After that, I'm now even less likely to send something to Amazon Studios.

Scott, I'm a bit confused by this line: "[Roy] Price is the son of Frank Price who had stints as the head of Universal Pictures and Columbia Pictures, so we are talking about someone who has an insider's understanding of the film business."

Do you mean Roy Price was the head of Universal and Columbia, or his father Frank?

If it's the former, that doesn't sound like someone who has an "insider's understanding of the film business", but someone who listened to stories told over the dinner table by someone who had that knowledge.

From my perspective, the economics of the film industry are approaching becoming unworkable. To make an analogy that will bother many politically active film industry people, there are the elites and the great unwashed. We all know who is whom.

Amazon has put an alternative out there, and predictably, any features that differ with achievements the WGA took 70 years getting to, cry foul. It would not be in Amazon's interest to abuse this, so many many folks who see their approach as massively exploitive should take a breath and calm down. The existing system in Hollywood is still there. The revision issue has been addressed. The option issue is up to triple what the established professionals like, but it's not mandatory. They can ignore Amazon Studios. As for the payment amounts, they are certainly reasonable given the risks.

I'd like to hear what the professional community suggests for payment amounts instead. Maybe Mr. Price will listen. But after these three issues (revision, option period, and payment) this whole controversy begins to look like a union crying about non-union competition.

Richard: The father was the head of the studios. I'll clean that up in the OP. Thanks.

"The option issue is up to triple what the established professionals like, but it's not mandatory. They can ignore Amazon Studios."

Can someone explain the Amazon process to me as if I'm five years old? For the life of me I cannot get it straight.

Correct me if my wrong but I am under the impression that if I choose to submit I give up the rights to my work for eighteen months... cannot shop it around AT ALL to production companies, managers and agents.

Sooo...

What happens if I submit to the February round of Amazon's competition and miss the cut. Are the rights back in my hands and I can begin to shop it around?

Courtney, just by submitting to Amazon, you've given them exclusive rights to your work for 18 months. It doesn't matter if your script doesn't win. They still own it for a year and half, so to speak.

There are two simultaneous things operating with Amazon Studios: the monthly free competition which awards 2 prizes for screenplays, each of which are eligible for 18 monthly competitions from the time of upload; and the controversial 18 month free option, which locks up the writer's rights to the script for the option period and another 18 months if Amazon pays $10k. The competition is just a free contest. It can help writers make their scripts better because if they don't make it the first time, the revision process can theoretically help them get to a better script in a later month. So, for Amazon, it is free development. As for the option, that gives Amazon a pool of material from which it can offer to buy for $200k per project, with another $400k if the resulting produced film gets to $60m in domestic gross. Amazon has the ability to buy from the contest winner pool OR the overall pool of scripts. One doesn't determine the other. So, no, if you don't win, you don't get your rights back. But you do have the chance to sell over the option period, and you do have the ability to get to a better revised draft that might win a future monthly competition. The system forces you to revise if you don't make the finals or be passed by other uploaded material. It's a shrewd way to develop material for free that few people have noticed.

Amazon Studios is like communism;

You can speak about it from a theoretical perspective, a great notional model to business - it makes sense and has a lot of heart. The only way to gain radical change in a matured market place is to step outside of it and start from scratch.

But when you realise what you've signed up for, you realise that you putting your head on the chopping block. Theres no doubt in my mind that this makes sense in theory and, if in the right hands, it could be a good alternative, but its quite clearly open to abuse from the top. You are submitting a lot of power by trusting these people to do right by you.

It's very good to hear them confirm that they do not take reviews and popularity (number of downloads) into account in the judging. Now, if they would get rid of the 18-month option just for entering, and change it to require winners (only) to agree to an 18-month option upon selection, I think Amazon would start to see the quality of submissions go way up. In addition, they will make a much better impression if they don't leave the same projects out there month after month after month, and instead delete everything at the end of each month so that fresh projects may appear on the first page every month. Then Amazon may appear to be a dynamic site developing exciting new material instead of a garbage heap of rejected scripts.

Thanks for the comments... everyone here has helped make the decision making process very easy for me.

Time to submit! (uh... right)

Thanks again!

