REPRINT: Copyright Vs. Chain Of Title
Ed. Note: This article was originally a post I wrote on WriterAction. I subsequently revised and published it here in January of 2005.
So, the theoretical question has arisen: how is it ever possible that a group of writers could write scripts connected by a single chain of title, and yet some of those writers would not be considered participating writers by the WGA in an arbitration?
Here’s my explanation, informed by my reading of the MBA, but no less informed by a discussion I had with Ted Elliott, who crystalized the “as if” theory (more on that later).
Participation Isn’t Defined by Employment, But By Contribution of Intellectual Property
First, some definitions. Per Schedule A, Paragraph 9 of the MBA:
A writer who has particpated in the writing of a screenplay, or a writer who has been employed by the Company on the story and/or screenplay, or who has sold or licensed literary material subject to this Basic Agreement, shall, for the purpose of this Basic Agreement, be considered a participant.
Pretty simple. If you participate in the writing of a screenplay, either as an employee, spec seller or just some dude who wrote stuff, you’re a participating writer (by the way, if we eliminated “A writer who has participated in the writing of a screenplay, or”, we’d have ourselves Writing Credits For Writers Only, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion).
Next definition…what does copyright protect in regards to written works of art? The U.S. Copyright office says:
Copyright will protect the literary or dramatic expression of an author’s idea but not the idea itself.
So, first thing’s first. Let’s say I have an idea for a movie. “A high school outcast learns about life and love from a martial arts teacher.” The first question is…can I copyright that idea as it pops out of my head? No. It needs to be expressed in a fixed form. Okay. I write it down. I now own the copyright on that fixed form, i.e. that piece of paper with those words on it and any mechanical reproduction (xerox) of that fixed form (piece of paper with words on it). Does that mean no one else can use that idea? No. I could only own the copyright on the literary expression of the idea (which I haven’t written yet), but not on the idea itself.
A treatment or script is considered a literary expression of an idea. A logline MIGHT be a literary expression of an idea if it is specific enough. A premise, however, generally doesn’t pass the test of copyrightable.
Yes, this means you are absolutely free to write a movie with the same damn idea as The Karate Kid. You just can’t steal the specific manner in which that idea was expressed in a fixed form, because the literary expression is protected.
Okay. So…let’s imagine a world without studios. Yes, I can actually hear some of you sighing with joy.
In the world without studios, writers come up with an idea (which is not copyrightable), and then they write a script (which is copyrightable because it’s a literary expression of the author’s idea). Now let’s say that Harry has the idea about the kid who learns karate. Harry writes the script, and now he owns the copyright on the script…but he decides in all honesty that his writer friend Joe could really improve the script if he let him contribute to it. He offers, as the copyright holder, to authorize Joe to revise the work.
Joe agrees, but he makes a reasonable request of Harry. “Let’s say I contribute a lot to the final version. My unique literary expression (exluding elements borrowed from you) is copyrightable too, even though it’s derived from your initial literary expression. How will we determine authorship, or credit, for the final script?”
No problem! There’s a Scribes Union of writers who agree to submit to binding arbitration in cases like these. The SU says, “We analyze the drafts and then decide what a fair credit should be based on your individual, copyrightable contributions to the final script, paying careful attention to chronology as well as reuse of elements, etc.”
And so it goes. Joe rewrites you, the two of you submit to a binding arbitration as participating writers on the script, and you’re happy.
Ah, but there’s a wrinkle. Some dude named Fred says, “Hey! I wrote a different script based on the same idea of a high school outcast who learns about life and love from a Karate master! I should be a participating writer too, even though I don’t know these other guys.”
The SU arbiters read his script and respond as such: “Fred, we believe the only thing similar between your script and Harry/Joe’s is the idea. Since idea is not copyrightable, and written literary material is copyrightable, we believe you didn’t contribute any written literary material, so we don’t believe you meet the standard of participant in Harry & Joe’s script. That’s the bad news. The good news is that, in turn, they aren’t participating writers in your script either. You are free to exploit it without worrying about them asking for a piece of the profits, just as they are free to exploit their script without sharing profits with you.”
