If I can impart nothing else ...

alexwhitmer

alexwhitmer

... DO NOT rely on contracts alone to save you in a legal wrangle. I recently had a major work stolen. They just flatout took it and called it their own. 3 years and 4,000 hours, gone.

The contract did eventually help fix everything, but what also really helped was not just the exchange of emails, but screen prints of them, and copy-and-paste into word as well. I saved everything, from the orig emails to screenprint copies to every version of the script, third-party communications, and so on. One copy-and-paste was 40 pages long in word. Pretty hard for them to argue I created that in photoshop or something.

If you think you might be working with someone not on the up and up, or too full of promises, go complete overkill on everything, and even record a phone conversation or two. A lot gets said that doesn't get written down. Or that can really cause some damage.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but losing your work to thieves is profoundly painful. And they are out there, and they are pretending to be good friends. It was a betrayal I won't soon get over, if ever.

A contract is merely one part of the big package you need to protect your work, and a clever attorney can pick that apart one way or another - that or they make it so expensive to fight that you simply need to walk away. Union or not, registered or not, every script can be stolen, or at the very least mined to death.

Screenprint your emails. Copy and paste them, especially the long exchanges, and do not delete a single one. I even went so far as to create a second email account to forward the originals to, just in case.

a



.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
brianluce said:
Got a link to the thieving filmmakers? They deserve to be trashed.
Click to expand...

That would be a bad idea and open him up to all sorts of legal liability if they found out. The general rule of thumb in the business world is to document everything and always have a paper trail. If you agree to something without a paper trail it boils down to your word vs theirs which is incredibly difficult to prove in court.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Conroy Films said:
How did they steal it? Not sure how they could actually do it.
Click to expand...
They pull a "Ship of Theseus" stunt on you.
In four years you might see some product of theirs (or one they sold to someone else to produce) that vaaaaaguely resembles what you brought to them.

DANCES WITH WOLVES: Disillusioned soldier meets traditional enemies makes friends fights against countrymen
THE LAST SAMURAI: Disillusioned soldier meets traditional enemies makes friends fights against countrymen
AVATAR: Disillusioned soldier meets traditional enemies makes friends fights against countrymen
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
They pull a "Ship of Theseus" stunt on you.
In four years you might see some product of theirs (or one they sold to someone else to produce) that vaaaaaguely resembles what you brought to them.

DANCES WITH WOLVES: Disillusioned soldier meets traditional enemies makes friends fights against countrymen
THE LAST SAMURAI: Disillusioned soldier meets traditional enemies makes friends fights against countrymen
AVATAR: Disillusioned soldier meets traditional enemies makes friends fights against countrymen
Click to expand...

Maybe they just reneged on paying him thanks to technical bullshit.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ClockworkNinja said:
That would be a bad idea and open him up to all sorts of legal liability if they found out. The general rule of thumb in the business world is to document everything and always have a paper trail. If you agree to something without a paper trail it boils down to your word vs theirs which is incredibly difficult to prove in court.
Click to expand...

How would someone be liable for stuff I say? If John Doe robs a bank John Doe is liable, not some stranger on the web.

Alex has been around a long time and it's not right that this should happen to him. If these thieves want to hassle me, that fine. I live in a cave in Tajikistan.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
How would someone be liable for stuff I say? If John Doe robs a bank John Doe is liable, not some stranger on the web.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the law of defamation?

Defamation law consists of many things, but the main parts pertaining to this would be:

If John Doe is accused of robbing a bank, and you go online and say 'John Doe robbed this bank' and he is then acquitted, you can quite easily be sued for defamation.
Furthermore, even if John Doe was convicted - if it was done quietly and you spread it he could launch a defamation case, and when a defamation case is launched, the onus transfers to you to prove you were correct in what you said. If he thinks you'll have a hard time proving it, he'd probably win. As well, if you were to go online and say 'John Doe is a terrible man, he robbed this bank and he tried to sexually abuse my sister' for example, you could be sued for defamation, even though the first part about robbing the bank is true. If the second part is untrue, or you can't prove that it was true, he would win a defamation case against you.

Best to play it safe always, if not just out of respect for the deal you settled.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
Do you understand the law of defamation?

Defamation law consists of many things, but the main parts pertaining to this would be:

If John Doe is accused of robbing a bank, and you go online and say 'John Doe robbed this bank' and he is then acquitted, you can quite easily be sued for defamation.
Furthermore, even if John Doe was convicted - if it was done quietly and you spread it he could launch a defamation case, and when a defamation case is launched, the onus transfers to you to prove you were correct in what you said. If he thinks you'll have a hard time proving it, he'd probably win. As well, if you were to go online and say 'John Doe is a terrible man, he robbed this bank and he tried to sexually abuse my sister' for example, you could be sued for defamation, even though the first part about robbing the bank is true. If the second part is untrue, or you can't prove that it was true, he would win a defamation case against you.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Australia but specifically defamation laws are considerably different in the UK. Online defamation prosecution is incredibly rare and, when it happens, if the website can provide the prosecutors with the IP address of the person posting the defamatory comments then no-one else involved in the conversation (including the website) can be prosecuted.

