Yes, that is a pretty sad state of affairs. I appreciate Sheridan's work and have downloaded numerous scripts from there because they are invaluable to study, analyze and learn from. It's not like we're talking about the Colonel's secret recipe here.

The problem is the way the copyright laws work in this country, which is that organizations have to act aggressively to protect their copyrights, because allowing one copyright violation to slide basically gives all violators free reign. Furthermore, when Hollywood industry people share scripts they are, strictly speaking, engaging in copyright violation on a grand scale. The solution is a two step process: i Put boilerplate in the standard WGA contract that allows writers to distribute their WGA registered scripts after the movie has been released, while maintaining rights, unless a specific clause gets invoked (i.e when the studio wants to publish the script as a book or some other way and the writer gets money for that). ii Allow educational websites to negotiate with the studios or the WGA for a blanket release that keeps the studios rights intact while allowing the sites to host the scripts.

By this reasoning, eBooks shouldn't be distributed online (or otherwise) for another source of supplemental revenues (sic-profits) by publishers or novelists (etc) as well. When do we (er-they) stop the presses and printed journalism?

It's not about the medium through which a property is published, but the fact that the publication is unauthorized. When you publish an e-book, you sign a contract giving the (electronic) publisher the right to publish. But e-books are a recent development. Previous publishing contracts included boilerplate for audio books and translations for foreign markets, which is why the Harry Potter books only came out in ebook format this week: a new contract specifically for e-books had to be negotiated with both Scholastic *and* J K Rowling.

I had the pleasure of meeting Alex Cox a couple of years ago. (Very smart and likeable guy, with lots of colourful stories to tell.) He is very much anti-copyright, telling the audience at the book launch they should all download his films if they wanted, rather than buy copies, so his reaction to this situation is in line with that. Unfortunately, unless Sheridan is able to secure permission to distribute screenplays from the studios and producers who own the scripts, there is nothing that can be done legally. Distributing scripts without permission of their owners breaches of US copyright law. The DMCA has an exemption for education use, but that has strict limitations on who and what it applies to. An alternative method to get myPDFScripts' full library online again is to host the website and the scripts in servers outside of the USA – Iceland is a good possibility; or distribute the scripts using bittorrent and host the links on myPDFscripts. But there is no guarantee that the site wouldn't be taken down, or Sheridan wouldn't be victim to civil or criminal action at a later date. (See Megaupload.) Ideally writers should retain the rights to their actual screenplay they've written. But that's a matter for the various writers' guilds to deal with next time contracts are up for negotiation. The next-best solution would be for studios to make the scripts available for downloading for a small fee. But they might be concerned that would impact on sales of bound screenplays sold in bookstores. Pliny is correct regarding defending copyright: companies have to actively defend copyright of works they own, or they loose the protection. I suspect this would involve the distributor being sued by the rights owner, and a court ruling that the material is an "orphaned work" since the rights holder abandoned it.

To be honest, I suspect that if Sheridan were to approach the studios with a proposal of how they might be able to work together, especially if she could get a letter of support from some real industry heavyweights, she'd probably find that they'd be pretty responsive. It's easy to rail again the studios but negotiation often works.

I was under the impression that the WGA contract already guarantees screenwriters the right to publish their screenplay in whatever form they wish. Assuming the writer has separated rights, he or she can publish the script in book form, as a PDF on a web site, or any other medium. It doesn't require permission from the studio, and the studio doesn't have any right to prohibit publication. It's right there in the WGA agreement. Maybe I'm misinformed.

Selling e-scripts for a small fee (.99-2.99) is something @nate_winslow has been kicking around. Yes, there is the Newmarket Press "Shooting the Script" series, which is great, but to really have a go at a script, you want the actual script format with actual script pagination, etc.

Walter, there is some language in the last MBA. You can go here for the reference to "separated rights." Here is the subsection on script publishing: a. Publication rights. The writer obtains the right to publish the script, or book(s) based on the script, subject to a holdback period. The Company, however, has the right to cause a novelization to be published in conjunction with the release of the film, for the purpose of marketing the film. If the Company wishes to cause a novelization to be published, it must first approach the writer(s) who has Separated Rights to see if the writer(s) wants to negotiate with a publisher regarding the rights and services for the novelization. If the writer with Separated Rights does not want to write the novelization or fails to conclude a publishing deal within prescribed timeframes, the Company may publish the novelization but must pay the writer not less than WGA minimum for the right to publish.4 (Article 16.A.3.a.(3))

I really appreciate the work you've done on mypdfscripts, Sheridan. I've gotten a huge education from those scripts & there's no way I could've done it otherwise. Please let us know what we can do to help because this really is a labor of love.