And that seems reasonable, right?
Now let’s re-enter our world. Yes, Virginia, there really is a studio.
Without getting into the why of it all, when a screenwriter sells a script to a studio, he is also transferring the ownership of copyright. The legal author of every script that Paramount owns is, in fact, Paramount Pictures.
But wait. It’s not The Godfather, written by Paramount. If writers aren’t the legal author, why do they get credit?
We get credit because we bargained for it, and we get to determine which participating writers get credit, because we bargained for that. Still, we’re in the weird place of assigning credit to writers who hold no copyright claims! So how do we do that?
We do it as if the participants all DO hold copyright claims. The WGA, much like my hypothetical Scribes Union, determines screen credit on the basis of copyrightable contributions (unique literary expressions in fixed form, yadda yadda).
This is important for the same reason it was important back at the Scribes Union. Here in reality, years after Karate Kid was made, a movie was released called “Showdown.” Showdown was about a high school outcast who lusted after a girl whose violent boyfriend was a karate master. Only by learning karate from a mysterious school janitor could he face off against the boyfriend and win the girl. The guy who wrote Showdown did not violate the copyright of Karate Kid because he only used the same idea, but created a unique literary expression of that idea called “Showdown,” and apparently did so demonstrably enough to avoid being sued for plagiary of dialogue, specific characterizations, narrative, etc.
Ooh, big deal, we protected the Showdown guy, right? Ahh, but by saying that Showdown is a unique work distinct from Karate Kid, we’re also protecting Karate Kid. Should they ever want to remake Karate Kid (and honestly, we can’t be more than five years away from that), they’re not going to have to deal with a lawsuit from the writer of Showdown.
Okay. So…finally we get to the sticky problems caused by the chain of title. If you’ve read this far, I promise you…we’re almost there.
Studio A buys Harry’s original script. They now own the copyright. They hire Joe to rewrite it. Then they decide that they really hate this thing, but Studio B is willing to buy it (ownership of copyright) out of turnaround, keeping the same producer along for the ride. The producer and Studio B sends the script to Fred, in the hopes that he can improve it.
Fred comes to them and says, “Guys, I read the script. I read it fifty times. I’ve memorized it. And I hate it. The only thing I like is the idea, but I have a completely unique literary expression I’d like to put in fixed form based on this idea (Fred is such a fucking geek). My unique literary expression has absolutely nothing in common with the copyrightable elements of the prior scripts. It may, however, have uncopyrightable things in common…i.e. not-unique literary expressions like ideas. For instance, I love this notion of a high school outcast who learns about life and love from a karate master. But that’s it. Everything from here on out will be unique and original to me.”
Fred is hired by Studio B AND by the same producer who was attached to Harry and Joe’s script, and he goes off and writes. The script gets the green light, and they shoot KungFu High!
When it comes time for arbitration on KungFu High!, Studio B follows the chain of title when determining how to list partcipating writers. They list Harry, Joe and Fred.
But Fred calls the Guild and says, “Wait a second. We determine credits as if we were the copyright owners of our unique literary expressions in fixed forms, which is why KungFu High can’t, say, be ‘written by Studio B.’ But that means the chain of title is totally irrelevant, because chain of title only reflects studio ownership of copyright, not the in-truth authorship of the scripts that this Guild is trying to determine. All that matters is whether or not the material I wrote can possibly be considered a work derived from another copyrighted literary expression. And I’m saying…it’s not. I’m saying KungFu High is totally unique to me with the exception of the uncopyrightable IDEA…and so Harry and Joe aren’t participants in the writing of it.”
And Fred then realizes something else. “You know what? I could have read Harry and Joe’s script, and THEN written my exact same script for Studio X, which has ZERO chain of title going back to Harry and Joe! And neither Studio A nor B nor Harry nor Joe could have sued me, because I didn’t take anything copyrightable from them. That means they contributed nothing copyrightable to my screenplay, which means they are no more participants in it than anyone else you’ll meet on the street.”
