

[JustinoXV]

My apologies for the degeneration of this thread. But some members, mainly Opti and APW, hold a grudge against me for political debates we've had on Done Deal. Our arguments where over the election among other things. However, these issues and grudges should not be brought up on this board, as most of the people here have nothing to do with our chat squabble there. And I'm posting this on the other thread as well. Again moderators and forumites, my apologies.

Now, if some of you will let Simon respond to me?

[Optimus Maximus]

Dude, the only one not letting Simon respond to you is YOU.

You keep posting arguments and then replying to your own posts.

Psycotic breakdown, much?

[JustinoXV]

You're so eager to help people on this forum, aren't you. These childish and immature attacks are dragging down this forum.

I've agreed and disagreed with Joe and Simon, but I've never felt the need to insult them. And they never felt the need to insult me.

[Optimus Maximus]

"These childish and immature attacks are dragging down this forum." - Justino
:lol
"I'm sorry that you can't get laid." - Justino to me
"Derek, looking at your face, I see where you get the inspiration to write horror from. All you need to do is look into the mirror.

With a face like that, the only wife you'll have is the lady from the red light district." - Justino from another thread
"Ah, well, I'll just say one last thing, Derek. I looked at your face again. You look like Koko the Gorilla. Don't worry, I'll send some bananas to your place." - Justino, again, in that same thread, replying to his own post
:lol

Justino, YOU'RE the one who brought up the beef you had with us from another board. I just clarified your horrid misrepresentation of the facts.

If you'd like, I can post the transcript from that chat where you had your psychotic meltdown. I still have it.

It's what we sent to the mods that got you banned.

So, please. Attempt to take your insincere high road again.

I'm sure it'll be believable this time.

No, really.

It will.

Promise.

:rolleyes

[JustinoXV]

Why are you so determined to post that transcript, Opti? Again, why are you so determined to ruin this board with a dispute that didn't even occur here.

Nevertheless, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and post the transcript for everyone here to see.

[JustinoXV]

I'll just say one last thing. Posting a transcript that you are free to edit and add words totally means nothing.

And again, I still do not understand why you are so determined to disrupt this board, Opti.

[Optimus Maximus]

Justino, I don't have to post it.

I'm sure it's quite evident to people here what type of person you really are.

[JustinoXV]

""when opty makes you look like a little lolipoping sucking five year old, you know you got bitch slapped." - Vig"

I think your signature explains volumes about your character and your behavior here.

Now are you finally willing to move on so that we can stop wasting space on this forum with this nonsense?

This is a learning forum about writing. Let's keep things civilized and calm.

[Optimus Maximus]

Civilized and calm?

This, coming from you?

Uh huh.

You're right, Justino. This is a learning forum.

And I believe everyone has learned all they need to know about you tonight.

[dpaterso]

I'd just like to mention I'm not affiliated with Opti or APW in any way, I've come to my own conclusions based on long-term observation of the patient.

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[JustinoXV]

You do know how to stay on topic, don't you?

And again, you don't cause me any harm by insulting me. You do harm the board itself, frighten on those who would use this forum to ask questions, and disrespect the owner of this forum.

[A Pathetic Writer]

For the record, I hold no grudges against anyone.

I do, however, find Justino a pompous, pretentious bore, with the thought processes of a sophomore, and likely the life experience of same.

There is something to be said for "proof" and "pudding" Justino. People consider you to be full of sh*t because you're constantly spewing it, with no end in sight.

In the end, everyone here has to realize that whether it comes from Justino, me, Hammy, or whoever, it's all just conjecture.

Do what you think you have to do, but be professional about it. The very bottom line is that a great story, executed well, usually wins. Everything else usually loses.

[William Haskins]

marry me, david.

[A Pathetic Writer]

My wife would be insanely jealous, Haskins. And I think she knows where the bb-gun is hidden. It would be tragic all around.

:(

Alas, unrequited internet love.

[Boobsie Malone]

This thread amuses me. A lot.

[A Pathetic Writer]

Yes... well, you're easily amused.

;)

[BROUGHCUT]

Simon, I don't believe I have replied to you first at all, if I have done in the past then it wasn't in the adversarial manner you were quick to adopt in this thread. Nor would I have misquoted you to force a point.

You put in an argumentative reply to another of my posts a few days earlier, after a foray to the novel board, and implied that a 'to whom it may concern' query letter was preferable to singling out an individual agent.

