Screenwriting : Copyright Laws by Amy Gray

So her taking the idea of ground hog day wasn’t stealing, but when someone does the same thing as she does and make it a black man it is?

Did they take her dialogue? Her unique artistic expression? Her characters? Or just the idea of a black guy getting killed over and over again. Like Happy Death Day, which is another ground hog day rip off. Perhaps she copied Happy Death Day?

Its just her idea, which cannot be copyright. “Palm Springs” is that someone stealing Ground Hog Day?

This will play out with her getting a payment to go away. Or since she has gone public, perhaps they will fight her into bankruptcy to stop these types of claims becoming common.

I think if you have an idea that you based on someone else’s idea, don’t expect it to stay uncopied when you post it on TikTok.

Look what's happening on the big scene; Oxygen - copycat of Buried, Tomorrow's War - highly reminiscent of Edge of Tomorrow....practically impossible to come up with 100% originality and everybody knows that...but what Craig says, unless if the work's stolen verbatim, then this shouldn't go another route...

It seems that there is a connection between the two films, which is usually the difficult thing to prove.

But are there specific things that are the same?

Just sharing the same idea isn't enough: you can not copyright an idea.

I don't think a copyright infringement claim will go anywhere. You can't copyright an idea, and although the two films share a core central premise, the execution is sufficiently different, I'd say.

The only real question is over the ethics of Now This, and even that's arguable. They did amplify Kao's short film. Even if they did then take the premise and get another writer to produce a script based on the theme, they could have done that without amplifying Kao in the first place.

I can understand Kao's annoyance and frustration, and I can understand why people are critical of Now This (Netflix not so much - as far as I understand it, they simply offered to distribute the film after it had already been produced). However, ultimately, even if Now This acted in bad faith, they probably don't have any reason to be concerned from a legal viewpoint.

Reputationally, however, maybe it might hurt them somewhat.

I've seen both shorts. Same idea but Kao's short (IMO) wasn't that good cinematically . The Oscar guys just executed better in all areas of filmmaking. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Cynthia Kao insinuates the possibility that Netflix stole the idea from her short film to produce the Academy Award-winning Two Distant Strangers. It sounds like they did take her idea but Ideas aren't protected so they are free for the taking. Obviously she can complain but that is all she can do about it.

'Stole your idea'?... Aw, boo-hoo. Ideas are not protected under copyright, your writings are. As Dan M says - 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' - feel honored that they 'stole' your great idea.

Yeah... this seems circumstantial at best. Reliving a day or moment over and over until the pattern is broken is a story trope. No legal "stealing" there. Although, having Groundhog Day—which specifically refers to an owned IP film and title—in the 2016 short's title raised my eyebrows a tad. So I watched both shorts; they are tonally different (one's more comical, a parody, the other more psychological horror) and have different elements and endings. Two different films exploring the creative metaphor of reliving a day or moment repeatedly in a loop to what Black Americans experience daily with police seems quite logical, frankly. Many creative minds could and would come up with the same idea and have different executions. No legal "stealing" there either. Now, where it gets interesting is the connection to NowThis. But per the NowThis statement about the claim made on TikTok, they were not involved with the conception nor production of Two Distant Strangers. “‘Two Distant Strangers’ was independently conceived and in final production for months before NowThis became involved in the film, so any connection is out of the question." My assumption, they most likely can prove that in a court of law.

I saw one big name contest that literally had a contract that said if you didn't "file" for a copyright they could go ahead and take it without repercussion. Hey people, read every fine line, read it all. Trust in strangers is foolish. I said no to that "contest". So should've everyone but I know too many don't read anything, they just sign.

Hi WL I think they would be on shaky ground. Copyright is a fairly rigid law even though people try to make it look flexible. The flexibility is in the interpretation of unique artistic expression.

Early social media (like myspace) had in their terms and conditions that by publishing content on their platform you transferred any copyright you held over the material to them.

Copyright must be transferred it can’t be taken. I have seen contests say that by entering you grant them to right to publish in part or in full your script. But never where they could sell it and keep the money as if they held copyright.

I'm not a copyright lawyer so it would be ridiculous for me to comment on this specific case, especially based off the back of news article.

I do think there's always a basic decency in business and art and (hypothetically speaking) if someone asked me if they could take a short I'd made, build upon the concept with the promise of crediting me, and then and go make something very similar (by coincidence or otherwise) and then not even have the basic decency to keep me in the loop and/or give me a shoutout in someway, I'd be feeling pretty sore about that, especially if they went on to win a prestigious award. Stuff like this is just basic courtesy in the filmmaking world.

I think what almost shocks me more though is how callous many of you are being about a fellow writer's predicament. Regardless of the details, this is a tough thing for someone to go through.

I'm currently part of a documentary being made on IP theft and the cultural reaction to people's claims, particularly when it's women making those claims, is likely going to be something that comes up. We're all terrified of being ripped off yet we seem to have zero empathy for anybody who feels they have been. Where's the balance? Where's the benefit of the doubt? Where's the waiting for the facts to come out? We just relish all the drama and gossip without consideration somebody might be going through their own personal hell.

This is kind of an ugly thread and it saddens me to see it on a platform I love.

I’ll throw my hand up for the heartless contingent. Not that I lack empathy.

For me this is the start of the “your work will be stolen” mythos. People see stories like this and the cycle of NDAs and paranoia start in the mind of new writers. They don’t share their work and never grow as a writer.

There are legal protections for copyright holders. I don’t see the utility of having this is the media.

My objective comment above is based on additional information I found, my past professional work, firsthand knowledge and experience with copyright and trademark, and watching both films myself to compare. If you watch the filmmaker’s claim, she’s actually not claiming plagiarism, at least that I have found. She insinuates the possibility Netflix may have stolen her idea—“I don’t know what happened. I’m not making any assumptions,” she states at the end. The reaction to her insinuation goes much further, unfortunately, and clouds everything, which is troublesome. The reaction to her statement is why I chose to look at it myself and just share my thoughts. On the surface, here, any legal claim appears circumstantial. But, again, she’s not making a legal claim; others are online with their choice of words. I agree. It seems she was treated poorly by the producer. But we do not know all the facts from both sides, nor what exactly was in agreement between them—only one email from NowThis News was shown in the Tiktok video. And being rude or a complete jerk to someone is not illegal. Perhaps the person(s) who handled her film will face some discipline or be fired for mishandling the situation and/or poor conduct. Sure, none of us here are copyright lawyers, I believe? But when someone makes a public statement, it does invite public scrutiny and commentary. This sort of thing does feed the mythos and/or cause damage. I understand why she felt it necessary to make a public statement; of course, I just hope she doesn’t suffer any negative professional blowback or, yikes, face some lawsuit herself for defamation. It is terrible and unfortunate that she was treated poorly.