And Fred turns to Harry and Joe and says, “By the way, this also means that I’m not a participant in your script, which means that if Studio B chooses to exploit your version, I won’t be able to seek credit on that movie.”
The Guild now has a decision to make.
Is Fred right? Does his script contain zero copyrightable literary material taken from Harry and Joe’s script? The fact that he read their script is irrelevant, just as it’s irrelevant that the writer of Showdown most likely watched Karate Kid on cable. Regardless of the chain of title, do the two incarnations of the project (a term of economic, rather than creative, distinction) share anything in common other than the uncopyrightable idea?
The Guild will read the scripts and make that decision. However, there IS a decision to be made. Unity of the chain of title doesn’t necessarily preclude a complete division of copyright.
PS: Suddenly, the fact that the studio/writers of “Vice Versa” didn’t get sued by the studio/writers of “Freaky Friday” starts to make sense, right? :)
I believe I may have mentioned this anecdote during a conversation on the boards many months ago, but it bears repeating. All of the details will be obscured, but the story is true.
A couple years ago, I was working for a Literary Representative. Rep’s client, who we will call “John Smith” is a successful writer/director who was putting the finishing touches on a film he wrote and directed, based on a novel.
Now, before he made his version, a different studio originally optioned the material years ago and commissioned a first draft. Years later, the property had changed hands and John Smith, a huge fan of the original novel, really wanted to make his adaptation. The original script, written by Joe Jones, was pretty lousy.
John Smith COMPLETELY threw out the script and started from scratch, basing his script ONLY on the novel and his (rather extensive) re-working of it.
The two scripts obviously shared some common story elements, mostly confined to the first act. After that, while keeping some basic simliarities of character and the rough plot, the scripts diverged very, very significantly. They had different tones and vastly different interpretations of the source material. Frankly, John Smith did a damn good job in padding out the rather thin source material.
Now, since John was very busy actually making the movie, the Rep asked me to help John with his WGA statement. In order to do so, I read Joe Jones’ original script. I read the source novel. And I read MANY different versions of John’s script. Frankly, John owed absolutely NO DEBT whatsoever to Joe’s script. As he had told us, he totally chucked it and wrote his own version based only on the novel.
So after John wrote a very detailed, very comprehensive arbitration statement (which, as I said, I was humbled to help him with a little), the sages at the WGA STILL awarded Joe Jones a co-story credit. John and Rep were resigned and accepted the decision, at least somewhat pleased and relieved that Joe Jones was not given more credit.
But, really, it was ridiculous. Now, in this case, unlike the “Karate Kid” example, both writers were adapting an existing literary work.
However, it seemed absurd to me that the WGA should award Joe Jones any credit whatsoever. Nothing that he wrote, not a single idea, not one line made it into the finished movie. The only similarities were derived exclusively from the source novel.
Alas…
After reading Craig Mazin’s piece about copyright/idea/literary treatment, I’d be very interested to hear his thoughts about ‘Les Liaisons Dangerous’ and ‘Valmont’. Both these pieces share much more than just an ‘idea’, but also something approaching the literary treatment.
Kind Regards, Michael Swiskay
After reading Craig Mazin’s piece about copyright/idea/literary treatment, I’d be very interested to hear his thoughts about ‘Les Liaisons Dangerous’ and ‘Valmont’. Both these pieces share much more than just an ‘idea’, but also something approaching the literary treatment.
Kind Regards, Michael Swiskay
Michael:
When you’re dealing with adapatation of literary material, you are licensing the right to use copyrighted expressions from the author.
Unless, of course, the work is public domain.
If it’s public domain, then everyone can use the material. However, adaptations, as you properly imply, also create unique forms of literary expression. Two competiting screenplay adaptations of Hamlet, for instance, could theoretically cause a copyright infringement judge some major fits. Obviously, the dialogue is all taken from the same play, so that’s fair. But what if the second screenwriter has eliminated the same dialogue as the first? What if he’s eliminated the same scenes as the first? What if he’s chosen to verbally describe certain sequences the same way.
What a mess.