Then you use a reductio ad absurdum to declare that my recommendation against a WGA notice has absolutely no basis.

Well, I was left with the impression that you were more interested in petty point scoring than giving accurate answers and that you would far rather go off on a tangent precisely for the sake of "debate and disagreement".

I have not posted any erroneous information so I don't see why my response should have provoked a rant against this board, but it is a little less than self-serving in this case:

I can't remember seeing one question that ever received ONE and only one definitive answer even when there is ONLY one definitive answer. There's always debate and disagreement. I will continue to direct people toward better resources and point out erroneous information

I find this ironic. "Should I put WGA info on a cover of a script?" is one such question that should get a definitive answer (closely followed by "To Whom It May Concern?"). It would have received it here from everyone, had your own posts not muddied the waters.

Your advice that if WGA registration is required by a producer, "definitely put the info on the cover page" is pretty poor and should definitely be cited on your petition as an example of why this is such a "terrible resource".

In such circumstances I am sure everyone else would agree that one should put that information in the cover letter, never on the script (unless it is a contest and they ask for that). Putting it on the script will just reveal to everyone else who reads it as it gets passed around that you are as misinformed as the producer.

It also glosses over the fact that there is reason to be wary of any producer that actually requires proof of guild registration for submissions, presumably in an effort to protect themselves legally. If it is that important to them then they should require copyright registration. It's the copyright you are asking them to purchase, after all, and only one document proves ownership of copyright -- it is not a wga certificate.

I would like to disassociate myself completely from the personal attacks posted against you since we last spoke. I am merely replying to specific criticisms you posted against me. If you have found my manner abrasive, as your name-calling suggests, then take a look at the tone of your original replies, to which I am merely responding.

Incidentally, what resources are you referring people to?

[SimonSays]

Brough -

You must have me confused with someone else or misunderstood me because I never said it was preferable to send a query to whom it may concern. In fact with novels I would strongly advise against it because with novel agents it is the AGENT not the agency that you should focus on.

Justino was the one advocating to whom it may concern. And I may have said that if you don't know the specific agents at an agency that it's okay to go that way, but I never said that that's how you should approach getting an agent. Fork over the 60 bucks and pick up a Hollywood creative directory. Truth be told I've never had to send a query, so I don't know all the protocol - but I would never suggest not trying to find out who you are sending a query to. I am a great advocate of research - the more you know the better off you are.

I still say if a producer asks you to do something, like put the registration on the cover, you should do it. If they ask you to sign a release, I suggest that you do it. If they ask you to use pink paper - then i suggest you do it. It's their rules, your just a spectator and you do what they say.

And most of all I stick to my position that it's the STORY, the CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT the STRUCTURE and the CONCEPT that matter most and those are the things that will make or break your chance. The other stuff is small stuff and while you want to be as professional as possible with formatting etc. the thing that matters in the end is the quality and commercial potential of the script itself. And that definitely gets short shrift on these boards.

As for what resources I refer people to - first and foremost I suggest screenwriting and crit classes at film schools (ideally an actual film degree), i've suggested workshops and/or seminars like McKee, i've given a list of some decent online workshops for those not near either a film school or a good workshop - and I've also given a list of books that teach the basics of the craft. I've also suggested some good script consultants and writing coaches. I do encourage people to read scripts - but reading scripts in itself is not enough. It shows how it's done but it does not explain what's being done or why it's being done and I think you need to understand the concept before you can really benefit from seeing how it's applied.

The single biggest problem I've seen with the vast majority of the spec scripts I've read is that plots were poorly structured and/or the characters were not developed enough. Every single one but one received a pass. We did end up buying a number of scripts that had copyright notices, wrylys, a camera angle here and there, the occasional transition, margins that were cheated and the misuse of the infamous O.S.

You don't need to disassociate yourself from the personal attacks. I dont' take the personal attacks personally. I don't care what people think of me. I've been a working writer in Hollywood for 10 years, i've developed a thick skin.

[JustinoXV]

"Justino was the one advocating to whom it may concern. And I may have said that if you don't know the specific agents at an agency that it's okay to go that way, but I never said that that's how you should approach getting an agent. Fork over the 60 bucks and pick up a Hollywood creative directory. Truth be told I've never had to send a query, so I don't know all the protocol - but I would never suggest not trying to find out who you are sending a query to. I am a great advocate of research - the more you know the better off you are."

