SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is July 18th, 2019, 9:38pm
Please login or register.
Was PortalRecent PostsHome Help Calendar Search Register Login
If you wish to join this discussion board, please send me a message. Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Scripts Studios are posting for award consideration
Final Standings

Round Five (5) Standings Posted




Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production | Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Screenwriting Discussion    Contests - Screenwriting and Filmmaking  ›  Fade In Screenwriting Contest Controversy Moderators: Don
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

 Pages: 1
Recommend Print
  Author    Fade In Screenwriting Contest Controversy  (currently 735 views)
Don
Posted: March 15th, 2009, 11:59am Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Administrator


So, what are you writing?

Location
Virginia
Posts
13139
Posts Per Day
1.95
Amy KaufmanThanks Alex for the heads up on this interesting and informative article by Amy Kaufman at The Wrap about the Fade In Magazine screenwriting contest called "Fade In Awards".  The article, Are Aspiring Writers Being Lured With Promises Fade In Can't Keep?, does a deep dive on the purported inter workings of the Fade In Awards contest.

Also, Screenwriters Utopia will have an interview with Amy on Wednesday March 18, 2009 at 6 PM, PST time over on ScreenTalk Radio where they will talk about the Fade In contest and screenwriting contests in general.

Regardless, it always helps to check out the Movie Bytes contest directory before forking over your hard earned cash for a contest. - Don


Visit SimplyScripts.com for what is new on the site.


-------------
You will miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
- Wayne Gretzky

Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
Don  -  March 17th, 2009, 10:15pm
added 'purported' and 'regardless'
Logged
Site Private Message
Don
Posted: March 17th, 2009, 6:05pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Administrator


So, what are you writing?

Location
Virginia
Posts
13139
Posts Per Day
1.95
I got an email from Kelly Audrey today, who wrote, "You have a link to "Fade In response," which does not go to Fade In Magazine's response, which is at - http://www.fadeinonline.com - It is illegal to disseminate defamatory and libelous information from a third party. I understand why it's newsworthy but would appreciate you also link to and or give Fade In's side to the story. If not, I've been instructed to contact our lawyers to send you a letter to remove the deragatory statements, as mediabistro and other sites have had to do in order not to be sued. I hope you understand. Please read my letter from the editor at http://www.fadeinonline.com and click on the links. You may understand better."

I'm scratching my head as to what I wrote is considered deragatory [sic].

Thoughts?

Don


Visit SimplyScripts.com for what is new on the site.


-------------
You will miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
- Wayne Gretzky
Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 1 - 7
Don
Posted: March 17th, 2009, 6:51pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Administrator


So, what are you writing?

Location
Virginia
Posts
13139
Posts Per Day
1.95

Quoted from Angry Bear
Probably this  "It is illegal to disseminate defamatory and libelous information from a third party." Which I'm not so sure is illegal anyway.

If that was true probably 50% of the internet websites would be in trouble legally.


How do I know if it is defamatory and libelous.  Jeez, I'm just linking to the article.  So the link to the article is derogatory?

For kicks, here is going to be my response tomorrow morning.  Let me know what you think.

++++++++++++
Thanks Audrey for the heads up on Fade In Magazine's Response to the recent article in The Wrap entitled Are Aspiring Writers Being Lured With Promises Fade In Canít Keep? which I blogged about last week.

After having received the following from Audrey...

You have a link to "Fade In response," which does not go to Fade In Magazine's response, which is at - http://www.fadeinonline.com - It is illegal to disseminate defamatory and libelous information from a third party. I understand why it's newsworthy but would appreciate you also link to and or give Fade In's side to the story. If not, I've been instructed to contact our lawyers to send you a letter to remove the deragatory [sic] statements, as mediabistro and other sites have had to do in order not to be sued. I hope you understand. Please read my letter from the editor at http://www.fadeinonline.com and click on the links. You may understand better.

...I was left scratching my head about what I wrote in my blog post that was derogatory and of course felt compelled not only correct the errant link, but also to make sure you are aware and have a chance to read Fade In Magazine's response which begins, Did a new entertainment media competitor maliciously attack Fade In and its editor in chief in order to attract readers to its new website or is there something more sinister going on besides sloppy reporting? You decide.

So, read the other side of the story which I think you will find interesting and informative and a deep dive on the interworkings of online media magazines. - Don


Visit SimplyScripts.com for what is new on the site.


-------------
You will miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
- Wayne Gretzky
Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 2 - 7
jayrex
Posted: March 17th, 2009, 6:56pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Cut to three weeks earlier

Location
London, UK
Posts
1449
Posts Per Day
0.31
I've read the article and what I'm wondering is, why was the check cancelled?  

Maybe that's why the contestant was upset?


Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 3 - 7
Shelton
Posted: March 17th, 2009, 8:37pm Report to Moderator
Moderator



Location
Chicago
Posts
3612
Posts Per Day
0.72
It's the 3rd Party thing that they're stating is the issue, but it's really just a long-winded way of saying "Hey, the link is wrong".  If it were more involved than that, you would have been asked to take it down completely.

All that stuff about contacting lawyers is cut and paste.


Shelton's Website

Shelton's IMDb Profile

"I think I did pretty well, considering I started out with nothing but a bunch of blank paper." - Steve Martin
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM Reply: 4 - 7
cloroxmartini
Posted: March 17th, 2009, 8:42pm Report to Moderator
Regular



Location
You know what a saguaro is?
Posts
864
Posts Per Day
0.22
"Thanks Alex for the heads up on this interesting and informative article..."(that)"...does a deep dive on the inter workings of the Fade In Awards contest."

Your words are that the article is about the "inter workings" of the Fade In contest. The phrase "inter workings" implies that the article portrays the truth and nothing but the truth about the Fade In contest, which the article does not do. At most it's a poor choice of words.

"It always helps to check out the Movie Bytes contest directory before forking over your hard earned cash for a contest. - Don"

The implication is don't trust Fade In, trust MovieBytes for honest contests.

While most (writers) on this site know what you intended with your words, Ms. Audrey interprets those words as you giving the article more weight on the side of Fade In being a contest that Simplyscripters (potential cash cows) should not enter (for it will screw you every which way to Sunday). So I can see how Ms. Audrey interprets your words as derogatory. Derogatory does not translate to libel. Ms. Audrey could have black hair and hate it, and stating that fact in writing, while derogatory to her, is not libelous.

The investigative article contained in the link is not defamatory nor libelous (with malice) in a strict legal sense. Anyone can get pissed at bad press, and that's all the article is. Any reasonable reader of that article would conclude it merely conveys facts as presented by satisfied parties and unsatisfied parties. You might as well read web posts as to why someone hates a certain brand of mattress that did not stand up to the 15 year warranty. One can not deny the experience of others and neither can Ms. Audrey.

Besides, you've posted Ms. Audrey's rebuttal (according to the Fairness Doctrine), so you're good.

Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
cloroxmartini  -  March 17th, 2009, 9:15pm
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 5 - 7
mcornetto
Posted: March 17th, 2009, 8:58pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Sound to me like it's a personal thing between, and not to mention any names here, the party of the first part and the reporter.   At least that's what I got from it.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 6 - 7
Don
Posted: March 17th, 2009, 9:56pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Administrator


So, what are you writing?

Location
Virginia
Posts
13139
Posts Per Day
1.95

Quoted from cloroxmartini
"Thanks Alex for the heads up on this interesting and informative article..."(that)"...does a deep dive on the inter workings of the Fade In Awards contest."

Your words are that the article is about the "inter workings" of the Fade In contest. The phrase "inter workings" implies that the article portrays the truth and nothing but the truth about the Fade In contest, which the article does not do. At most it's a poor choice of words.

"It always helps to check out the Movie Bytes contest directory before forking over your hard earned cash for a contest. - Don"

The implication is don't trust Fade In, trust MovieBytes for honest contests.

While most (writers) on this site know what you intended with your words, Ms. Audrey interprets those words as you giving the article more weight on the side of Fade In being a contest that Simplyscripters (potential cash cows) should not enter (for it will screw you every which way to Sunday). So I can see how Ms. Audrey interprets your words as derogatory. Derogatory does not translate to libel. Ms. Audrey could have black hair and hate it, and stating that fact in writing, while derogatory to her, is not libelous.

The investigative article contained in the link is not defamatory nor libelous (with malice) in a strict legal sense. Anyone can get pissed at bad press, and that's all the article is. Any reasonable reader of that article would conclude it merely conveys facts as presented by satisfied parties and unsatisfied parties. You might as well read web posts as to why someone hates a certain brand of mattress that did not stand up to the 15 year warranty. One can not deny the experience of others and neither can Ms. Audrey.

Besides, you've posted Ms. Audrey's rebuttal (according to the Fairness Doctrine), so you're good.


Clorox,

Thanks so much for that.  Very interesting.  It always helps to have another set of eyes on something.  I completely missed those.

Don

additional: I've thrown in a "purported" and a "regardless" into the original posting.  let's see what that does.

Don


Visit SimplyScripts.com for what is new on the site.


-------------
You will miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
- Wayne Gretzky

Revision History (1 edits)
Don  -  March 17th, 2009, 10:13pm
Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 7 - 7
 Pages: 1
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Contests - Screenwriting and Filmmaking  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006