John August

Rights and Copyright

10 Questions, 10 Answers

Episode - 94

Go to Archive

Film Industry, QandA, Rights and Copyright, Scriptnotes, Television, Transcribed, Words on the page

John and Craig tackle the bursting mailbag, answering listener questions on topics ranging from the variable length of the TV season to underachieving agents to embarrassing IMDb credits.

This Friday, June 21, is the last day to order Scriptnotes t-shirts, so click over to [store.johnaugust.com](http://store.johnaugust.com/) if you want to express your love for the show in screen-printed form.

We’ll be mailing out shirts starting July 1st, so you’ll have plenty of time to get them broken in for the live 100th episode, July 25th in Hollywood. (Tickets should go on sale July 1.)

But first, you can see us at the Writers Guild Foundation Craft Day, which is Saturday, June 29th. See the links for ticket info.

LINKS:

* [Email us](http://johnaugust.com/ask-a-question) or tweet [John](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) or [Craig](https://twitter.com/clmazin) your questions for future episodes
* [Fitbit](http://www.fitbit.com/) helps you manage your health and wellness goals
* [Mission Log Podcast](http://www.missionlogpodcast.com/discovereddocuments/)’s archive of discovered Star Trek documents is fantastic
* [Order your Scriptnotes shirts](http://store.johnaugust.com/) before June 21st!
* The Writers Guild Foundation presents [The Screenwriter’s Craft: Finding Your Voice](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/the-screenwriters-craft-finding-your-voice/) featuring Scriptnotes Live
* John’s blog post on [this summer’s two live shows](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-live-in-la)

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_94.m4a).

**UPDATE** 6-21-13: The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-ep-94-10-questions-10-answers-transcript).

First sale and funny on the page

News, QandA, Random Advice, Rights and Copyright, Scriptnotes, Transcribed, Words on the page

Craig and John look at two recent court decisions that could have a big impact on how movies get sold and resold — and how writers get paid. First-Sale Doctrine is one of those intractable issues that involves freedom and control, bits and atoms, creators and consumers.

From there, we take a look at whether comedy is necessarily funny on the page, and why jokes can work or fail based on tiny details. Then we tackle productivity and happiness, concepts that may not be as directly related as you believe.

LINKS:

* [First-sale doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine) on Wikipedia
* [Reselling Digital Goods Is Copyright Infringement, Judge Rules](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/reselling-digital-goods/) from Wired
* [Capitol Records LLC vs ReDigi Inc.](http://www.scribd.com/doc/133451611/Redigi-Capitol)
* New York times on [the ReDigi ruling](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-loses-suit-over-reselling-of-digital-music.html?\_r=0)
* [Carl Lewis “sings” The Star-Spangled Banner](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJLvCM4j2mg)
* Jonas Maxwell’s [tips for singing the national anthem](http://www.jonasmaxwell.com/pages/index.cfm?pg=298)
* [BioShock Infinite](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003O6E6NE/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) on Amazon.com
* How to [ask a question](http://johnaugust.com/ask-a-question)
* OUTRO: Leslie Nielsen (as Enrico Palazzo) [sings the national anthem](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ZsDdK0sTI)

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_84.m4a).

**UPDATE** 4-15-13: The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-ep-84-first-sale-and-funny-on-the-page-transcript).

Selling a script, but holding on to the characters

QandA, Rights and Copyright

questionmarkI’m a first time writer in the UK, who is in the process of having an original movie script picked up by a start-up production company. Everyone who has read the script loves it and they all say it’s wide open for a sequel or maybe even a spin-off TV series.

I’m obviously thrilled to have the script picked up, but I was wondering of there is a way I can legally retain the rights to the characters so I can write a sequel at some point in the future? Because the company is a start-up they don’t have much money to spend, so I’m willing to take a much reduced payment for the script, provided I can somehow retain the rights to the characters I created.

Is the answer simply a carefully drafted contracts, to include reference to the rights reverting to me after one production?

— Andy
Derbyshire, England

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: In most cases, when you’re selling (or optioning) a screenplay to a production entity, they want absolutely everything, including the right to make sequels and spin-offs. Contracts will often have built-in payments for these derivative works.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

If you’re willing to take less money upfront — perhaps because the production entity can’t afford to pay you more — you can often negotiate terms that make sense for you, including holding on to some rights you’d otherwise give up.

Bottom line: You need an entertainment attorney. This isn’t standard boilerplate language, and will require significant negotiation. You want to protect yourself in case of disaster or wild success, and small glitches in the contract could cause huge problems.

Keep in mind that the buyer has a very good reason for wanting those sequel and spin-off rights. They want to be able to sell the movie to a larger buyer, and a possible franchise is worth more than a one-off movie.

Related trivia: My first spec sale, Go, was a similarly small deal with special terms, including my becoming co-producer. While there was never serious talk about a sequel, there was a TV spin-off. I wasn’t involved, but Sony TV did develop a show based on it. I think they shot a pilot — [The Malloys](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Malloys) were involved, if I recall correctly — but it never went to series.

Death and advertising

Rights and Copyright

In his will, Beastie Boy Adam “MCA” Yauch left instructions that “in no event may my image or name or any music or any artistic property created by me be used for advertising purposes.” Wendy S. Goff looks at why that [opens a legal can of worms](http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/08/13/part-of-beastie-boy-adam-yauchs-will-banning-use-of-music-in-ads-may-not-be-valid/):

> In a sentence that referred to publicity rights, the words Yauch added introduced the matter of copyright. The two are very different legal animals.

> Publicity rights refers to Yauch’s interest, while he lived and in some states after he died, in protecting his image and his name, which had value because he was a celebrity. Legally, they couldn’t be used in advertising without his permission (or that of his heirs). Someone who violated this right could be required to pay a fine for the value of the damages they caused, and turn over any profits they made as a result.

> Contrast that right with copyright — the federal law that covers a literary, artistic, musical, or other creative work. Copyright owners have the right to control the use of their work and get paid for it. In the music industry, it covers not only the written composition (sheet music and lyrics), but also sound recordings. To make things more complicated still, the composer of the music and the lyricist are both considered authors.

Yauch and his heirs clearly control his publicity rights. But most of his music copyrights are likely shared with his bandmates and others; his estate can’t constrain what it doesn’t own. Music is especially hard to pin down:

> When songs have been distributed to the public under certain conditions, the owner of the composer’s copyright cannot prevent other artists from “sampling” or making “covers” of the song.

> The mandatory license right forces the owner to license the rights to others who may make their own recordings and sell them for a profit. (Whether Monster Beverage exceeded the rights afforded by a mandatory compulsory license, and therefore infringed on the Beastie Boys’ copyrights is the subject of a lawsuit.) Therefore Yauch’s heirs may be forced to license his work, whether or not the terms of his will allow them to derive any profit from it.

Philosophically, it’s easy to see what Yauch was going for. Practically, this was a situation that needed more-nuanced legalese to avoid unintended consequences.

Link via [Jen Pollack Bianco](https://twitter.com/lax2nrt/status/235019303383080960).