[…] The creators of web series about a foul-mouthed teddy bear with a penchant for drinking, smoking and prostitutes has filed a copyright infringement suit against Seth MacFarlane, Universal Pictures and the producers of Ted, the 2012 film about a foul-mouthed teddy bear with a penchant …read more […]

Just setting the legal aspects, just generally, people that deal with working writers....does this happen to them often or at all? They sell a spec and somehow get named in a lawsuit along with the studio? You read the trades of all these specs being sold, but really no such lawsuits. And the writers that I've come in contact with haven't really brought that up. Just wondering if it's common or the equivalent of getting bit by a shark--once in a blue moon.

By the way, what's the difference between homage "borrowing" and outright theft. I'll watch a movie or a tv show and then recognize the entire plot from some other show/movie I saw except maybe with the gender or age changed around and maybe worse dialogue.... or I hear the same phrases, sentences and even parts of monologues spoken from different tv shows/movies. Where is that line? And, writers who sit at a blank screen who think they just have come up with something brilliant might just be recalling something they watched or read a long time ago and think it's their inspiration. That's why audiences think Hollywood movies are formulaic because many times characters behave the exact same way, come up with the same solutions, have the same meet cutes and utter melting pots of phrases they've heard before. I think I might have heard "I am getting too old for ...", cluster-f#K, reacharound and "I'd like that." a half dozen times this year.

Eric, per your previous question, the lawsuit angle is really pretty rare. I've written about 30 film and TV projects for every major studio and broadcast network, and never had any issues. That's probably pretty typical among writers. As long as you copyright your original stories / scripts before you send them out / post them, you should be in pretty good shape. And once you've got representation, the chances of anyone actually stealing your script is virtually nil. But as noted in the OP, the whole sweepstakes pitching thing is a bit dicey. As to the difference between an "homage" and outright theft, this is also dicey. If a director decides to honor the baby carriage down the steps scene in Battleship Potemkin in their own movie, that's considered an homage. Although not a legal determinant, I guess the difference is how MUCH a filmmaker uses of a previous movie. If it's a lot including story concept, key characters and sequences, then that moves beyond homage. But the fact is, everyone is working in the arena where writers have worked before. That's where 'similar but different' comes in, where a 'new' story may have been 'inspired' by a previous one, but it's been bent enough here and there to be considered 'different'.

I'm not a lawyer but I've heard these questions debated and understand these to be generally acceptable truths (correct me if I'm wrong), some also quite applicable to any legal contest you might get into: 1. An idea is not copyrightable. That means theoretically you might sue over the exact words in a logline, but the resulting movie is a whole other thing. 2. Most pitch fests and story submissions require the writer to sign a release that any resulting project IDEA similar to the writer's is fair game for the studio or organization holding the competition or review. In other words your idea is not copyrightable. Only the very words in your script are. 3. Any thing that a writer writes is copyrighted at the time of writing regardless of registration or publication. Although you have to prove this in a court case, which is why the WGA and Copyright office have a registration system to prove copyright. So register with the WGA. 4. As a writer, you would have to have written the exact same words as another writer making such a claim. Though I've heard there is an 80% rule. No doubt every case is different. 5. In all things legal there are grey areas. Every case is different. 6. Most lawsuits end on the court house steps (or sooner), meaning they never come to trial, meaning the public has no right to the details, and yes terms are negotiated privately, and yes if a studio did steal something you can bet they'd pay off the writer to shut up about it, and if the claim is false or frivolous, it's likely the claimant will want it quiet as well. 7. If a studio, or anyone, did take your idea and make a movie out of it, you have the right as the copyright holder of your script to go out and make your movie from your script. They cannot sue you for stealing their idea. The irony here is that as the writer, you likely have better insight to your story, unless they have a way to improve on it, without using a high percentage of your words. And if their film bombs, which statistically it has a 50/50 chance of doing, it will server them right. 8. Film studios don't want to steal scripts. They don't need to. 9. In terms of homage, this is not likely considered stealing. It is more along the lines of parody, which is completely fair game. You can do the entire Star Wars trilogy on Family Guy as a parody without any copyright infringement. 10. Everything above is complete conjecture. Every case is different. Talk to a lawyer. 11. However: You can always call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' niggas, who'll go to work ...with a pair of pliers and a blow torch... and get medieval on their ass.