All I was saying is to whom it may concerned has worked for me. If you know the agent's name, go ahead and put it . I don't think your saluation will make or break your query.

I do think sometimes people here get to caught up in very minor details like this.

I've also gotten a bunch of prodcos and some theatre companies (I've written a stage play) to ask me to mail over scripts by using to whom it may concern.

I'm I advocating it? Hardly. I just don't see any problem with it.

[Writing Again]

I don't know about scripts. I do know about novels.

I would never submit a query letter to a publisher of novels "To whom it may concern." One of the rules for as long as I can remember has been, "If you can't get that detail right how can we trust you to get the rest of the details right?"

To whom it may concern may work with submitting scripts, I don't know; but my experience in novels and short stories tells me to avoid it; tells me to get the name of the person I want to receive my script and use that name and spell it correctly.

It may not be necessary to go to that length, but it is not going to hurt.

[JustinoXV]

"It may not be necessary to go to that length, but it is not going to hurt."

Dealing with big agencies, you will have no idea who to submit to.

Call in, and they'll tell you just send it in to the literary department.

Also, I've worked as an intern. Everything you send into a prodco or agency is read first by the interns.

Interns don't care at all what your saluation is. If they think your concept is something the boss might like, they'll pass it on. If they think the concept in your query sucks, then you'll be rejected.

PERIOD.

And as Simon mentioned, a number of screenwriters have never written queries. Connections and networking matter a lot in the film industry.

And if some producer gives you an offer, then you can just call up any agency and have them rep you on that offer.

The saluation does not make or break the writer's career!

[AaronB]

If it's required definitely put the info on the cover page, if not it's up to you.

It's funny...I've seen some people advise that the WGA reg. number go on the cover, and others advise that it definitely stay off. Is one point of view more popular than the other? Is either generally accepted?

And by the way, what do YOU say?

[BROUGHCUT]

Is either generally accepted?

I'd have thought not. However, if Simon can name one legitimate producer that requires that a WGA notice or number is included on the actual title page of scripts (or, indeed, that the script be printed on pink paper) then I will accept that he is countering my misinformation and not just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Simon -- re the other thread, you just appeared to imply it by criticising my suggestion that writers try their best to identify an individual agent who may be more receptive to their work than others. You replied something along the lines of 'Actually, you never know until you meet if the agent will be a good match' and, so far as I can remember, left it at that, which wasn't particularly helpful and without any alternative kind of leant support to the To Whom It May Concern query. One such alternative would be finding the name of the literary department coordinator, who I accept would be in a far better position to match scripts to individual agents than a writer using a resource like Script Sales. I don't know, at the time you just seemed a bit argumentative. I still think it was far from 'absolutely baseless' to suggest that many readers will (rightly or wrongly) extrapolate adverse opinions from something as petty as a WGA notice -- it happens -- but if I had known who you were I would have probably just left it at that and taken the opportunity to ask you about the Argonauts project instead. Have to say I've been following that one with interest.

[SimonSays]

Hey BRough -

Didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing you. I guess my point was, that until you actually meet with or talk to a perspective agent, and get a feel for them, how they work and how they see your career, it's hard to know if they are the right agent for you.

I think that often writers can be so stoked to get any interest at all that they will often jump at the first person who shows interest, without taking the time to evaluate if it's a good match. That's all I meant.

I don't personally know of any legit producers who demand WGA regs (although I know many who require that you sign a release, unless submitted by an agent). But I used to get the inktip.com newsletter and I remember seeing producers requiring WGA reg info on all submissions.

I have no idea what the end of your post is all about.

[BROUGHCUT]

Hey BSilly

We just can't help ourselves, can we?

Justino's post above left me with the impression you were Simon K. Obviously not the case and hardly surprising. Have to say, considering your petty behaviour and misleading advice, it is a little hard to believe you are a working writer with ten years professional experience. If so, then who are you?

The end of your post is particularly revealing. Interesting that the entire 'basis' of your argument is experience of the inktip newsletter (about as absolutely baseless as it gets).

What better way to illustrate that writers have reason to be a little cautious of producers that require WGA registration info on submissions. Including this information on the actual script will, if anything, prejudice its chances by making a negative first impression with readers. Leave it off. End of story.