When it comes to protected literary works, the major issue is first whether the adapting screenwriter is stealing from the author of the underlying work. In the case of public domain…well. That’s a weird one. :)
CRAIG;
I just have to say this. I know it sounds like ass-kissing, but what it “sounds like” still doesn’t change how I feel.
In this BBS I’ve been able to post my own views on how “screwed up” the whole issue of who owns what, and who gets to determine what goes, what stays, what changes and what doesn’t. This despite the fact that, frankly, I don’t really know what the hell I’m talking about.
It’s very easy to live in my own little bubble with “my head in the sand and my fist in the air”, but by having the opportunity to bring up what I see as issues, and then being able to see my own points right there up with the counter points made, any ;-) “plain text reading” of my points and the responses, makes it a hell of a lot more clear to me, not only where I’m full of it, but why.
And all of this is taking place in an environment where there’s no money on the table, or career crippling mistakes to be made.
I realize that reading my occasionally ranting ramblings, let alone responding to them, simply has to take a hell of a lot of patience, but what I hope at least, is that you, and everybody else that’s responded realizes, is that I don’t have any other place to turn to hear things like this.
I don’t want to give the impression that I suddenly think I’m hearing “The Gospel according to Craig Mazin” (or anyone else) in here.
But I am learning, and what I’m learning is that “the way things work”, in the real world, didn’t come about as a result of some mysterious “powers that be” hidden away in some smoke filled back room at a studio with a bunch of jerks trying to figure out how they can screw me and any other writer that walks into town with something that might be a good idea.
What I’m learning is that apparently, the way things work, “in the real world”, came about as a result of decades of competing interests and needs struggling to find some kind, almost any kind, of workable balance.
I’m also beginning to see that the answer to just about any question I have pretty much has to start with “that depends”. And it “depends” because simplistic answers to simplistic questions are of very little use in wrapping my head around the inner workings of an endeavor that can quite often involve the efforts and contributions of a hundred people or more with many millions of dollars riding on the outcome of those efforts.
So the system as it stands isn’t easy to understand, and it sure as hell ain’t perfect, but it also isn’t arbitrary let alone designed to “screw the writers”. That’s probably a lot more than obvious to you, and most of the people that’ve been dealing with it for more than a few years, but believe me when I tell you it’s not all that obvious to those of us looking at it from the outside.
I needed to see these posts Craig, and I strongly doubt I’m the only one who did.
Having my blinders yanked off and my eyes exposed to the bright light of many of the practical realities of screen writing might sting a bit, and I’m not sure I’m all that happy with some of what I see, but what the hell. If I wanted to remain a happy little idiot comfortably ensconced in my own little fantasy world of how all of this should work, I wouldn’t be posting in here and making an occasional ass of myself.
Thanks, to everyone who responded. Thanks for the patience, and thanks for the time, and if that sounds like nothing more than a load of pathetic ass-kissing so be it. What it “sounds like” doesn’t change how I feel.
A question on reserved rights & internet publishing:
I am aware that for most unproduced screenwriters it is almost impossible to reserve the novelization rights of a screenplay.
But what if the screenplay is first published at one of the print-on-demand web sites (like www.lulu.com) where it is assigned an ISBN? Doesn’t that make the screenplay a “published literary work” just like a novel, available for purchasing by the general public, with copyright still belonging to the author?
If the answer is yes, doesn’t that then provide a stronger argument to reserve the novelization rights when the screenplay is optioned or purchased by a producer/studio?
Or when as studio options/purchases the screenplay, will it also require the screenplay to be withdrawn from the market as a literary work already published and available for sale on the internet?
In other words, would the prior print-on-demand publishing of a screenplay on the internet help or handicap the terms of an optioning/sales contract? I could not find any reference to this question in any of the screenwriting books I’ve read and would really appreciate some help with it.
Many thanks in advance.
Gary
Gary:
Actually, if you receive story or written by credit for your original screenplay, then one of the separated rights the WGA has negotiated for you is the right to novelization.
The studio must offer you the job of writing the novelization first. If you decline the offer, they have to pay you a minimum fee for it anyway.
