I want to ask what is people's experience with "release forms" for script submission.

I see that these forms vary, there isn't a format that they follow. Some are super simple half page documents, while others are full 2 pages and have a very legal tone.

What worries me is I keep seeing this in release forms:

Quoted Text I represent and warrant that I have the right to disclose to ........ the Submission, and I agree to indemnify and hold harmless ......... and its subsidiaries, and the shareholders, members, managers, officers, employees and agents and/or the legal representatives of any of them from any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof), including all court costs, costs of discovery and depositions, attorneys' fees, and the fees or charges of any experts engaged by .......... to ascertain originality, public domain status, or any other facts or factors deemed necessary or advisable by ........... in the defense of such action, that arise out of or are related to the Submission or the wrongful disclosure of the Submission by me to ............, and I agree to reimburse each such indemnified person from time to time, on demand, for any legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by them in connection with investigating, defending or settling any such loss, claim, demand, damage or liability.

I see this worded as so or shorter in many forms.

Now I know I wrote what I want to submit. I have evidence that I wrote it. I may even have it copyrighted. But... what if some "nut" shows up and claims he wrote it? Then the cost of proving that I wrote it falls on me. What if it gets to court? That could be a lot of money over a long period of time.

Do these kinds of things worry you when you submit? What else are you uneasy about when you look at release forms?

I'm curious to listen to people's opinions and experiences.

In my opinion, the simpler the better. My agent likes to cover every possible scenario and thus has really long release forms and contracts. That's great, but a lot of times, the other party takes this as you being a hard ass and someone who wont think twice about going legal on them if you're not happy. If I had a deal that involved big money and a feature script, I would go that route, but if you're still dealing with shorts and independent filmmakers, I'd suggest a simple short contract/release form. If your work is copyrighted, you have little to worry about anyway.

Short ones are best. It works more in your favour if the other guy doesn't really know what he's doing. Chances are he's cut n pasted it from a website somewhere anyway.

The best thing you can do is look into these guys. See what they've done before. Then base a decision off that. If it looks like they could be a thief, don't do business with them.

The reason that is in the release form is because they may be working on a similar idea to yours already and don't want any comebacks from you if they do make something similar in the future.

Ah, OK... just reread it and it seems that part is to do with copyright ownership, in other words, if you have stolen that work, then any costs incurred by the company due to that are your own responsibility.

Get an agent. Without an agent, you WILL get fucked to high heaven.
NEVER sign a contract unless you are happy with it. Even if it is your first... YOU are in control. DO NOT give up your rights.

Make sure your agent gets you rewrite payments aswell as anything else. Contracts are tempting, but very snidey lol. You need to make sure you benefit. Producers always offer contracts that will benefit them, you have to barter to make a deal. This is a job for your agent.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Ah, OK... just reread it and it seems that part is to do with copyright ownership, in other words, if you have stolen that work, then any costs incurred by the company due to that are your own responsibility.

It's not just if you've stolen it. It's if someone claims he wrote it, the cost of a defense falls on you. The burden of proof falls on him, but you have to cover all the costs that would take in order to prove that you did in fact write it.

"costs of discovery and depositions, attorneys' fees, and the fees or charges of any experts engaged by .......... to ascertain originality, public domain status, or any other facts or factors deemed necessary or advisable by ........... in the defense of such action"

Imagine if you submit something to a company and they like it and option it. Then I come along with a lawyer and say "hey I wrote that script, Dustin stole it from me, I'm suing your company". All the cost proving that you did write it fall on you. This isn't as simple as "hey, I had it copyrighted on that date". These thing can drag, they might go to court. During which, you (the writer) are bound to pay for all of it.

Remember that guy that sued James Cameron claiming that he stole Avatar from his children's book? Cameron still had to pay a team of lawyers to get that thrown away. Usually in most countries if it gets thrown out of court or you win the case, the other side covers the costs. It's still scary, because you can't ever be sure it will play out in your favor or how long it will drag and you'll have an obligation to pay for everything along the way.

It doesn't matter. That's the way it is. No company will ever use your script without you singing something similar.

No ordinary person can come along and say they wrote something you did. It would take a big pair of balls and the onus is on them to prove it. The onus is only on you if you lose... which isn't likely.

You're also not bound by anything in a contract that operates outside legality. The burden of proof is on you, but not the costs. You don't pay to sue yourself... the other side does.. and who's going to do that?

I've never seen a contract without one of those and it's understandable that a company wouldn't accept liability. Would you want to accept liability for a script you can't be sure is stolen or not in the first place?

If legalese scares you then you need a lawyer.

Release forms have always bugged me because you're always at a disadvantage.  If some powerhouse agency requests to read your script and sends you a form, most eager writers would be hard pressed not to immediately sign it.

And even if you find something you don't like in it, so what?  Good luck going back to them and asking them to change their form.  You've only got a small foot in the door, and they're just looking for any excuse to slam it.  They don't need your script the way you need them.

I'm not saying you should make bad deals or anything, just moreso venting.