[Optimus Maximus]

The end of your post is particularly revealing. Interesting that the entire 'basis' of your argument is experience of the inktip newsletter (about as absolutely baseless as it gets).
Well, if that isn't one of the more idiotic and hyberbolic misrepresentations of anyone's argument I've ever seen on here.

You should really work on your reading comprehension skills, brough.

Simon used Inktip as an example to support his claim; NOT as the basis for his argument.

Learn the difference (a simple Logic class at your local community college would help you tremendously).
What better way to illustrate that writers have reason to be a little cautious of producers that require WGA registration info on submissions.
That makes no sense. Why should you be cautious of someone who's trying to be cautious? Many...I repeat...MANY companies (agencies, management firms, prod cos) require proof of copyright or registration so that they can protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits. The reasoning behind many of these policies is that the company has no idea whether or not your plaigarized someone else's work, so this offers them legal protection by both showing that they acted in "good faith," and passing the onus of liability (that the work is an original and/or that they have the rights to it) onto the writer.
Including this information on the actual script will, if anything, prejudice its chances by making a negative first impression with readers. Leave it off. End of story.
Wow, what a completely incorrect, paranoid, out-of-touch-with-reality statement that was. That's about as stupid as the advice to address a query letter "To Whom it may concern."

Each and every company that's ever requested one of my scripts (from small, indie producers to some influential boutiques to two of the Big 5) have ALWAYS...as in...EVERY TIME requested that the WGA registration # or copyright # be documented on the release form that they make writers sign.

They WANT it to be copyrighted. They WANT it to be registered. Of course, they don't particularly care whether it's on the title page or not, but they DO want to know that it IS registered/copyrighted.

That is, again, to protect them. And, I have no problem with that. I know a few former readers, and they don't care that it's on there. It doesn't give them a negative impression. They have certain criteria by which they judge scripts and the copyright # or WGA registration # being on the front ain't one of them.

It's not a problem for them. Why is it for you?

It also protects the writer because if your script isn't copyrighted or registered, and you have no proof that you are the original author, it is much easier for significant and specific elements of your work to be stolen. You send your script to Firm A, with no documented protection, and then Firm A later makes a movie with specific elements from your script, you have little legal recourse. It is possible to win this case, but they could always claim that they had the idea long before you did, as you have no way of proving when your wrote yours.

These provisions are to legally protect both the company and the writer. To even hint that it gives a "negative impression" to a reader is both paranoid and patently ignorant of the way most companies do business.

Your ludicrous opinions seem, to me, to be those of a dilettante and an uninformed hobbyist.

[SimonSays]

Actually BRough

My initial statement was that most producers and agents don't care. As in they do not give a black mark to a script because that information is on there. I stand by that. No producer I have ever worked with considered it an issue. They are far more concerned with what's on the inside, not what it says on the cover.

I don't really pay all that much attention to submission policies, since I always submit through my agent. But I do know for a fact that my agent has signed clients who had WGA reg. and./or a copyright notice on the cover.

You sound very bitter and angry BR.

By any chance would you happen to be a self-published author / actor with no imdb credits / with delusions of grandeur?

[JustinoXV]

"Wow, what a completely incorrect, paranoid, out-of-touch-with-reality statement that was. That's about as stupid as the advice to address a query letter "To Whom it may concern."

Well, Opti, it has not been a problem for the agents and the producers who have positively responded to my queries.

Why then should it be a problem with you?

Quite frankly, I honestly don't care what anyone on this board does. Do whatever works for you.

I don't put WGA or Copyright Protection on the title page of a script. With that said, I do think Simon is right when he says this won't make or break you. While it may leave a negative impression, the script reader is still supposed to read the script and write the coverage report. And the reader is still supposed to rate the script concept itself as well as the writer.

So if putting unneeded info on the title is the only negative about the script, I can't see that being a career breaker overall.

[JustinoXV]

Rather than take the word of total strangers of the 'net, any newbies can go to www.scriptsales.com

From there you can find lists of agents, producers, entertainment lawyers, managers, etc. Call these people and say you have one question to ask. Receptions and assistants are friendly and can tell you what they expect on submissions coming in.

Overall, I would say that I have never seen copyright or WGA registration information on any professional script. I do think it just isn't done. I also think it would leave a poor impression, but I don't know that it would necessarily break you because the readers may be required to read the scripts anyway.