If I sell you my car, but then hand out copies of the ignition keys to anyone who asks for them, would you be happy? If you write a novel, or a script, or a song and SELL it to someone, they OWN IT. Just like if you made a car and sold it to someone. Imagine if you found someone sitting in your car about to drive away. "What are you doing?" you ask politely. "I designed this car, so I presume its ok for me to drive it around, right?" Are you going to reply "Ah, well that's okay then"?

When I first read a shooting script, I was shocked how different it was from the published screenplay-in-a-book I had also read. It seemed the book version had been transcribed from the film, rather than taken from the screenplay itself. The best screenplay books I've seen are _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ (TV series) scriptbooks and Brian Bendis' _Powers Scriptbook_, containing scripts from the first run of the graphic novel. They included reproductions of the actual scripts; and Bendis' had commentary and rough artwork in it. Bendis' book isn't a screenplay, it's still worth a read by writers.

That scenario depends on what rights you purchased with the car. For instance, the seller could include clauses that said you weren't able to customise the car, or had to allow him/her to drive it when they wanted. A closer analogy is buying an operating system for a computer. As the buyer you have certain rights, but also some restrictions; so does the seller, some of which restrict what you can with the OS. It all comes down to what's in the language of the contract. If screenwriters assign all rights to their screenplay to a studio, then the studio own the screenplay outright. if the writer has separated out the writers (as Scott mentions above), then they may retain the right to publish the actual screenplay wherever they like.

It's not the same as handing out the keys to the car - it's like handing out photographs of the car. The people who get to look at the photos can't drive it anywhere. It's such a niche area the studios need to get over themselves. I can understand it with specs and in development scripts but shot and shown movies ?

Yeah, this is a tough one. I am all for protecting an owner's rights to the work. But exercising those rights to make the work unavailable is not right - and especially tough for the author if the author ends up not being the legal owner. I know in my book contracts there is something there that if my publisher declines publishing another printing (when the previous one has sold out)the rights revert back to me. That contract excerpt that Scott has posted seems similar - after some holdback period the author has rights to publish the script. If that is standard, then it seems that writers like Cox do have the right to post their own script on their site (or elsewhere). If it is not standard, then I guess the thing would be for writers to try to take a stand on their contracts so that they do still own rights to the print version of the screenplay (and definitely after some holdback period). Definitely is it of great use for writers (I think of ALL experience levels) to have access to scripts. Those dialogue "transcripts" you can sometimes find online are pretty useless as far as learning from them goes... it needs to be the actual formatted script.

Right, and that seems to say a screenwriter retains the right to publish his screenplay and doesn't need the studio's permission. That's how it was explained to me, by somebody sometime (I can't remember who). As far as I can tell, if the screenplay in question was an original screenplay written in the last few years, the screenwriter would absolutely have the right to publish the script and Universal would be full of it. If Alex Cox has separated rights to Repo Man, and that language was in the MBA when he sold it (which it may not have been), then he should be free and clear to publish the script wherever and however he desires. Perhaps the lawyers at Universal know what they're talking about, or maybe they're just asserting rights they don't actually have (which happens all the time).