I wouldn't go and write something specifically for this, but if I had something lying around that's going absolutely nowhere... maybe.

@Lee: I'm not sure where you get that information from.
Once you upload to Amazon Studios you automatically give it an 18 month option on the script for nothing. Entering the monthly competition is automatic - you upload you’re in the running.
During the option period Amazon Studios may choose to buy your script for up to $200k. But you cannot cancel the option - the script is locked with Amazon Studios for 18 months, no matter what.
It gets better - for Amazon Studios at least.
Amazon Studios does have the option to extend the option period by 18 months by paying you $10k. But you cannot refuse the extension and get the rights to your script back.
So for $10k Amazon Studios can take a three-year, exclusive, development option on your script.
You also give Amazon Studios the "exclusive right to develop it [the screenplay] during the option term" for nothing. This is not limited to Amazon Studios’ ‘random people posting in a forum’ development process. They could give the script over to another screenwriter they’ve hired to rewrite it.

You also grant Amazon Studios, "The right to show and distribute it [screenplay] (and scripts and movies based on it) forever… we can keep it up on our website and otherwise distribute it without exercising our option."
This bit is a killer.
This allows Amazon Studios to make a movie from your script and distribute it over the internet, without paying you.
Right now Amazon Studio could take any script submitted to them, make a film of it, and then distribute it through services like Hulu or Netflix.
Right now that doesn't sound like much, but in a few years time when Internet TV becomes mainstream, it'll mean Amazon have a supply of scripts they can develop and distribute without having to pay for them.
Frigging evil genius move that.

All of this information came from Amazon Studios itself: http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started#about_rights_original

"It's a shrewd way to develop material for free that few people have noticed."
People have noticed that Amazon Studio’s competition is a way of developing material for free: the WGA and professional screenwriters. This is because screenwriters get paid when they deliver revised scripts. That is part of the agreement the WGA made with the big studios and the independents.

@richard

What information are you referring to that I got? They get a free option. It's 18 months, and as you say, it's another 18 for $10k. I said that, too. I said it was free development with the carrot of winning one of 18 monthly contests for $20k, and the stick of your free revision work. I said all that. That Amazon could buy anything on their site is plain in the agreement the writer makes. Many members of the site seemed to think that Amazon would only buy from the winner pool. For Amazon that's stupid and arbitrary. Why shouldn't they be able to find something from the larger pool of material, buy it away for respectable money, and then fix it after? So, I don't know what you're referring to when you say you don't know where I "got" my information. You more or less just restated it.

As for the 18 month option locking up rights, I suggest you read some option contracts. That's what they do, lock up material while the buyer finds production financing or partners. Your Hollywood-based optioner is not gonna be happy if you start shopping your script for a better option or purchase. So this issue of the option locking up the material is merely uninformed people crying about an established business practice. The only significant difference is the term length, and that's in there to allow for that free development they want. But if your script has been hitting a wall, getting no invites to submit, and no reads, why shouldn't you consider Amazon?

As for all the really bad stuff you mention, as a former WGA agent, I suggest you look at standard contracts. One finds all sorts of horrifying stuff in them, all of them. Of course, they're private, written by attorneys who will, themselves be sued if their clients are taken advantage of by the grantor, those pesky writers. Amazon's contract is public, viewable by people who've never seen an option contract. Besides, writers have recourse for bad business practices. People can agree to anything, but the courts say what stands.

So, while Amazon doesn't come close to the sort of deal you "might" get if you can get that agent, manager, or producer to take an interest, it beats 18 months and beyond in the drawer.

The professionals may have noticed the free development, but they don't need Amazon. The newcomers are the ones I've noticed who haven't appreciated it, based on my readings of many commenters on their forums. But, so what if it's free development. You may win the $20k, you may get to a better script that you can shop after the option.

Beyond the point I made about unions, this is about a lot of under-employed pros not wanting to "slum" their next sale. So they rationalize all sorts of evil that Amazon will perpetrate on suppliers. Amazon's writers won't stay around or their numbers grow if they are abused. It's not good business. And Amazon, a $75 billion company, while not a studio, is very good at business. And they've been lining up partners after the first-look deal they have with Warner Bros. (less than half their valuation, BTW), so they are covering their inexperience as producers.

