MovieFilter: Protecting my IP/Screenplay

February 22, 2006 11:23 AM

How to I protect my book from being adapted to film/screen/movie without my permission?

I have a friend who registered her first screenplay based on her first book with the Writers Guild of America. She has written her second book but it is not yet adapted to screenplay form. She wants to make sure she protects her book/IP from being adapted for a movie without her permission.

Should she register her Book as "intended for Screen" with the Guild? Are there other ways to protect her works?

posted by bkdelong to law & government (14 comments total)

It's already protected. No movie producer on earth will adapt a book without having all the rights sewn up. It's far, far cheaper to option a book than to fight a lawsuit.
posted by unSane at 11:26 AM on February 22, 2006

Copyright is inherent and doesn't require a specific registration.
posted by bshort at 11:30 AM on February 22, 2006

I agree with unSane and bshort. Getting the movie rights picked up can be potentially lucretive for an author, in fact. To protect against movie adaptations, simply make sure you don't sign the rights away in a contract.

Many of the adaptations you see come from authors who are dead. Estates see the potential cash coming in and will often, it seems, sign things the author never would have approved. Movie rights get traded around, too, once sold, unless the rights sold are non-transferable, which could result in people making a movie other than who the author approved, or the company may change hands. For protecting against those things, well, she should see an attorney.
posted by JHarris at 11:45 AM on February 22, 2006

Copyright is inherent and doesn't require a specific registration.

While this is true, my understanding is that if someone does infringe her copyright, it's easier to make a case if the copyright is registered. (I'm assuming the book has not been published; if it has, the publisher may have already taken care of the copyright registration.) IANAL.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:16 PM on February 22, 2006

Has she signed a publishing deal or any other contract in relation to the book? If so, the terms of that deal may control, i.e. she may not have any say in what happens with the manuscript. If not, and assuming she's the sole author, she may hold all copyright in the work and therefore may prevent any exploitation or adaption of the work by others.

Federal copyright registration isn't required, but is strongly recommended for the reasons outlined here.

I have no idea what benefits are gained by registering with the Writers' Guild.
posted by schoolgirl report at 12:52 PM on February 22, 2006

Just to be safe, put the manuscript in an envelope, seal it, and sign your name across the seal. Then mail it to yourself -- registered mail.

That way, if you ever need to prove (i.e. in a court) that you wrote it, you can produce the envelope.
posted by grumblebee at 1:28 PM on February 22, 2006

Just to be safe, put the manuscript in an envelope, seal it, and sign your name across the seal. Then mail it to yourself -- registered mail.

Actually, the poor man's copyright offers little benefit :-/.
posted by Alex Handcoding at 1:51 PM on February 22, 2006

Grumblebee's advice regarding mailing a manuscript to yourself is unfortunately incorrect. See http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp

Think about how easy it would be to do this frauduently: it's really not that difficult to open a sealed envelope without leaving evidence, or what's to prevent someone from just mailing an unsealed envelope?
posted by ShooBoo at 1:52 PM on February 22, 2006

No, the "poor man's copyright" that grumblebee describes has no legal standing whatsoever. It's not proof of anything either--I could mail a blank envelope to myself registered mail, then at a later date put a manuscript in it, seal it, and sign it across the seal.

Previous AskMe discussion of "poor man's copyright" here and here. See also myth#6 under "copyright myths" on this page.

Also, registration with LoC only costs $30 plus the cost of shipping a copy (two copies if it's published) to them.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:56 PM on February 22, 2006

Isn't the whole point of the poor man's copyright that you stick the stamp on the seal? Otherwise, yes, you could have just mailed an empty envelope to yourself.
posted by BackwardsCity at 2:16 PM on February 22, 2006

Firstly, most everything stated above is true. Hollywood will be more than happy to option or buy the rights rather than steal them. We're crooks, yes, but not crooks like that. This isn't the energy business or Kozlowski-ville -- it's the movies! As per Schoolgirl: when your friend looks to get her book published, make sure she doesn't give away the movie rights in the contract. I've seen some authors get rooked out of deals because of bad contracts with publishers. I'll disagree with JHarris -- I don't know the numbers, but I doubt most adaptations come from dead authors, and while the reader of a loved book might think that the adaptation is crap, the author is usually happily cashing the checks (no matter how much they grumble to the press). And also, sometimes authors sell off movie rights when they're still alive, and then die before the movie ever gets out of development hell. While it's nice to think of authors as these honorable and meaningful artists, I've yet to meet one who doesn't start salivating when Hollywood comes calling.

An aside: your friend probably shouldn't bother adapting the book herself. Best to use the book as a calling card. Though if she thinks the screenplay is bang-up and is better than the book, then go sell the script and not the novel. Really, though, the best thing she can do for herself is get an agent. In the end, after all the registering and such with all the world is said and done, it's the agent who'll not only get the work in front of the right people, but also punish those who think they'll cheat her out of getting paid.

And just to beat the issue into the ground: sending the manuscript to yourself is a waste of postage.
posted by incessant at 2:19 PM on February 22, 2006

Pretty much what everyone above said: it's already protected via US copyright law, she needs to be VERY careful about reading and understanding any publishing contract she signs, and wait for a movie offer to come in.
posted by griffey at 2:22 PM on February 22, 2006

Sorry about the bad advice (registered mail). I guess I fell prey to an old wives's tale.
posted by grumblebee at 2:23 PM on February 22, 2006

Of all the things Hollywood truly does wrong, stealing ideas just isn't one of them. There's so many bad ideas out there that a good idea -- particularly one validated by being published between boards -- is something people actually enjoy buying, particularly given the rounding error on a production budget which is the cost of buying a literary property from a new writer. If someone with the power to green light production liked your ideas well enough to steal them, than ten more people in Hollywood will like your ideas well enough to buy them.

However, you need to remember a couple of things:

(1) screenwriting is only incidentally concerned with the idea -- the major plot points and characters. Professional screnwriting is about a much more granular level of execution -- this is why a blatantly stupid movie with a plot that can be summarized in 30 seconds can still go through eight rewrites with each rewrite generating a six-figure fee.

(2) lots of ideas don't give rise to an enforceable copyright. Generic plot points and situations aren't protectable, and if your book is full of them, there isn't a lot to defend. As a general matter, the manuscripts and pitches of new writers are filled with such generic content. Beyond keeping their mailrooms from being submerged, one of the main reasons that agents and producers reject unsolicited manuscripts unread is that they don't want to give rise to spurious liability when it turns out there are 27 points of similarity between your spy movie with its wrong-place-in-the-wrong-time slacker protaganist and their spy movie with its wrong-place-in-the-wrong-time slacker protaganist
posted by MattD at 4:00 PM on February 22, 2006