The quote starts off with the right to submit, so that is what it's establishing. Most of it, like you say is about protecting the company you are releasing it to.

Quoted from Demento It's if someone claims he wrote it, the cost of a defense falls on you. The burden of proof falls on him, but you have to cover all the costs that would take in order to prove that you did in fact write it.

American courts may operate in a different way to British courts, but the principle here is something along the lines of: The Plaintiff presents the case to the court (not necessarily in person) and the court decides if there is any substance to the case. This means that they must have some form of grounds in the first place - they could not simply 'allege' that they wrote it. Most of the people who tried to sue Cameron had this in some form or another before the case fully went to court - one guy had sold scripts to Cameron and put forward similar ideas that were in both scripts, and could crucially establish a relationship between the two (he had met people at Cameron's studio).

Once there is an established claim (the court accepts there are grounds to proceed), that information is then presented to the defendant who instructs lawyers and goes about finding his own evidence [the fees or charges of any experts engaged by ... to ascertain originality, public domain status, or any other facts or factors deemed necessary ...]. This of course can be costly, but the defendant can establish if they wish to go to court or not, and if they have nicked the script, then can can attempt to settle out of court -- but only if there is conclusive proof that the work has been ripped off.

If you wish to continue to court (the case is disputed and the judge will decide) then the cost incurred by the losing side may well be considerable.

But of course the reason Avatar was such a sue-fest was that it made so much money, and these guys were looking for a share. If someone tries to sue you for something that hasn't made any money, then there can be no award considering financial loss, which means the party can only win or lose the court costs, which is an unlikely incentive.

Quoted from Forgive American courts may operate in a different way to British courts, but the principle here is something along the lines of: The Plaintiff presents the case to the court (not necessarily in person) and the court decides if there is any substance to the case. This means that they must have some form of grounds in the first place - they could not simply 'allege' that they wrote it. Most of the people who tried to sue Cameron had this in some form or another before the case fully went to court - one guy had sold scripts to Cameron and put forward similar ideas that were in both scripts, and could crucially establish a relationship between the two (he had met people at Cameron's studio). Once there is an established claim (the court accepts there are grounds to proceed), that information is then presented to the defendant who instructs lawyers and goes about finding his own evidence [the fees or charges of any experts engaged by ... to ascertain originality, public domain status, or any other facts or factors deemed necessary ...]. This of course can be costly, but the defendant can establish if they wish to go to court or not, and if they have nicked the script, then can can attempt to settle out of court -- but only if there is conclusive proof that the work has been ripped off. If you wish to continue to court (the case is disputed and the judge will decide) then the cost incurred by the losing side may well be considerable. But of course the reason Avatar was such a sue-fest was that it made so much money, and these guys were looking for a share. If someone tries to sue you for something that hasn't made any money, then there can be no award considering financial loss, which means the party can only win or lose the court costs, which is an unlikely incentive.

Thanks for the thought-out and insightful post.

I'm trying to stir up some debate on the forum and this seems like an interesting topic. Thanks for joining in.

Of course there is always the chance that someone might have written something similar to your work and there are always going to be similarities, so someone coming out of the woodwork isn't out of the question with any work/story. Not needing to prove that you two met, but that his work was available to the public via the internet, and you could have gotten access to it. Lee (Leegion) experienced this, first hand. If they see that they can make some money, they might sue.

I remember in the Cameron case, the guy that tried to sue him, claimed that his children's book featured a kid in the main role... and Jack in Avatar was in a wheelchair. He argued that both stories featured a weak protagonist as a similarity in the plots. If someone has resources and financial incentive, they will be willing to drag things out to a point where it's more reasonable for the other party to settle than keep fighting the case in court, because of the court costs and the unlikely but still present chance that they might lose.

So these kinds of guys might pop out, you never know. And sometimes it might even get to court. Those are a lot of costs that may fall on you (the writer). We are just talking about hypotheticals here and how you are put at a disadvantage so early on, before someone even reads your script. It's understandable why a production company do things like this but it really puts the writer in a tough spot.

I don't know if many people know, but speaking of James Cameron, he actually ripped off the plot of The Terminator from an episode of the Outer limits. He said it in an interview, that he did so, then he pressured the journalist not the publish the interview. The journalist didn't, but he did contact Harlan Ellison who wrote the episode, who sued Cameron. They settled and Ellison got story credit, I think on later versions of the film. Cameron did totally rip the story off.

Also there was an interesting case when a guy wrote a script for Rocky IV and he had meetings with Stallone and Paramount to present the idea. They went ahead with Rocky IV, I'm not sure how much of his ideas were used, but he sued. The court threw it out I believe on the basis that he committed copyright infringement by using characters he had no rights to. Basically a fan script doesn't fall under any copyright protection because you don't have the rights to the characters in the first place. You are infringing on someone else's copyright to being with. So they can use your ideas freely. This is what I remember reading, might be off on something.

There are a lot of interesting things that come out of these kinds of cases and there are a lot of perspectives. You really have to be careful what you sign.

Has anyone had second thoughts about signing a release form that contained something they didn't like? If so, what?