Fox Sues Woman For $15M Because She Aggregated TV And Movie Scripts She Found Online
from the ouch dept
In the latest example of copyright law gone mad, it appears that Twentieth Century Fox is suing a woman for $15 million, because she aggregated various scripts she found online as a resource for screenwriters (like herself) to learn from. The key issue is that apparently one of the many, many scripts she had put together was of a movie that is still in production, and Fox doesn't want anyone to see it. Apparently she was told of the lawsuit by "private investigators," who questioned her for two hours (it's not clear why she didn't throw them out or refuse to answer their questions).Of course, those who support the current copyright regime will note that these scripts are, in fact, covered by copyright. However, it's difficult to claim that these scripts are somehow likely to act as a substitute for the actual movie for anyone. It's hard to see any losses from such a collection, frankly, but thanks to the fun of copyright law and statutory damages, actual harm doesn't much matter. All that matters is a giant Hollywood corporation has sued a struggling screenwriter for $15 million because she thought she was helping other screenwriters by aggregating example scripts she found elsewhere online for them all to learn from.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aggregation, copyright, scripts
Companies: 20th century fox, fox, news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TorrentFreak says $12 million, but every other source says $15, including TorrentFreak's original source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm guessing the vast majority of scripts are read by people who already know the movie well, and the remainder are actually driving new sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No DMCA notice? Hopefully they lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not copyright, trade secret
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright, trade secret
This is the problem with Copyright law, it encourages fixing of the symptom not the problem. Someone leaked a script Fox didn't want out, so they sue the person who happen to find the script, not the person who is truly responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright, trade secret
What trade secret? I mean, it's already in comic book form, where's the secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not copyright, trade secret
Or am I allowed to discuss movie plots anymore...?
Wait! I'm sorry! I didn't realize already-released movies are trade secrets now... Don't send me to Guantanamo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright, trade secret
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright, trade secret
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright, trade secret
Scripts are freely available to be read everywhere, of released films, films in-production, and even ones that haven't yet been picked up. Their method of construction is not only also freely available everywhere, but exceptionally rigid and standardized - if an aspiring scriptwriter hands in a script that deviates from the structure, their script won't even be read. Guaranteed. Resources for viewing scripts of other films, therefore, are very important.
Furthermore, scripts are not the movie. They are rarely even enjoyable to read, because they lack stage direction and emotional cues. Many good scripts end up as bad movies and vice versa.
This lawsuit ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, indeed. I'm sure her posting already avaialbe scripts will defantly harm the fans. Also, will the fans be receiving any of that 12mil, since they are apparently the ones being harmed?
The movie is Deadpool for all those wondering. It's going to be released in 2012. I for one won't go see it now. I guess my enjoyment of the movie has been has been spoiled by knowing that the company producing it is off it's blooming rocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can only vote with your money....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iran
I suggest death by stoning for this viscous lady. All the RIAA and MPAA lawyers and their senators can take part in the public stoning which will be held, filmed and broadcast live on PPV, from Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Iran
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Iran
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't want to be held liable for copyright infringement, don't pirate content you don't own without permission.
It's not that hard. No one forced her to open or run the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But scripts themselves are not published works. They have no inherent value, aside from the cost of paper. Which is of course negated when digitizing them.
Now, if they go ahead and take a script from a popular film, pretty it up, print it on fancy paper, maybe add some director's notes, behind-the-scenes info, some fancy set photos and bind it in a hard cover for your coffee table...then you've created what Mike would call a "scarcity". Which of course you could sell and probably make some money from. No one else could do it, because they don't own the rights.
But again, they could still just go online and read it with no repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, this should get interesting....
The fallout from this should be amusing to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the kind of news that makes me more resolute in not consuming or mentioning their offers to anyone.
Those people are not part of my world and they can take their stuff and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Law or no law this is just wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just have to convince 4,000 movie theaters to play the damn thing.
I based my original Deadpool movie off of the original Deadpool comic book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like when Dreamworkz beat Pixar to the punch with their fish movie by making "A Shark's Tale". That really ruined Pixar - oh wait, nobody watched "A Shark's Tale" because it was rubbish and a transparent money grab. :|
Seriously though, I only ever hear that concern from new scriptwriters "oh noes everyone wants to steal my idea!"
Nobody wants to steal your idea. Nobody cares about your idea. Your idea sucks. Everyone's ideas suck by default so don't beat yourself up over it. But don't expect studios to want what you have. The reason movies need to be pitched is because most ideas suck worse than the worst movie Hollywood has ever made. Only a select few ideas are good enough to become a bad film. But even though there are only a few, they're still a dime a dozen. And it's a fake dime made out of cheap plastic. Recycled from diapers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use
There's no money in fair use, thus no lawyers to cry its merits, etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libraries beware!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libraries beware!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libraries beware!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bustards suing wrong person, they just found 3.whipping-girl
Actually by any normal law, she is innocent - she wasnt source of leak, she just found script online, and she was not aware that this script is leaked and in-production, it wasnt she who published this script originally, she just republished copy that someone else published before.
She only could be a witness to help find original source of leak, she cant be sues, so i believe she have all legal rights to sue-back FOX company for using her as scapegoat, wasting her time, nerves and money instead of searching for real source of leak.
And if judge would not be dumb like many other USA judges i heard of, she would have more chances to get 1-5 millions of compensation from FOX rather than FOX could have anything from her.
FOX actions could be compared to this:
Someone stolen item, and sold it to you, when you was not aware it was stolen - FOX sued you for stoling it from them, but you not thief, you just victim of circumstances and they need to investigate fist before suing. But in this case FOX surely knows that you not thief, and when they know it and suing you its kinda sort of crime like slander\backbite because they they deliberately accused an innocent person and was aware of this - thats pretty clear criminal intent of FOX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
2nd when you found ring you obviously knew that it had owner, so that case have criminal intent, since instead of searching for owner, you decide to own it instead. In case of this woman and in case i typed for example situation is different - "item" was acquired without acknowledge that it was "stolen" and without criminal intent. And in this case FOX have criminal intentent, because they suing person, which they know, have nothing to do with script leak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damm I'm gunna have to go find that.
Cheers fox, I wouldn't have realised if you hadn't let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]