If Amazon offers an option extension, it implies serious interest. I question just how many of those they are going to pay. It's like choosing to pay full price at a sale.

As for those "movies" and table read videos, I think you are assigning them far greater worth than they'll ever have. The absolute best of them will be extremely rare, and those will probably win one of the $100k awards or the annual $1,000,000.

I have one script with Amazon Studios and participate a lot in their forums. Not a movie pro but a 60 year-old who pays attention to the way things go. Former newspaper reporter and retired pastor type. Just as the Internet has shaken up the once closed world of commerce, it will continue to rewrite both the music and movie industries and other closed shop enterprises. The truth is there is a lot more talent out there than in these closed shops. I have nothing against the WGA, but instead of complaining about AS they should be coming to grips with the fact that screenwriters, because are not considered a very important part of the overall movie process, are at risk. If Hollywood thought screenwriters were important they wouldn't take such liberties with reworking scripts. The problem isn't AS, the problem is that the walls of the Movie kingdom are falling down, In my mind the WGA, and it's member, who are a lot smarter than most Hollywood execs believe, need to start thinking about how to use these changes to their advantage, rather than trying to maintain the old system. For as Jesus correctly noted - you can't poor new wine into old wine skins. The writing is on the wall WGA change or die. That's not Amazon's fault. They are just taking advantages of the changes.

On Monday we posted a mega post, an open letter to Roy Price on our site, so we've already pre-responded to Mr. Price's response. LOL.

http://wp.me/p1fqcW-ax

While your script is under option you can still enter into contests or submit it to managers/agents, but you cannot shop it for option. So the contests you enter cannot own or buy your script and you get to keep your prize money, and any agents who may be interested will have to treat it as a writing sample, not something they can sell on.

As for all the evil things that Amazon "could" do, how many times do you think they could rip off writers before every writer in the world hears about it. One writer? Two? Maybe four or five if they act on them all at once.

It would be lunacy of Amazon to exercise any of these theoretical double-cross options. Their pool of potential talent would dry up overnight.

Thanks for posting all of this, Scott. I thought long and hard before submitting to Amazon, and once the "anyone can rewrite you" nonsense was lifted, I felt it was worth a punt.

But you know what, Amazon are going to make a few movies, then they're going to make movies that make money, then they're going to have a blockbuster and all the resisters will see previously uncredited screenwriters making $200k+ and start to think: "Hmm, they may be something in this...."
I have plenty of scripts I think are decent and entertaining and you know where they are? In my hard drive. That's because I'm always moving on, I don't time to 'fix' or 'market' every single script - I'm up to 24 now, and even the early ones which weren't that good have some merit. So what if I send in a couple of old ones, with decent stories...I read last month's Amazon and - as someone who's read a lot of scripts can tell you I can do better -
You guys sound like music executives in the 90's who thought that if they ignored downloading it would go away. We're hammered by 'experts'talking about how current we must stay with 'new media' and 'cross-platforms' well Amazon is just another platform.

How many producers do you know? Then how many of them have any sort of deal in Hollywood - as Amazon does with Warner Bros. None, if any, I'd say.
Companies like Working Title through the door without an agent unless they find you first, so where does that leave you to go to?
I think it's worth a punt.

But if you'd rather your scripts only went out to UK producers who have little money and distribution.... who am I to say you're wrong, but remember this, Nobody Knows Anything, and that includes me, and it includes you too.

Re: WGA - It's not in the Guild's interest to block people from entering the film industry as writers. It exists because writers fund it and work for it. Having more writers enter the industry, and get regular work in it, is good for the Guild as it gives it more political weight when dealing with the studios, and more money which it uses to help its members.
The film industry seems like a closed shop because it's tough to get into the industry. But the fact is if you're determined, are able to write to a high standard, and work hard you can break in.

@ Compoundwriting: There are far more production companies in the UK than just Working Title films where you can get work as a writer.

@Antony: You cannot distribute a script that you've uploaded to Amazon Studios:
"How do rights work in the Amazon Studios Development Agreement?
"[So] for 18 months after you create a project at Amazon Studios, you cannot display, sell or license your script or test movie elsewhere, or withdraw it for any reason."
Link: http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started

Many producers and agents wouldn't want to look at a script that's under option. And the people who have optioned your script are unlikely to want you to show it around.