I am forever indebted to Sheridan and have sucked up his scripts like a Hoover vacuum. That said, let me see if I can explain the studios' position so you can see it from a legal perspective and not just "those bastards in suits are being bastards just because they can." In order for a studio to protect itself in court from the guy who wants to make a shot for shot remake of "Repo Man" and call it "Repo Guy," the studio has to maintain a consistent legal history that it fought *every* single instance of infringement, both major and minor, of Repo Man every single time they were made aware of the infringement. If they were to let a *single* instance slide just to be nice, the attorney for "Repo Guy" could argue the studio has been inconsistent and lackidaisical and the copyright protection should be voided. It's for this same reason you occasionally read about Disney forcing some day care in Nebraska to remove a hand-painted Mickey Mouse from their walls for copyright infringement. Disney has to maintain the track record that they always fought unauthorized Mickeys everywhere. Screenplays and Teleplays are different from novels or plays in that once the writers cash their very generous check (from a major studio) they forever give up absolutely any say whatsoever with what happens to their scripts (much to their endless frustration.) This is true for content as much as compensation. Consider the play "Nuts" written by Tom Topor wrote in 1979. His play (alive and well and always ready to be licensed intact) was purchased and completely rewritten by Darryl Ponicsan, Alvin Sargent and an uncredited Barbra Streisand. The film drastically shrinks the roles of the father, mother, and psychiatrist, turns Claudia from a massage parlor hooker into a high class escort. Needless to say, Mr. Topor didn't get a vote. This goes back to the earliest days of the Writers Guild. Writers agreed to be paid upfront, regardless if the film ever got made or was successful. In exchange, those pages and whatever happened to them became the sole property of the studio. Novelists and playwrights, by contrast, most often receive much, MUCH smaller checks upfront and only realize a generous payback if their product first makes lots of money for either their publishers or producers. You speak about the education of future screenwriters. The above reality is the very first lesson aspiring screenwriters should learn. Now that I've completely depressed you, might I offer the script community a suggestion. Studios are in business to make money. Clearly all these scripts are in existence. Why not offer them in eBook form where both the studio and screenwriter can be fairly compensated without risk of them being widely disseminated for free? They would be far more profitable than the published versions occasionally sold at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.

I have been wondering about this for a while. I agree with Scott. I believe that the studios should appreciate the oppertunity for more writers to learn the language of screenwriting. I wonder why this is not a function of the WGA or WGA Foundation. They do have the script library but since you have to read the scripts there I don't know anyone who uses it more than sites like mypdfscripts. Even when I lived in LA and volunteered at the foundation on a regular basis I never read a complete script there. I think it would be benificiall for the WGA to get in this fight. Helping the next generation of good screenwriters insures the future of the guild. Thank you mypdfscripts for your time and energy dealing with these issues. Your sight has been very helpful.

Raymond, thanks for that background on a crucial issue. This arrangement -- Hollywood writers giving up the copyright of authored work to studios in exchange for a significantly higher rate of payment -- is truly a deal with the devil. The micro gain [big bucks] vs. the macro loss [authorship rights]. The whole situation was exacerbated ginormously when the so-called 'auteur theory' took root once the French 'new wave' movement his U.S. shores. Since studios were technically the 'author' of movies, a right writers had waived, there was this huge void that the idea of director-as-auteur filled. Professional screenwriters have never recovered from that double whammy, one self-inflicted, the other not. The history of the decision re copyright is much more complex and not simply a case of greedy, short-sighted writers giving up authorship for monetary gains. Writers waged a decades-long struggle with the studios to gain any rights. Copyright ownership was one of many bargaining points. The thing is, we will never get the copyright back. Studios have way too much invested in individual movie projects, monetizing them in multiple ways over periods of years and years to cede them back. Which is why it's interesting to track filmmakers like Ed Burns who with self-written, self-produced, self-directed, self-marketed, self-distributed micro-budget movies Nice Guy Johnny and Newlyweds has created a self-sustaining way to make movies while owning the copyright to each.

In order for a studio to protect itself in court from the guy who wants to make a shot for shot remake of “Repo Man” and call it “Repo Guy,” the studio has to maintain a consistent legal history that it fought *every* single instance of infringement, both major and minor, of Repo Man every single time they were made aware of the infringement. If they were to let a *single* instance slide just to be nice, the attorney for “Repo Guy” could argue the studio has been inconsistent and lackidaisical and the copyright protection should be voided. Is there a legal precedent for this you can cite? This sounds like trademark law to me, not copyright law. You have to actively abandon copyrights by releasing them into the public domain, unlike trademarks which has to be actively used or defended otherwise you will lose them. Copyrights stay with the owner until the term has run out, are transfered to a new owner or are actively abandoned. I'm not a lawyer and I don't claim to know all the details regarding this and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am the owner of several hundred copyrighted works in the music industry, and I have on a few occasions chosen to take legal action against copyright infringers. Other times a simple phone call or email sufficed asking to cease and desist the usage - no need to involve any lawyers. But on many other occasions I chose to not pursue the infringement due to a variety of reasons (usually because it doesn't affect my revenue in any way and might actually lead to future business.) That doesn't mean I lose the copyright - it's still mine no matter what. Note the word "chose" instead of "have." I don't have to pursue every infringement. I can choose. The studios can do the same. It makes them look like "bastards in suits" because they choose to do something they don't have to do.