But for those in doubt, call these industry professionals and ask them for the real 411.

[JustinoXV]

"Many...I repeat...MANY companies (agencies, management firms, prod cos) require proof of copyright or registration so that they can protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits. "

Many companies do ask for copyright registration and/or WGA registration numbers on the release form when you submit it. For the reasons Opti just went over, they do want it registered. (But not that info on the title page)

[Optimus Maximus]

Just out of morbid curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing where this delusional concept came from that having copyright/registration info on the title has a negative impact on the subsequent reading of the script?


btw, while Justino claims that he has had "substantial" success by using "To Whom It May Concern" on his queries, 99.99% of the articles I've read (written my industry professionals) and 100% of the agents I've asked have all said that it is lazy to NOT address your query to someone specific. The reasoning is that it is quite easy to obtain information like the name of an agent/manager/producer/etc. to address you letter, and that a writer is viewed as lazy for not taking the time to do the proper research.

THAT is something that will leave a negative impression with professionals.

Sure, not everyone holds that opinion or will have that reaction, but if many of the people that actually matter (and I'm not talking about some shmuck at a hole-in-the-ground agency or prod co) view the "To Whom..." practice as negative, then why would any writer want to risk shooting himself in the foot by NOT taking the proper time to do the proper research?

You should be doing everything you can to gain an advantage (like, finding out the freaking name of the person you're writing) for your scripts.

Anything less is amateurish and, quite frankly, extremely lazy.

Almost anything that some talentless hack on a message board claims is "not that important," more than likely IS important (which is why they are still an unsold, talentless hack). Or, you should at least treat it like it's important.

If you're not going to take this business/dream seriously, then just don't bother pursuing it.

[JustinoXV]

"I'd be interested to know where this delusional concept came from that having copyright/registration info on the title has a negative impact on the subsequent reading of the script?"

It's not standard industry format to include it on the cover page. Get Final Draft or any other screenwriting program. They do not include fields for WGA or LOC registration.

That in and of itself tells you that it is not the standard practice to put it on title pages. When I was a script reader, none of the scripts I ever came across had it.

But you do not need to take my word for it. Call those professionals listed under agent, lawyer, manager, producer, etc.

Ask them what do they think about registration info on a title page.

[Optimus Maximus]

Ask them what do they think about registration info on a title page.
They'll probably say, "Who gives a sh!t?"

[JustinoXV]

So if they say who gives a (*&^, then you know they don't care one way or the other. If that's what the consenus is after calling, then do as you please.

But for anyone who doesn't already know, I would urge you to call and find out for yourself.

[Optimus Maximus]

The entire argument is ludicrously stupid.

An agent/manager/producer reads your query and asks for your script. Your query has gotten his/her attention and your concept has hooked them in.

They are now interested in reading your script and seeing if the writing in your script lives up to the writing in your query.

So, now that they're interested in your story/concept, you send them your script, and they see that the registration # is on the title page and now they're suddenly turned off?

That is amazingly moronic.

[JustinoXV]

"So, now that they're interested in your story/concept, you send them your script, and they see that the registration # is on the title page and now they're suddenly turned off?

That is amazingly moronic."

It may be, but I can't speak for those reps or producers. Which is why I suggested those who want to get to the bottom of this call those production companies and agencies for the 411.

If the consenus there is that they do not want to see registration numbers, then that is something you'll have to deal with, regardless of whether it's moronic.

Again, any newbie reading this thread, don't take any of our words for it. Have this verified from direct industry professionals/resources.

[Optimus Maximus]

I meant the argument was moronic, Justino.

It's not rooted in reality.

[JustinoXV]

"I meant the argument was moronic, Justino.

It's not rooted in reality."

As a former script reader, I think the development executive would have still directed me to read the script and do coverage.

I think the argument may be a gross exaggeration of reality. I do think the registration number is a negative because it isn't standard format. But would they reject a script if the registration number was the only negative? I don't think so either. The bottom line is that the production company is looking for scripts that translate well at the box office. If they are sent in a script with a registration number on it, and it is a good script, they would buy the script anyway and during the rewrite process, take the registration number off.

[SimonSays]

Opti -

You are an island of sanity in a sea of silliness.

You know what matters, you know what producer's and agents care about. If I had to take a guess, I'd bet that you can write and write well.