@Lee: In your second post you implied that the competition and development option agreement are two separate things.

I am aware that options are exclusive agreements. But options normally last a few months before they have to be renewed - not 18 months to 3 years. And writers have the right to refuse to renew an option, and take back the rights to their script.

The basic WGA contract is some horrific clauses in it. But I also know that without the WGA negotiating contracts, things would be much worse for all writers.

Now, about Amazon Studio's paying $10k for an 18-month extension to the option period.

In 2004 the WGA minimum for delivering a first-draft screenplay was $20,972. A treatment: $24,129. Each rewrite: $17,474. And each polish: $8,742.

Amazon Studios payment for each of those: $0. Unless you win the competition, or the option is extended.

The deal sweetener of a $200k bonus if the film makes $60k+ domestic gross is somewhat misleading.

In the USA 529 movies had cinematic releases in 2010. 57 made $60k+ in domestic gross.

28 were remakes, sequels or adaptations of existing material: scripts Amazon Studios has stated it will not accept.

Out of the 29 original properties, 4 were from Warner, Amazon Studio's partner.

Of those, one was by a first-time screenwriter… and Ben Affleck. One was by Christopher Nolan. And two were from showrunners of long-running TV shows.

The simple, unpalatable facts are new screenwriters don't get hired because:
There are very few movies that get made in a year;
Producers don't want to place the huge financial investment a film represents in inexperienced hands;
New writers don't realise being a screenwriter means you're running a business, and that involves far more kinds of work than writing;
Most new writers write poor scripts; and
Many don't realise the "Hollywood overnight success" is a myth created by the film industry to make working there romantic.

In my view, Amazon Studios is offering a bad deal aimed at people who are desperate to be part of the Hollywood industry, and see this as their only - if not the easiest - way in.

@Richard

You got your numbers wrong. It isn't a deal sweetener of $200k, that's the first payment; the deal sweetener is another payment of $400k. It isn't a gross of $60k, it's $60 million. The competition is separate from a purchase, not the option. I meant that they wouldn't limit themselves to buying only winning scripts. They would potentially buy from the larger submission pool, and even poorer scripts, provided they saw something that could be fixed in a re-write, perhaps by the writer, or maybe even a WGA writer after purchase. And all I'm saying is for a first sale, this ain't a bad deal. The writer can move on afterward.

@Lee: Sorry about the typos. I seem to suffer from occasional dyslexia. Especially when I get het up about something.
But those corrected numbers still don't change that Amazon Studios are able to develop and shoot any script submitted to them for online distribution and not pay the writer anything. This isn't a problem now, but it will be a major issue in a few years.
It doesn't change that Amazon Studios now owns every script that's been submitted to them for a minimum of 18 months; and the writers can't leave the option, for up to three years; or even show the script anywhere else.
It doesn't change that Amazon Studios can develop the script, without paying the writer anything for their work. Assuming the writer does work on it.
It doesn't change that the $400k sweetener is highly unlikely to be paid, given the kind of movies that are hitting the $60m+ mark.
It doesn't change the fact that Amazon's $10k payment for a 3-year option is less than half the WGA's minimum rate for purchasing a script. Even the the total prize fund of Amazon Studios' monthly competitions is less than the WGA's minimum rate for delivering a first draft treatment.
It doesn't change the fact that if Amazon doesn't renew the option, it retains all the rights to scripts made that were based on your original script.
But to me, this model is a bad deal, aimed at people desperate for a chance to work in the Hollywood industry.
If Amazon Studios does pay $200k for a script to a new writer, and that script does get turned into a movie that in turn gets a worldwide theatrical release, I might change my mind about this deal.
It doesn't change the fact that once it pays the $200k Amazon Studio retains all the rights to your script - that means no subsidiary rights or further payments on that film; unless they make a spin-off or a TV series.

I can also see the $200k payout to be a problem for the writer who gets it. If they do another script and show it to a producer, if they're expecting another £200k they may be in for a rude awakening.