Thanks, Jon. Lots of good stuff there. Your point #8 is an important one that should put to ease the minds of Hollywood outsiders about the security of their story. Once you copyright it, you're basically safe. And the fact is the studios DON'T need to steal a script outright. Bad business practice. In general, don't worry about this stuff. Focus on writing a GREAT STORY. Everything else will take care of itself.

The MALL COP case is especially fascinating. It's proof that multiple people, in disparate locations, will come up with the same idea at the same time. And then they'll all sue each other.

george: I think you just wrote a great logline.

Thanks Raymond for providing the analysis. You do sound like a lawyer. Or maybe you just stayed at a Holiday Inn. Can you explain further the 80% rule? I have seen the exact same sentences repeated from tv show to film to tv show, etc...and it wasn't in the obvious Simpsons make fun type situation, more like from an action movie to another action movie, etc.

I'm so glad I didn't spend time on my own mall security guy idea. There's something appealing about seeing that security guard walk around that inspires writers to want to write a movie about that guy.

Ok, this question isn't exactly about homage or nusisance lawsuits. But, what about stories about people in the public and changing facts about their lives. I've seen a ton of stories based on real life people and in everyone of them, they completely changed around the characters and fabricated others. Is that something that's allowed? Sometimes, you see a historical figure and their actions and even the characters around them are completely invented. Or you might even have characters that never existed a la the Titanic around an actual event... How much is left to creative license? I might not know all of the details of Lincoln, but I'm pretty sure he never battled vampires to save humanity.

Ha. I've been involved in legal situations, and did my own research (not with screenwriting). I've spent a lot of time on screenwriting sites like Zoetrope and Film Specific (good resource for this). There's always an occasional rehashing of this stuff (more for distribution deals - not copyrights). So I've heard numerous opinions, including from a few noncommittal lawyers. I think I heard the 80% rule on a Zoetrope board. But it was qualified as, every case is different. I think it's always best to avoid court, unless it's the only way to avoid being exploited. I'd never heard the 80% elsewhere. So you are kind of validating it for me. But it makes sense that there would be some leeway in copying work. 80% actually seems quite high. It may have been cited from a precedent case or something. It's certainly not a hard and fast rule.

There's something called "fair use." Look it up. There's also the disclaimer at the end of a film that says any similarity to persons living or dead...etc. See if you can find a case where it actually happened. That's what a lawyer would have to do to pursue or defend a case.

With stories like these, it makes a person wonder. http://www.tessgerritsen.com/gravity-2014/ http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/warner-bros-gravity-lawsuit-rizzoli-isles-author-tess-gerritson/ and this- http://www.scriptmag.com/features/behind-the-lines-with-dr-the-smoking-gun-part-1 http://www.scriptmag.com/features/behind-the-lines-with-dr-the-smoking-gun-story-theft http://www.scriptmag.com/features/writer-profiles/behind-the-lines-with-dr-the-smoking-gun-part-3 http://www.scriptmag.com/features/behind-the-lines-with-dr-the-smoking-gun-part-4

I glanced through these. There is a lot of ridiculous vitriol towards Hollywood in the Smoking Gun blog. Alfonso Cuaron is not mentioned by name (except on Deadline), only as Mr. Screenwriter, which indicates they are avoiding a libel case against them if they are making false statements. Possibly their lawyers are exploiting them. The Deadline link has some revealing info. I find it hard to believe an author would stoop to this. Perhaps she's looking for publicity. The parallels she cites don't indicate theft. They are more coincidence. It's not a stretch to think up an event in space with debris causing an accident, with a lone female doctor survivor.

And this: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/walk-shame-elizabeth-banks-sued-702263