We are involved in pre production on a Indy movie based upon my Screenplay. Recently we got a letter from a "Criminal Lawyer" accusing us of possible plagiarism of a client's book on a similar subject matter. The book in question is an annotated history of a regionally known historical person. The papers claim that his clients own the character, his story and the title, all of which is "Federally Copyrighted", and wants us "to cease all work immediately" and disavow our rights to the project.
Yes, it was immediately "Scary" looking, but upon closer examination, something was fishy.----The very first thing I learned as a writer is that Titles cannot be copyrighted, and Historical figures cannot be copyrighted either, nor can their stories which most people know.
Apparently the Lawyer does not know his copyright law---we are not talking "Hairy Potter" books here. The author did NOT invent this historical character, nor his story or universe. Indeed, the book is a rambling, twisted, documentary series of annotated historical records from collections and archives connected by the author's commentary, that includes multiple and sometimes conflicting accounts as a mere series of events.
My Screenplay is a Scripted drama based on this person's life and times. with a three act structure, and changes for dramatic effect and variances in interpretation. I could in no way say it was based on the book in question as the story is of a different type and, arrangement, and not to mention, medium.
For the time being, we are showing good faith by stopping production work. We have requested both an extension of the deadline date and specific definitions of what we are accused of-----waiting n a response.
One of our actors has referred us to the state film board and one of only THREE entertainment lawyers in the state. The initial opinions are that the Lawyer is full of BS and is both ignorant of the law and "playing in the wrong ballpark". Our people, while cooperating, think this is nothing but a scheme to get money, and believe and we will soon prevail to our accuser's detriment.
Indeed! we see it as a somewhat positive indication that our movie project is attracting attention in higher circles where it can be surmised that there is "big money" to be made.---I hear such litigation is common on big movie projects.
If the above is all they have on us, then we have nothing to worry about, But what worries ME, if something DEEPER may be involved. While I did NOT copy the book, I DID use many of the annotated historical records in the book to construct a story and quoted some dialogue found in those records.------But since these records are already in the public domain, I feel am OK here -----unless this is construed as using the work of the author who found and assembled these records to begin with.
So what do Y'all think here? Should my work be in the clear, legally speaking?.
5 people like this
Titles, historical characters and material based on facts cannot be copyrighted. The unique expression of that material can. For example, the title "Lincoln," the historical individual Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg address cannot be copyrighted. But if someone wrote a book about Lincoln, their original and unique expression can be copyrighted by them. Likewise you could make a biopic about Tonya Harding based on news reports and court records, but you couldn't incorporate a scene from her published autobiography that wasn't part of the public record, because she owns that.
I would go to pains to document your original material. I would purge your screenplay of anything that isn't in the historical record and might be similar to material in the book. Then copyright your screenplay with the library of congress. And to be extra safe copyright a second document detailing all your own original material so you can have another item of evidence if you get dragged into court that has a specific date of creation on it. Then be sure to take out Errors and Omissions Insurance and use an LLC or corporation as a protective shell. And then ignore the person and do not respond until they file a lawsuit, then let your lawyers do the rest. But most of all never respond directly to people like that. They'll just feed on the attention. Let your lawyer handle it. It's worth the fee.
1 person likes this
All of David's advice seems spot on, but as he said, get your lawyer to deal with this. Don't talk to the other parties yourself. If you think you need more informed legal representation, expand your search. Your lawyer doesn't need to be near you.
You say you have stopped production work, yet no legal action has happened as such. Why should you vote with your feet when the opposition has only put pen to paper? Writers write about world famous people, and unknown characters alike, all the time. Unless there is something “Word Verbatim” in script or exact synopsis/treatment, they should not intervene.
There is word verbatim in places----BUT taken off the Historical document included in the book. The document was not written by the author, only included in his pages to9 back up his narrative
“Federally” copyrighted is something I have never come across. Sounds like the lawyer who served you legal notice was instructed by person who you wrote about.
It would seem to be time to bring on a lawyer you specifically hire.
Many writers use historical phrases. I once used one in a play about Queen Elizabeth First .....”I am really a man.” (Spin on famous Armada speech Cliffs) History belongs to the world, anyone who reads it, and anyone who gives a damm. Maybe you right, maybe you got competition.
@David Yeah I agree. I would make two separate copyrights.
"Criminal Lawyer" is redundant. In any case if ss described it's commonplace BS. Get a high end attorney specializing in film and spend what it takes to fire off a reply letter. And do not come to forums for opinions on law... that's how you end up in court, losing.
We plan to bring in the state entertainment Lawyers (the real deal) is there is any difficulty---That is the point---The Lawyer filing the charges does not seem to have a grasp on copyright law--especially as it pertains to a screenplay that simply used some historical records from an author's book----. "Federally copyrighted"? ALL US copyrights are "Federal". and historical persons are not the author's property.
The lawyer who sent @Thomas the letter in the first place should be checked out. What are they all about? And why are they threatening freedom of speech? Who are they working for? A letter is a piece of paper. And its caused all this scaremongering.
We are not really scared. We saw through the "Scare talk"----someone just wants some money (good luck with that) they see a big potential for our film and want a piece of the action. They are obvious fools claiming they can copyright a historical figure like they "created" him. But still we need to make sure they are not citing us for some other matter we may not be aware of----That's why we sent them a letter to clarify and are standing down for now until we get an answer. Thank y'all for your comments. Thee situation seems pretty much like I figured without any surprises.
3 people like this
The lawyer that sent you a letter would have no legal standing in court so do what you want. Personally I would not halt production over it unless they filed and got a court order which they would never be able to get since you film is based on history.
Don't stop. Just get on with it. It is clearly bullshit, you know it so are you kowtowing to this scam?