BTW - for those who say Amazon Studios being for scripts writers have lying about in their drawer gathering dust: what the hell are they doing gathering dust?
If you have a scripts and they're any good, get it out to other competitions, producers and studios. Or start making it yourself. Or make it a graphic novel. Or a web series. Or a novel. Do something with it.

@ Richard

Your first 2 "It doesn't"s are true, but they are what happens with options whether from Amazon or anyone else. That's what an option is. Nobody is being hoodwinked unless they don't read and understand the deal before committing.

The 3rd one (the $400k payment) is a typical incentive payment. Normal studio deals have them, and many don't get paid because of fine print loop-holes, this is not unreasonable from Amazon. Nor is the $200k initial payment--a substantial start for a new writer!

Your 4th "It doesn't" is laughable. You're comparing an option extension to a purchase of a treatment minimum from the Guild. Options aren't purchases. Stop obfuscating. Besides, treatments are hardly ever bought these days. Don't compare options to buys!

Now that the revision issue is dealt with, writers can opt out of having revisions done by others. So your 5th "It doesn't" is moot. Stop piling on!

Yes, people are desperate in many cases. There are thousands of stories of writers knocking on doors and getting no opportunity to even pitch their log-lines, let alone submit a script to the established industry. It's tough out there! I'm not whining. I'm just saying here's an alternative that isn't WGA-level, but better than the proverbial drawer when you can't even buy a read.

You might change your mind if the do pay $200k for a script. Why would they go to the trouble of starting up their studio and doing monthly competitions to find production material if they don't eventually buy something? They aren't playing games. With 2,690 uploaded script projects, and under 20,000 members, the numbers are too small to be viable as merely a publicity stunt. And partnering with Warner Bros. is sure to put egg on their face if they bail after they decide they can't find something to buy.

But your final point is ludicrous. You can't have it both ways. Either Amazon is paying too little as you first say, and then they are paying too much, and writers will be disappointed after they move on to the REAL producers and don't get an equivalent (to $200k) or better amount from them.

Richard, you are the rebel without a cause: to the question "What are you rebelling against?" You say, "What d'ya got?" No matter what comes out of Amazon, you're against it.

Amazon's competition is free to enter with 18 chances and the ability to improve the material over the 18 months. That's revolutionary for screenwriting competitions! Amazon's purchase price is stated out front and reasonable, even substantial, and almost 10 times greater than the WGA minimum for screenplay purchases! Putting an escalator clause (of $400k for $60m gross) without a writer/producer negotiation first is generous! You don't usually get such things in purchase deals out front. And you may have fight tooth and nail to get them in negotiation. And then it'll be $60m net. And, of course we all know that films never reach net until decades have passed, if at all.

So Amazon's deal is reasonable. The 18 months are a long time, and I would like them to go to 6, but they are interested in developing material either by the writer or by the crowd (if the writer consents). Maybe we can get them to change the option term. I suggest writers work for that.

Compare the pay from Amazon to that of an independent, smaller producer, non-guild gig. What do those scripts go for? $1 mill film might get $25,000 for the script. A new writer might get less or it might be "deferred." Writers want to get credits and break in.

Compare the language from AS to that of a typical release from any production company. "You'll never sue us for any reason ever and if you do we'll arbitrate using our cousin."

Compare the AS terms to the programs from Disney and other companies. They pay over the course of an entire year instead of all at once and the company has first right of refusal to ALL the work created by that writer that year.

I entered scripts in the contest because I feel it's an opportunity for me. If you don't like the terms or the money offered, don't enter. Free country. Writers not entering should be happy that 2,500 competitor scripts have been taken off the market for 18 months.

After having this debate with several writer friends I decided to make an animated short having some fun with it:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8127841/

I guess all those folks who flocked to fan fiction and blogging can now find a new occupation as a wannabe screenwriter at the AS community. If self-publishing doesn't work out maybe they'll get a movie made at AS.

I have no doubt that AS will make movies and will make a lot of money doing it but i am doubting that they will find the majority of their projects through their contests/community. It will become like anything else. The folks who do get AS to make their movies will have an edge over some newbies posting their unpolished scripts for the first time. AS may find that the giant slush pile they've created is full of crap and not worth trolling for projects. How long before Amazon and Amazon Studio execs are being pitched and given scripts not posted online? There's no promise that AS won't make movies thru traditional channels. For all I know this is just an effort to create an audience for their products (movies).