I don't know about you, but for me it's getting a little tiresome to constantly find myself in arguments about such ridiculous crap. I'm kinda stuck between wanting to give the straight dope to people who come here looking for real help and not wanting to deal with the peanut gallery of "experts" constantly driven to prove they are right (even when they're wrong) or prove I'm wrong (even when I'm right - which is most of the time).

Anyway, I wish you great success in your career.

[joecalabre]

I find it all so amusing that this subject/debate has gone on as long as it has. What a waste of keystrokes...

[JustinoXV]

Quite true, Joe, the person submitting the script will do whatever they want to do, and that is fine.

I just came in at the end to say that people had ways of verifying what is and isn't the case.

[AaronB]

I just came in at the end to say that people had ways of verifying what is and isn't the case.

And who says it's the end? <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif" />

[Optimus Maximus]

Come, Simon, join me at Done Deal.

There's more sanity.


But, substantially more idiocy.

But the sanity far outweighs it.



Just bring a thick skin with you.

[kojled]

so now this has devolved into whether it's unprofessional to put registration numbers on the title page? i'm glad my competition is so conscientious


zilla
ps - if someone sees fit they will steal your script whether it's copyrighted or not. they also do not care whether there is a bunch of numbers on the title page or not. the issue is not whether the god damned script will be stolen. the issue is whether or not you can write worth a damn

[SimonSays]

Zilla -

Like Opti - you "get it". I hope you will go far.


Opti -

Thanks for the offer, but am od'd on idiocy at the moment and am actually on a very tight deadline to get pages out. Shouldn't be trolling message boards at all.

[BROUGHCUT]

Op

I am a hobbyist poster (hence the lateness of my reply) but unfortunately not a superficial one (hence the replies -- to all the misinformed and misguided posturing that is going on).

I think you fell down this particular rabbit hole (or fire-bombed it -- dangerous business -- not sure which) WAY too late in the day and have therefore been left a little confused by what has transpired. It may surprise you to know that all that is being debated here is the place of WGA details on the title page of scripts. Crazy, I know.

I have always advocated copyright registration here and on Done Deal and I'm well aware of the merits of registration. I have specifically said in this thread that any producer who REQUIRES WGA registration (presumably so that there is something approaching abstract of title on file, somewhere) really ought to require copyright registration instead. (Which is why I commented that I would be a "little cautious" of those who asked for WGA numbers.) But this isn't what is being discussed.

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments in 2:53 post. Why not get the format right? Why needlessly harm your chances? My point exactly.


Quote:The end of your post is particularly revealing. Interesting that the
entire 'basis' of your argument is experience of the inktip newsletter (about
as absolutely baseless as it gets).


Well, if that isn't one of the more idiotic and hyberbolic misrepresentations of anyone's argument I've ever seen on here.

You should really work on your reading comprehension skills, brough.

Simon used Inktip as an example to support his claim; NOT as the basis for
his argument.

Learn the difference (a simple Logic class at your local community college would help you tremendously).


I have concluded his logic is more reductio ad absurdum but I invite you to put your superior reading and comprehension skills to the test and identify the basis of Simon's claim that my original point had "absolutely no basis". (My hyperbole, such as it is above, was quite deliberate.)

That said, my statement isn't as hyperbolical as you suggest. The fact remains that Simon knows of no legit producer that requires registration details to be printed on scripts and is unable to offer any evidence from his years (apparently) of experience that it is standard format. My suggestion that it will therefore look amateur has a prima facie basis.

You, however, appear to take misrepresentation to new depths of drudgery by implying that my opinions in this thread have been directed towards WGA registration itself.

These provisions are to legally protect both the company and the
writer. To even hint that it gives a "negative impression" to a reader is both
paranoid and patently ignorant of the way most companies do business.

WGA notice on a title page does not legally protect anyone. The presence of a
copyright notice does provide statutory protections which is why I would not
recommend against it even though it may very well have the same negative influence on readers as a WGA notice. Thankfully, a WGA notice serves no purpose at all so there is absolutely no basis for putting it on there.

Your ludicrous opinions seem, to me, to be those of a dilettante and
an uninformed hobbyist.

Yes, now you mention it the opinion I just reiterated in my last sentence is truly ludicrous.

With regards to some of your other points... First of all , I said leave it off the "actual script".