In the case of an original screenplay, as the first writer, you are guaranteed, at the very least, shared story credit. Therefore, you are guaranteed a share of the separated rights. There is no need to reserve novelization rights. The WGA has already done this for you.
To your second point, POD’ing screenplays would have little effect on your situation. Essentially, when you sold that screenplay, you would have to transfer copyright. The prior publication would have no bearing on the situation, unless you had actually been exploiting the screenplay, in which case you could actually harm your cause. The WGA can only cover screenplays that haven’t been exploited prior to the covered sale.
My recommendation is to not POD your screenplay.
Mike:
You made my holidays. :)
“What I’m learning is that apparently, the way things work, “in the real world”, came about as a result of decades of competing interests and needs struggling to find some kind, almost any kind, of workable balance.”
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
You know, this is really the entire point of this exercise. I don’t do much in this world that’s prosocial. This website is partially my “catcher in the rye” effort. Ted and I both believe that screenwriters, as a group, will be far better off and more empowered if our new additions are educated and aware and feet on the ground.
If we have to go person by person, writer by writer, we will. Some will never see. Others will. We’ll take the victories as they come.
That’s why I never mind anyone’s rants on this site. We’re all (including me) in a never-ending state of relative ignorance and enlightenment. Just think what we’ll learn in another year!
“The prior publication would have no bearing on the situation, unless you had actually been exploiting the screenplay, in which case you could actually harm your cause. The WGA can only cover screenplays that haven’t been exploited prior to the covered sale.”
Lemme make sure I’ve got this right.
Although exploiting the screenplay prior to sale of screen rights COULD harm your cause, exploiting the publishing rights (in the form of selling a novel) would NOT, — HOWEVER —, you’d be as crazy as the guy who holds tea parties to try to sell off ANY rights, of ANY kind, other than the publishing rights, prior to the sale of the film rights to a story, because the rights to things like video games, comics, toys, t-shirts, or even theme parks, had better be “unencumbered” when you sit down to negotiate the film rights, if you want to retain maximum leverage in the negotiation of those film rights.
Second question.
If you’re a novelist, is there any advantage, at all, to taking the time to write a spec script based on your novel, or, is it the case that, you’re actually better off NOT trying to pen a spec s/p, because if you do, the studio is now stuck in a position of having to hope you’ll be able to successfully work on a “work for hire” basis as one of their employees, which may or may not be the case regardless of how much they may like what they see in that spec?
Additionally, since the author wrote a spec, “as the first writer, that author would be guaranteed, at the very least, shared story credit”, which means that if they come to feel that you DO have to be replaced, the guy (or gal) they hire to replace you is going to have to put up with a split credit right from the word GO, thus making it harder to bring in the talent they feel they need.
Or, possibly, could that EXACT situation actually offer the studio an advantage in that under the written by, they’re going to be able to have the original author’s name lending legitimacy to any pre-existing fan base of the novel, as opposed to simply a “based on” card in the title roll?
And, since I seem to have this habit of sometimes asking the wrong questions ;-) —
What, if any, are the advantages to taking the time to write and have a novel published, before writing an original spec screenplay?
I have a question:
In a prior post I beleive you said that the ‘first author’ of a screen play will always get at least story credit and the next author must prove he wrote at least 50% of the final draft to get ‘screenplay by’. But in your example here the original authors are getting nothing because none of their copyrightable material was used.
Where am I reading this wrong?
Thanks, Craig. Thanks for the informative response to my POD question. I appreciate it.
Keep up the good work and have a terrific New year!
Gary
Whaledawg —
In the prior post, Craig was talking about the first writer — under MBA and the WGA Credit Arbitration Guidelines, if you write the first full draft of a screenplay without being assigned any source material or literary material by the Company, then you are guaranteed at minimum a shared story credit (“without being assigned any source material or literary material” — it’s not an adaptation, and no one made any writing contributions prior to you).
Because you are guaranteed story credit, you are guaranteed what the MBA calls “Separated Rights.” “Separated Rights” are one of the contractual replications of the right you would own if the screenplay was not work-made-for-hire (all screenplays written under assignment from or sold to a company that is signatory to the MBA fall under the “work-made-for-hire” doctrine of U.S. copyright law).