I think everyone here is sort of over analyzing the terms of the Amazon Studios contest. All one needs to do in order to find a clear answer to the "should I submit a script?" question is look at this answer:

We have many well-qualified story analysts who are quite representative of studio and agency readers (some are studio and agency readers). They do the first rounds of identifying good material. Then the script and test movie panels, whose members vary month to month, pick winners.

I believe that AS, even though its skewed in Amazon's favor, is innovative and can provide a break for quality writers. I didn't submit a script yet, and won't, after reviewing the scripts that won the first round.

Take a look at the two screenplays selected to each win $20,000 (TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS).

I think every GITS reader will agree they are terrible. If that is too harsh then at the very least they are uninspired and trite.

I read this blog everyday and the quality posts help my writing immensely. I can't thank Scott enough for keeping this blog going. Anyone that reads GITS would tear a script like 'Villain' apart.

Returning to the point... Why even concern yourself over the contract lingo when these "well-qualified story analysts" don't seem that competent. Who are these analysts? Why hasn't anyone asked this question?

It's disheartening to know that some contributors on AS with original and well written scripts are getting screwed over by an 18 month option while others, like this Richard Stern character, are winning money with poorly constructed plots.

I've signed my fair share of crappy contracts here in the UK, but even the crappiest contracts still had a provision for payment based on a percentage of the production budget should the project get made. In my case it's always been 2.5%. I assumed that was standard everywhere?

This is what I don't understand about the AS contract. If that percentage payment is so standard that even my crappy contracts had it in there - why aren't AS offering it? (Maybe that's not how it works in Hollywood? Perhaps you can answer that Scott?)

Working with independent producers here you're often only talking about £5m-£10m budgets - but if AS take a script and make a $50m movie for example, even a lower 1.5% deal would pay the writer $750k. And 2.5% would mean $1,250,000.

That's why I think $200k is an insult. Not because $200k isn't a lot of money - it's more than enough money - it's just the principle. It feels like AS are targeting a whole new generation of writers who are willing to accept less than everyone else, just because they're so desperate for an opportunity to get into the industry.

If they're putting a script in production, they must think it's going to make money, or they wouldn't do it. And at that point, I don't see what difference prior credits make? The writer has already done the work, the studio has already said it's good enough - so the writer should get paid on par with everyone else. It's not like the studio are going to make any less money if it's a hit just because it was the writer's first credit.

It really is the principle that bothers me and not the actual money. Because if a whole new generation of writers just shrugs their shoulders and says, oh well, I don't mind being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars less than everyone else, where does it end?

(I'm very happy for someone to tell me that percentage fee on the first day of PP is not at all how things work in Hollywood, in fact I wish you would because it means I can stop shouting "It's the principle!" at my monitor every time someone mentions Amazon...)

@michellelipton: I'm not as familiar with how things work in the indie film world, but I do believe there are some deals structured where a writer gets paid a percentage of some number (production budget, profits). For deals with major Hollywood studios, the standard acquisition and development deal is pretty much this:

* You get paid a purchase price
* You get paid a fee for a rewrite of the script
* You get a production bonus payable to you at the commencement of principle photography
* You get all the ancillary forms of revenue in the form of residuals as set down in WGA MBA

You also get a percentage of net profit participation points (typically 5%) which everyone in Hwood knows is a total joke because the studios almost always claim movies don't make profits.

But your point about "it's the principle of the thing" still stands and goes to the heart of my point re the WGA. The Guild has fought long and hard to win certain financial rights for writers. Any deal, even for non-Guild members, that doesn't include some of those rights, such as residuals, is a potential threat to every writer. First as I noted because it can give studios ideas about how to get around those agreements. Second because as you note it could create [potentially] a whole generation of writers who are used to not getting things like residual, making it easier for the studios to roll them back industry wide.

The residual issue alone is enough to sour the Amazon Studios arrangement. To create a screenplay that becomes a movie and not receive residuals can translate into a ton of lost revenue [for example, I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars in residuals off my movies]. Beyond that, how galling that a studio could make money on VOD, cable, foreign, whatever ancillary platform into perpetuity and you won't see a thin dime of those revenues - ever. I mean if you're going to sell the copyright of a story you create, you might as well get the maximum compensation for that right.