It is true that many release forms require WGA registration numbers. What this has to do with this thread, well, I don't know. I have never said that people should not register scripts with the WGA or that legit producers and prodcos don't recommend using the WGA for this purpose.

My point was simply this, no more, no less: if they are legit and they ask for the WGA registration info they are not going to expect to see it on the title page of a script, as someone who describes themselves as a pro writer suggested, but on the release form itself or within a cover letter.

I have also suggested that it is unlikely that an industry pro will personally require WGA registration, because it is legally quite ineffectual.

They ask for this info not to protect themselves legally, but because the stationary they send writers without agents, lawyers or referrals often asks for it. Doesn't mean anything -- release forms are quasi-legal contracts that ask for a whole lot of stuff, some of which they have no hope of getting, such as the writer relinquishing all rights for free. If they don't send a release, they are unlikely to personably ask for a WGA number.

We digress.

The only thing that makes the "business" work on the title page of a script is the telephone number of the agent or writer concerned.

Notwithstanding your former-reader friends' insight, if you think that it is paranoid to suggest that people deviate as little as possible from standard format on the title page consider that Jennifer Lerch, a reader of some experience, sees fit to begin her handy little primer "500 WAYS TO BEAT THE HOLLYWOOD SCRIPT READER" with the chapter "Scripting it like a pro: A Reader May Judge Your Script by Its cover".

In it she makes the following points:

1) "Your screenplay's title, your name, phone number and possibly your address are all that's needed on this page. If you have an agent, the agent's name and phone number should appear in place of you phone number and address."

2) "Get a Los Angeles phone number and voice mail if you have not made the commitment of a move to the city. Most legitimate Hollywood screenwriters, producers, and agents live in Los Angeles. An out-of-town address or phone number on the screenplay can be a red flag to some readers, indicating that the author has yet to get serious about her craft and make the move to the entertainment capital of the world. Sounds like an odd note, but seasoned readers know this to be true."

Perhaps my original point that "WGA Registered" does not belong on a professional screenplay and therefore could give a negative impression sounded just as odd to you and Simon.

Incidentally, "trolling" messageboards is right.

OBVIOUSLY agents and producers will not pass on a script because it includes a notice but there is still not any conceivable reason for including it -- a WGA notice can still only hurt, not help, and your advice that a writer should "definitely" include it on the title page in certain circumstances is therefore inaccurate.

But the truisms in your latest contribution are neither here nor there, your examples deliberately neglect the reality of the situation and seek to twist my simple point, which has been consistent throughout, in yet another direction!

By the time it gets to an agent or producer the script has probably already been covered. The opinions of agents and producers are not that relevant to this discussion, because everyone who reads this board has to assume that they will need to be recommended by a busy, over-worked reader first to get to that level of consideration.

My original statement said putting it on the title page will likely prejudice READERS to the extent that it may colour their read (because they get sent a higher proportion of dross and are therefore more sensitive to little anomalies like that) and I stand by that. Your initial statement to me was that such a remark had "absolutely no basis". I do not exclude agents and producers from drawing inferences but they are relatively free of the reade's mind-set as they don't expect 90% of what they are given to read to be absolute dross. All they are likley to infer from non-standard format such as that on a script that has already been read and recommended is that it's by a relatively new screen writer unfamiliar with industry norms (whilst a reader, with nothing else to go on, may -- as Lerch reminds -- indulge in wild speculation before turning to page one).

If you are going to trade on your experience and status to debunk perfectly reasonable advice, please post your full n

[BROUGHCUT]

-- name. Just for the benefit of new visitors to this board.

[Optimus Maximus]

Wow.

Straw man stupidity has now reached depths that I never even imagined possible.

[BROUGHCUT]

I don't know what's odder: being accused of having delusions of grandeur from someone with a Nero complex, for having the cheek to criticise his own sweeping, evidently indefectible, criticisms (I don't know who this guy is, just that Simon Kinburg turned in a rewrite for Argonauts, which this person apparently knows nothing about) -- or your latest interjections.

Why are you treating this like some sort of personal vendetta? Simon's name-calling aside, it really was just a factual disagreement. The last message I ever received from you (can't remember us having any disagreements since then) also began "Wow" but was signed "Peace", after I helped you out with some information over on Done Deal. You did ask that should you "ever act like a dick in the future", I should let you know. Well, Opti, you are relapsing.

Peace.