HOWEVER …
The MBA also says that screen credit (including screen credit for story) is given based on the “final script (as represented on-screen).” In order to be what is called a “participating writer” for the purposes of credit determination, your work must constitute a contribution toward the final script. Whether or not that is the case is based on a comparison of the literary content of your work and that of the final script.
So, in reality, the requirement for the guaranteed shared story credit is you must A ) qualify as a “participating writer,” based on literary content, and B ) have written the first full draft without being assigned any source or literary material by the Company.
I think you can kind of see why screen credit is the major source of controversy among Guild screenwriters …
(The “author” stuff goes to what Craig and I call the “as if” theory of authorship that is embodied in the MBA).
TED;
Not to nitpick, but in this case just “one ‘lil ‘ol word” can make all the differance in the world.
When you said - “So, in reality, the requirement for the guaranteed shared story credit is you must A ) qualify as a “participating writer,” based on literary content, and B ) have written the first full draft without being assigned any source or literary material by the Company.”
You meant to say situation A) OR B) qualifies you for the guarantee, not A) AND B), correct?
Or am I DEAD WRONG? I.e., it’s possible to qualify as a “participating writer”, but still not qualify for a shared story credit if you didn’t also (and vs. or), write the first full draft.
Mike —
You have to be a participating writer in order to be eligible for screen credit at all. So the “AND” is correct:
However, I realized that there is one thing I need to clarify:
The guaranteed story credit requires that you write the first full draft of the screenplay without having been assigned any source material or any literary material contributed by someone other than yourself.
-
Bear with me Ted, I’m almost there, not quite, but almost.
What I think I get is that being a “participating writer” as determined by your work constituting a contribution toward the final script, you might qualify for a shared “Story by”, or “Written by”, but that that wouldn’t be enough to qualify you for Separated Rights unless you also wrote the “first full draft” (without having been assigned any source material or any literary material contributed by someone other than yourself).
What was confusing me (and it’d be my mistake not yours) is that by using the word “AND” I thought that maybe there could be a situation I hadn’t heard of yet where you did write the “first full draft”, but still didn’t qualify as a “participating writer”.
That can’t happen can it?
Or can it? And if that can happen, or did happen, would that now mean the NOBODY qualifies for Separated Rights?
Mike —
Just ‘cause I’m not sure this is clear:
Story credit can be given in the form of “story by” or “screen story by.” “Story by” is given where there is no source material for the story underlying the final script. “Screen story by” is given where there is source material, but the story underlying the final script is sufficiently different from that of the source material so as to constitute an original work of authorship in its own right.
If you receive either “Story by” credit or “Screen story by” credit, you are entitled to separated rights.
Okay, so, in order to receive separated rights:
you must qualify as a participating writer for the purposes of screen credit determination. This means that any work you did in the employ of the studio must constitute a contribution toward the final script (as represented onscreen) or the story underlying that script.
You must receive either “Story by” or “Screen Story by” credit — in other words, you must receive credit that recognizes you as the author, in whole or in part, of the story underlying the final script.
Okay, that’s what it says in the MBA.
Now, what it says in the WGA Screen Credits Manual, which only comes into play in the case that the screen credit must be arbitrated, is that if a writer writes the first full draft of a screenplay without being assigned any source material or literary material contributed by someone else, then he is guaranteed story credit — either “Story by” or “Screen story by.”
Since the MBA allows for up to two writers to receive screen credit for story, this translates to a minimum guaranteed shared story credit.
Okay, that’s that. As for your second question …
There is one instance I know of where a writer was the first employed under the chain of title to the copyright of a screenplay for a movie, who wrote a full draft under that chain of title, but still did not qualify as a participating writer (and so did not receive story credit, and so no separated rights).
The reason given was, his work did not constitute a literary contribution to the final script (as represented onscreen), so did not constitute a literary contribution to the story underlying that final script. Since it did represent even a potential authorial contribution, he had no legitimate claim to authorship of the final script/underlying story, and so did not qualify as a participating writer.
