Thanks 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

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

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 Can’t 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

I've read the article and what I'm wondering is, why was the check cancelled?  

Maybe that's why the contestant was upset?

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.

"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.

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.

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