So yes, I agree with you Michelle: Even though the specifics of compensation may differ from the UK to the US, there is a similar principle involved and the Amazon Studios arrangement flies in the face of it.

Oh, so that sounds like deals are structured exactly the same - even if the sums involved may differ.

Thanks for answering my question Scott. Even if it means I have to keep shouting at my monitor :)

@ Scott,

I direct your attention to the original response from Price:

"WGA issues:
Our intention is to make movies with Warner Bros. and other major studios and they are WGA signatories. So we expect those movies to come under the WGA when they are produced. This should address issues related to residuals and credits. Separately, the issue of non-Guild work becoming source material if it is re-written by a Guild writer also has come up. This can be an issue for any non-Guild spec script and if it arises, it can be addressed (you hire the original writer to do the first Guild re-write)."

So if it's a big budget WB project, the writer joins the Guild and gets hired to do the first rewrite of their own project. Resolves the screenwriting credit and residuals issues.

WB only has a "first look deal" and Amazon Studios has many other places to shop projects.

Ron Howard's company recently hired a team of writers to develop projects. Set salary plus prices if it leads to a production. Pixar is not WGA and scripts are developed with the help of the "Brain Trust" there -- and they are batting a thousand.

AS long term may be looking to develop something like that. With an $80 billion market cap, they could afford it.

@Lee: You entire argument for Amazon Studio consists of: "It pays $20,000 a month and $200k for a new script. It's really cool. It's not WGA-level."

'Your first 2 "It doesn't"s are true': Writers have the option to walk away from an option when it ends - usually after 3-6 months. Amazon Studio's locks you into the option for up to three years, with no break clause.

If a studio wants to develop a script they pay the writer the option fee and rewrite fees. Amazon Studios doesn't. They expect writers to rework the scripts, ad infinitum, for free.

The $400k payout is flagged up as a likely option on Amazon Studios. It isn't. But it is seductive to a new writer who doesn't know about the Hollywood business - which is who Amazon Studios is aimed at exploiting.

Fourth point: Effectively Amazon Studios owns your script if they take a three year option on it. And as Amazon Studios owns the rights to all revisions of scripts made during that period - not the original writer - making the original script worthless.

The revision issue: Writers can opt out of public revisions on the forums. But Amazon Studios still retains the right to revise the script. It says so in the Development Agreement - the contract writers agree to when they upload scripts to Amazon Studios:

"During the Option Period, we have the exclusive right to engage in development and preproduction activities related to the Property, including, without limitation, to develop a Full Length Movie based on the Property."

"Stop piling on!" I would, but Amazon Studios make it so easy:
The option also includes development of all subsidiary rights: from novels to theme parks to toys.

Amazon Studios will not pay out royalties, and holds the right to withhold any royalties or payments from third parties due to the writer.

Writers waive all moral rights to the work. That means you waive the right to be identified as the writer. Which is useful as…

Amazon Studios is the sole determiner of credits.

I just want to point something else you've mentioned about scripts being improved and entered into the competition each month:
Amazon Studios was launched in November. In under four months it has received 2,531 scripts. That's about 670 a month.

If this competition is completely fair, each month Amazon Studios' judges would have to read 670+ new entries and the 2,531+ current entries: about 121 scripts a day.

As that's impractical, the judges will likely limit it reading revised scripts and new entries.

So far this month nearly 150 revised scripts have been submitted. If that rate continues there could be 400 revised scripts to check this month, on top of 670 new scripts entries, meaning judges could have 1,070 entries to check each month.

And if Amazon Studios grows in popularity, that number could get a lot bigger.

I'm not a "rebel without a cause" attack Amazon Studios for the hell of it. Amazon is exploiting desperate screenwriters, and is taking people's property without paying for it, as many professional screenwriters have pointed out.

If people want to take this route to get a film in production, I suggest they submit work to TriggerStreet.com, not Amazon Studios. Kevin Spacey's production company offers a fair deal for writers on that site, which has seen its fair share of scripts moving into production.