This was determined by a comparison of his drafts to the final script - and this is where the “as if” idea kicks in. The standard used was, in theory, the copyright in his his drafts only was separate from the copyright in the final script, would the final script represent an infringement of the copyright in those drafts?
As if the writer owned the copyright in his drafts, as if he were the legal author of those drafts, as if they were not written under work-made-for-hire law, which recognizes the employer as the legal author of and copyright owner in a work written by an employee in the course of his employment.
The writer sued the Guild on this point, and the judge dismissed the case. However, the writer sued on the basis of contract law and agency law. There, a union has a pretty wide discretion in interpreting its won collective bargaining agreement. He still has a case that could be pressed on the basis of copyright law, which is the law underlying these terms of the contract. If he owned the copyright in his drafts, are there enough similarities between his drafts and the final script/underlying story to constitute copyright infringement?
The rub of all this is: if that “minimum guaranteed shared story credit” rule in the WGA Screen Credits Manual did not exist, then he would have automatically been included as a participating writer.
The MBA requires that screen credit be given in recognition of authorship, and that it be based on the literary material contributed toward the final script only. However, the “Guaranteed Story Credit” rule gives screen credit based on chronology of employment — the date you were hired to write literary material, not the content of that material.
The irony is, the “Guaranteed Story Credit” rule was voted into effect by the WGAw membership out of the belief that it would protect the first writer employed on a project, by guaranteeing him a story credit and at least half-interest in separated rights, no matter how many writers the studio hired to rewrite the script.
However, in this one case, the rule actually caused the first writer employed on the project to be excluded from participating in the arbitration altogether. So instead of three WGAw members assessing the authorial contribution his literary material made (or did not make) to the final script/story, one WGAw member did (an “expert reader.”)
That sucks, blows and bites.
-
Ted, With the guaranteed story credit, what if you are assigned material that is in the public domain? I realize that animation isn’t covered by the guild, but if it was, where would the story credit for Aladdin gone?
What about “Shakespeare in Love?” (which lists no story credits)
Mike —
Per the MBA, if the same writer or writers receive credit for both story and screenplay, then the screen credit reads “Written by.” That’s the credit on Shakespeare in Love —“Written by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard.”
In re: your first question: whether or not source material is in the public domain has not bearing on the determination of story credit.
The questions that must be asked are:
Examples:
You write an adaptation of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Your screenplay is extremely faithful to the novel. The screen writing credit would read “Screenplay by Mike Tully” only — the credit for the story would be disguised as the credit for the source material: “Based on the novel by Mark Twain.”
You do a story where D’Artagnan meets Edmund Dante, and, together, they foil a plot to dethrone the King of Prussia. Although you are using two characters created by the same author in two different novels, both of which are in the public domain, you have created the story out of whole cloth, specifically for use in your screenplay/a motion picture. Per the MBA, you would receive credit for story and screenplay — “Written by Mike Tully.” If there is a source material credit, it would read “Based on characters created by Alexander Dumas.”
A studio has optioned a non-fiction book on the Triangle Shirt Company fire, and hired you to adapt it. You create an entirely fictional story, incorporating true-life events recounted in the book. Even though there is source material, and it is source material of a story nature, you have created a story significantly different from that of the source material so as to constitute an original work of authorship. You receive story credit in the form of “Screen story by,” and screenplay credit. Now, technically, according to the MBA, this should entitle you to “Written by” credit. However, the practice has been that when there’s both source material and a story credit, the credit remains bifurcated — “Screen story by Mike Tully, Screenplay by Mike Tully.” Craig and I have been pointing out that this is incorrect, and it seems as though it may be changing. We’ll see.
It’s a good question regarding Aladdin, but I believe that the story in the movie is substantially different from the story in the source material that we (and Ron and John) would have received “Screen story by” credit under the MBA.
-
It seems odd that Shakespeare didn’t get any “based on” type credit for Shakespeare in Love- given that they lifted chunks of his dialogue- reinterpreted, of course, but still.
Of course, they were attributed, in that the character of WS said all those lines, so…
It makes my head spin. Good thing I’m not a copyright lawyer.