I don't recommend naming and shaming online, simply because it can weaken your position if the case does ever go to court but, at the same time, people needn't feel uneasy about voicing potentially defamatory comments (like me saying that Zach Snyder is an evil charlatan who ritually abuses my eyes) on a forum like this.

But, yes, with legal cases I'd keep everything on the down low as much as possible.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NickClapper said:
Online defamation prosecution is incredibly rare and, when it happens, if the website can provide the prosecutors with the IP address of the person posting the defamatory comments then no-one else involved in the conversation (including the website) can be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Obviously the rest of us posting would be fine, but the person who made the comment would be sued for defamation.

The internet is a big place. We've recently had people sue for defamation over comments made in blogs, and won. All it takes is someone who gets a little too annoyed over something that is said, sues and wins to set a precedent.

A couple of subpoena's and the author of a forum post would be easily found.

That's why I advise people from writing defamatory things on Twitter - the internet is not anonymous, no matter how much you think your quirky screenname hides you. Things you say can come back to bite you.

There's no sense in saying something defamatory and just hoping that you won't get caught out. IMO, it's better (and more professional) to play it safe.

A comment made in jest will often be classified as comedy rather than defamatory, btu there is a fine line, and the court will often pull the 'ordinary everyday person' test on a joke to decide which way it falls.

It used to be only journalists and broadcast media professionals needed to know defamation law, because they were essentially the only people who could say things in public forums. With the advent of the internet, most of the internet is a public forum, so everyone should be across at least basic defamation law. At this point in time it may be rare, but as people continue to voice their defamatory opinions on YouTube comments, in forums etc. the prosecution rate will inevitably go up once someone comes up with an easier way to do so.

'I didn't think I'd be prosecuted' doesn't really stand up as a legal defense... even though 'I didn't know she was 18' often does..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
Do you understand the law of defamation?

Defamation law consists of many things, but the main parts pertaining to this would be:

If John Doe is accused of robbing a bank, and you go online and say 'John Doe robbed this bank' and he is then acquitted, you can quite easily be sued for defamation.
Furthermore, even if John Doe was convicted - if it was done quietly and you spread it he could launch a defamation case, and when a defamation case is launched, the onus transfers to you to prove you were correct in what you said. If he thinks you'll have a hard time proving it, he'd probably win. As well, if you were to go online and say 'John Doe is a terrible man, he robbed this bank and he tried to sexually abuse my sister' for example, you could be sued for defamation, even though the first part about robbing the bank is true. If the second part is untrue, or you can't prove that it was true, he would win a defamation case against you.

Best to play it safe always, if not just out of respect for the deal you settled.
Click to expand...

Oh they can try and sue me all the want. I'm a veteran of the system. However they're not going to sue Alex for anything I say about the theft of his property and that's the issue. Understand?

Best is to stick up for yourself and what you think is right.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wow, great responses!

Yeah, I'd love to out them, but why invite unwanted legal issues. The sooner they are out of my life for all eternity, the longer I will live. Suffice to say I'm making progress.

I would also suggest that you know your work backwards and forwards. Pop a question like 'On what page does the inciting incident fall, and was it written as the II, or decided upon later?' And maybe a question like 'Did I use Pope-in-the-pool, and if so, on what page and in what scene?' 'How many red herrings, if any?' 'What literary references were infered in scene 20?'

If you know the script comma for comma, you up your chances at appearing to be its author.


As for going after youtube comment makers, I'd would love to see a few of the punks that leave really hurtful messages in the RIP videos taken to the mat big time - things like 'Oh man she was hot. I think I''ll dig her up and f--k her in the a--'

Imagine a grieving parent or sibliing reading that. I see way too much of it in dang near every rememberance video (I peruse them occasionally looking for story ideas). Yeah, find them and jail them for as long as possible. Sue them into oblivion as well.

a





.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry for your troubles, Alex.

I thought defemation is defamation only if it untrue.

?

Thanks for the sobering information, Jax.

I haven't had a chance to look at the other stuff, Alex, but The Cellar looks pretty neat. =)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
richy said:
I thought defemation is defamation only if it untrue.
Click to expand...

That is technically true, but at least in Australian law, and AFAIK international law as well, once a defamation lawsuit is launched, the onus is upon the person who made the comment to prove it was true.

That's why media outlets (in general) try and stick to the facts they know for sure, as they can prove it's true via their numerous sources. It is also why you will constantly hear 'allegedly' in many news bulletins if they're not 100% certain that it's true or not.

If you can't prove that what you say is 100% true, you best be careful about what you say in public forums.

Though, as I say, I am no lawyer and my law knowledge as it pertains to the media comes from my media law studies during my time at University, as well as my father who has been a journalist for over 20 years. That doesn't mean my words are gospel, and should not be taken as 100% true fact, especially when talking international law. However, either way I think getting into the practice of not saying defamatory things in public internet forums is quite possibly a good one ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
richy said:
I haven't had a chance to look at the other stuff, Alex, but The Cellar looks pretty neat. =)
Click to expand...

Thanks for looking at it. Yeah, it's a pretty cool story, and Jens is a master at FX so more than confident it will be gorgeous on screen.

If we ever raise the needed cash!


I do consider The Cellar my best work. Fingers crossed it will make it someday.

There is an alternative teaser edit on Vimeo, here ...

https://vimeo.com/32057849

a




.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top