Also, I have to take issue with your comment that amateur screenwriters welcome comments from anyone. The best upcoming screenwriters I've met do not take notes from anyone. The ones who are serious about becoming professionals are selective about who they get feedback from.

@Richard

"If a studio wants to develop a script they pay the writer the option fee and rewrite fees. Amazon Studios doesn't. They expect writers to rework the scripts, ad infinitum, for free."

Yes. But rewrites are usually done after purchase, not during an option.

I don't believe that the $400k payment is "flagged up" as likely. That's you reading into it.

"Fourth point: Effectively Amazon Studios owns your script if they take a three year option on it. And as Amazon Studios owns the rights to all revisions of scripts made during that period - not the original writer - making the original script worthless."

Every time a script is optioned, the buyer effectively "owns" the script. However they cannot do anything with the script in terms of production until they buy. So, other than the term length (18 months; a 2nd 18 for $10k) it is no differtent than any other option.

"The revision issue: Writers can opt out of public revisions on the forums. But Amazon Studios still retains the right to revise the script. It says so in the Development Agreement - the contract writers agree to when they upload scripts to Amazon Studios..."

Yes. But why would they revise anything they weren't buying? So they would only revise something they are paying $200k for.

So you admit to piling on because you feel it's "so easy." But you wouldn't need to if your arguments could do the job themselves.

The royalty issue is ridiculous, a contingency that is one of those things that's never gonna happen, one of those things lawyers put in and are later meaningless. Also, it is standard "boilerplate" in producer contracts.

The moral waiver threatening credits is also ridiculous. It's a protection should a WGA member be brought in. Why would Amazon withhold credit otherwise? They gain PR by crediting new writers! Those are success stories. They have reason to keep the source writer. Only if a WGA writer re-writes so much that they have to call it a new script, would they have exercise that clause.

Your stats only demonstrate the job Amazon has taken on, not the impossibility of it. They can afford to do that job. It probably means they will be buying something sooner rather than later.

"Also, I have to take issue with your comment that amateur screenwriters welcome comments from anyone. The best upcoming screenwriters I've met do not take notes from anyone. The ones who are serious about becoming professionals are selective about who they get feedback from."

I don't think I said that, because amateurs run the gamut. Some accept comments. Others don't. But amateurs can and do accept comments. And every pro was once an amateur. So your point is meaningless.

Look, let's stop arguing. I think that you are in the corner of the struggling new screenwriter. So am I. I believe Amazon represents an alternative that new writers should consider if they understand the offer. You feel it's a bad deal. Okay. I accept that. And I will suggest (in your place) that writers who have any doubts should stay away from the Amazon deal. But if they have material that for one reason or another is never gonna see a professional reading, I suggest they consider the Amazon offer. Can we agree to disagree generally, but accept each other's positions?

I'd like to chime in as someone who I believe is a member of Amazon Studio's target market.

I'm not a screenwriter. I don't write spec scripts and am not at all inerested in working "in the industry". What I am is a guy with an interesting story that I'd like to tell, which I've written into a screenplay.

Now as an amature, the chances of me winning a contest and getting my screenplay noticed is about as close to zero as you can get. The likelyhood of it ever getting picked up and made into a movie via traditional channels, well it's even less than that.

So to me, having the opportunity to get my screenplay out there where someone might recognise the merit of the idea, and have it revised into something better, seems like a good thing.

The issues of rate of pay and length of option aren't really relevant to me because if I don't upload it to Amazon, it's not going to go anywhere anyway.

I do have a couple of questions though that I'm hoping someone can answer:

a) Considering Amazon owns all revisions, if my script is revised and then the revised version purchased and turned into a movie, who receives the payment & credit? Do I for having the original script or is it the person responsible for the revision? Or no one?

b) If the movie is made but only reproduced therough new media (Netflix etc) ther is no payment, but do I still get credit?

Amazon Studios: An Interview with Roy Price... (This article was posted earlier in the day on genrehacks.com) In 2010 Amazon.com launched Amazon Studios and promised to "develop movies in a new way." They had strange new ideas about mass collaboration, a focus on original content from unknown fil...

[...] explica que su intención es que los guiones seleccionados y sus escritores SÍ entren bajo protección del [...]