I totally sympathize.

I am a writer and I wondered a lot about 'moral rights' in my contracts and their practical use for authors. It is true the studios (or any other film producing company)once bought the script from the writer own it... But that is not the same as buying a car. They are buying a work of art, not a consumer product. In law the writer is or is seen as an artist. Now while all "commercial" rights might be sold off concerning a script, the writer, as the creator of a work of art, retains his/her "moral rights" to the play. I.e. no one can deny the writer the "authorship" of the work. According to this, Mr Cox should be able to publish his scripts on a personal website giving access to the public to see it, as long as he specifies, it should not be used for any commercial reason. Mr Cox, can also, and probably does, or if he does not might choose to, make a lot of money or a new career out of giving lectures about REPO MAN, using the script in all sorts of artistic ways, for example for an art installation, for presentations, etc. etc... What I am stressing here is that selling a work of art has nothing to do with selling a consumer product and moral rights to a work of art are untouchable and cannot be sold off or bought by anyone. The only challenge to the author from the studios can come if the author makes a commercial use of it. But here too there is a lot of grey areas, because while some commercial use is clearly demonstrable, there are many areas where it just cannot be done, like in use of tutorials, educational, artistic, etc, in which revenues would accrue to the authors only because the script is just 'one' component of the profit activity and not the 'only' component of the profit generatated. For example Mr Cox by publishing the script on his personal website insures that he gets all the hits or more hits on his website he would otherwise have. This might bring him added pubblicity which might in its turn produce him getting contracts, being invited to give paid lectures, taking part in paid programs, etc. But the company owning REPO MAN would not really be able to accuse him of making a profit out of REPO MAN, because REPO MAN is only a component of who Mr Cox is as an 'author' and not the 'whole' Mr Cox. On 'moral' rights grounds scripts or any other work of art authors can publish and let others publish their works, as long as this does not interfere the commercial interests of the script buying company. But I repeat, the owning company still does not own the "authorship"... For example, the script of REPO MAN could be remade exactly as it is, by just calling it REPO GUY. The company might well not care about this, or the company might have gone bust or the company have no interests whatsoever on the script of REPO MAN but the author might well do. and he has all the right, as the moral author, to come out and defend the originality of his work and the way it has been appropriated and used or misused. I am not aware, that any studios has been challenged on moral grounds when vetoing scripts publications on websites in USA - i live outside USA - probably because of the costs involved. But if Sheridan could approach one of those freedom campaigning law firms they might do it for free or for the pubblicity they'd get out of it.

Angelo, I always start posts like this with a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a writer and editor, who's worked in magazine and newspaper production for nearly 15 years. This job requires a thorough grounding in copyright law. Moral rights have no bearing on who owns a work – i.e. who can republish or recreate it. Moral rights enable two things: 1. Creator of a work to always be identified as its creator (unless their waive this right). 2. Prevent work from being misrepresented or corrupted, if this could harm the creator's reputation (termed "derogatory treatment"). However, in the US moral rights only apply to certain visual works (e.g. completed films), not literary ones (e.g. screenplays). Harvard University have a good primer on moral rights in relation to US law here: http://bit.ly/ZVjVnf The reason Cox can't authorise the republishing of Repo Day is that he signed away all his rights – except moral rights – to the work to the studio. The same as every other writer working in the studio system. This means writers, such as Cox, cannot "publish and let others publish their works" which they sold to studios, because those works are simply no longer their property. Even if Cox were able to sue a studio over Repo Man's scripts on moral rights grounds, the best he'd be able to do is: 1. Force a studio to identify him as the script's creator (which it does anyway). 2. Force a studio to prevent Repo Man from being treated in a way that would harm his reputation. However, if he were to publish Repo Man's script he could be sued by the studio for breaching their copyright. I strongly recommend every writer to become as familiar with the basics of copyright laws as they can become. At the very least you have to become familiar with the laws to understand how much you don't know. This is so you know when you need to invest in expert advice. In the UK there is an organisation called Own-It (www.own-it.org) which provides free training in intellectual property laws to people working in the creative industries. I don't know of any others elsewhere in the world.