Producer Ted Hope e-mailed me this
New York Times article by Anne Thompson which is mandatory reading for all producers, writers and development executives. The article concerns the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and its recent ruling in the Jeff Grosso v. Miramax Film Corporation case. In the case, Grosso, a freelance writer and high-stakes poker player, sued Miramax claiming that the John Dahl film
Rounders lifted story details and characters from his own spec script
The Shell Game, which he had submitted unsolicited to a production company that had offices in the Miramax building. As quoted in the
Times, Grosso said, "[The poker phrase] 'Texas hold 'em' had never been used in a movie before... It was obvious to me that they stole my movie. Those two works couldn't be mutually exclusive. They realized that I was not powerful, had no connections, that they could rewrite the script and use it, for free."
The Federal District Court dismissed the part of Grosso's suit claiming copyright violations. But what is concerning producers is the part of the suit the court left standing. Basically, the court says that Miramax must go on trial on the charge of violating an "implied contract" with the writer, a contract that was presumably triggered by the mere act of Grosso's submission. (The details here are sketchier as to whether Grosso had more detailed discussions with the companies.) Continues the article, "Under California law, Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote in a ruling for a three-judge panel on Sept. 8, 'a contract sometimes may be implied even in the absence of an express promise to pay.'"
For unagented writers, the ruling is a mixed blessing. Litigious scribes may wind up with the courts on their side when they claim to be "ripped off" by the movie business, while others struggling to break into the business may find that the courts are creating a new "barrier to entry" as skittish producers will shy away from reading any unrepresented work.
Comments (3)
This ruling is actually the best thing to happen to the 'unknown' -- meaning 'uncredited' -- writer. This ruling is a weapon for the 'powerless' writer going up against the billion dollar studios. The only ones who will be adversely affected by this ruling are the Studio Entertainment attorneys who will be losing out on fees. [My personal opinion: most, not all -see below--entertainment attorneys are blocked creatives who don't have the courage and the talent to actually go out and do something, so they live vicariously through their clients. They do get 10-15% of their client's money].
I find it quite telling that the attorney at the end of the article states that the 'frivolous' lawsuits filed are usually settled. So, the valid ones, where the Studios know that the writers will not take Studio's insulting settlement offers, usually go to trial.
Studios [and Studio attorneys] have been able to abort the copyright protections afforded to creative writers for years through their power and money to influence Courts to disregard the intent and actual wording of the Copyright Act to steal from writers. The “substantial similarity” test is a Studio attorney created excuse to steal --- where does the Copyright Act say substantial similarity? NOWHERE --- the Act refers to any unauthorized use. When it is discovered that the Studios did in fact have access to someone’s script, where in the Copyright Act does it say that if the STUDIO changes it enough, it does not need to compensate the original writer? Where does this become “authorized use”?
Writers DO have contract claims. The Copyright Act specifically does not cover IDEAS because ideas have always been covered by contract! Why should contract law not apply to writers???
DISNEY is the most despised STUDIO in Hollywood. Roy Disney, Jr. even acknowledges that Michael Eisner and the current house of executive rats are responsible for Disney’s reputation as being “rapacious, soulless and out for a quick buck.” “Rapacious” meaning Disney rapes the creativity from writers. The New York times article quoted another attorney saying that Disney was crazy to allow this Grosso case to go to trial. Disney & Miramax believed that they had a powerless victim. The Court system has been blinded by star struck judges (ignorant of the development of movie pictures) and the color of money.
The Plaintiff Grosso was a seemingly powerless writer --- no Hollywood connections (i.e., no daddy or brother in business to open doors). The attorney who took his case should be applauded -- he is courageous and has been able to hold onto some sort of personal ethical and moral beliefs --- a very rare description of a lawyer these days.
I hope Disney drowns in its arrogance.
P.S. Without the writer, producers have nothing to steal [the past] or to produce. Seriously, if you [a writer] can make a producer or agent or attorney money, don't worry --- they would climb Mt. Everest naked and backwards with their hands tired behind their backs if it meant you would sign with them.
And RE: any production company wanting a writer to sign a contract that requires him to sign away all his rights, ideas, etc prior to a submission/pitch...I would put the contract through a shredder and send the pieces back to it with a post it note diagramming what it should do with the pieces.
MovieKat
MovieKat.blogspot.com
"There are two kinds of people: those who do the work, and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
#
posted by MovieKat @ 10/16/2004 3:09 PM
please help me I wrote the movie rounders .I tried legal help for some years but everyone refused because of lack of evedience.I paid a lawyer 10000 dollars 3 years ago.He kept my money and did nothing.I now get told that someone else has successfully sued miramax for my story.This is turning into a nightmare for me.I want to talk to mr grosso because 50 percent of that movie is my creation and it was a lot of work.contact me on +420728817877 I am a famous card player i need advise and help.
#
posted by jeff lisandroskim @ 8/09/2005 7:20 AM
please help me I wrote the movie rounders .I tried legal help for some years but everyone refused because of lack of evedience.I paid a lawyer 10000 dollars 3 years ago.He kept my money and did nothing.I now get told that someone else has successfully sued miramax for my story.This is turning into a nightmare for me.I want to talk to mr grosso because 50 percent of that movie is my creation and it was a lot of work.contact me on +420728817877 I am a famous card player i need advise and help.
#
posted by jeff lisandroskim @ 8/09/2005 7:20 AM
