Fox Sues Screenwriter With Script Database For $15M

Instead of messing with Wolverine, smarmy Marvel anti-hero Deadpool has his sights set on a Long Island screenwriter. He’s called upon his bosses at 20th Century Fox to sue the writer for $15 million because she posted Fox screenplays, including an early copy of the script from his upcoming movie, the New York Post reports.

The federal lawsuit says the company wants damages for copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, as well as an injunction to have the offending scripts taken down. The suit cites scripts for 79 of its films, most of which have already been released. According to a blog post defending the woman named in the suit, she doesn’t sell advertising, charge for downloads or charge a membership fee.

Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.”

It’s common to find screenplays of just about any movie you want online, but Fox is apparently trying to change the landscape. Do you think scripts are fair game for posting online?

Web-script $uit [New York Post via TorrentFreak]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Gravitational Eddy says:

    Do lawyers for the entertainment industry have souls?

  2. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    As far as I’m concerned, scripts of movies that have already been released are fair game.

    Scripts for movies that haven’t been released yet? That’s a different matter. The real question Fox should be asking is this: “How did she get the Deadpool script in the first place?”

    • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

      Hmmm, so it’s okay to re-publish a copyrighted script but the Interwebz goes nuts when an article gets republished (see: Cooks Source)? This seems rather odd to me…why is one okay but not the other?

      What if it was reversed? What if it was Fox re-publishing the woman’s script after it had already been produced as a movie, and she was suing Fox? Would the hue and cry be as loud as it is now, because everyone feels that Fox and the rest of the entertainment industry are soulless bastards?

      [Note: I’m playing devil’s advocate here; I think Judith Griggs of Cooks Source is an arrogant, unrepentant thief whose own hubris really brought her down. And no, I didn’t forget the apostrophe; that’s how Judith spells the name of the magazine.]

    • BStu78 says:

      Well, thank goodness the law isn’t decided by random guys on the internet. The “internet” is not some space where illegal conduct can happen freely. While the money being demanded seems excessive, Fox has no reason to consider their intellectual property “fair game” just because someone stole it. That’s actually WHY they bring suit, not a reason not to.

    • Griking says:

      I was under the impression that once a studio purchases or hires someone to write a screenplay then it belongs to them. So of course they have the right to sue to keep it off the web.

  3. Gravitational Eddy says:

    Individually, no.
    Collectively, Satan.

  4. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    Also:

    the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.”

    Ahaha, what a complete crock of shit, Fox. Anyone who deliberately seeks out the database is looking for the end of the movie on purpose. The only thing it has a potential to hurt is your profit margin.

    On a side-note: I want to look up the Deadpool script now that Fox has called attention to it.

  5. Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

    I think this is a typical “Ask for too much to be assured you get what you want” situation. If they go after only the Deadpool script, then there’s a chance it gets turned down. If you petition to have all of the scripts removed, you’re more likely to get Deadpool removed while leaving the others alone.

    I think it’s a pretty fair tactics.

  6. pecan 3.14159265 says:

    IMO, it depends. If the scripts were out on the internet anyway, and she just compiled them, then Marvel has its work cut out for it if it wants to go after every single person who happens to consolidate scripts for one website. If she got the scripts through theft, that’s a huge problem in itself.

    Also, to me, it depends on what the scripts are – are they actual scripts that are clearly studio property, or did some lonely soul rock it like it’s 1998 and transcribe the entire movie? I remember in the late 90s/early 2000s, people would diligently transcribe the dialogue and action from TV shows and post them to the internet because studios weren’t offering that kind of thing.

  7. Blueskylaw says:

    It seems that with $15,000,000 dollars, the movies finally made the screenwriter money.

  8. mbd says:

    Scripts are copyrighted, and this is clear copyright infringement, regardless of whether or not the site is free. Fox is not trying to “change the landscape”, but rather to protect it’s existing lawful rights. Those who feel the copyright law is too restrictive should complain to their elected officials for change. In the mean time, attacking the victim, 20th Century Fox, is deplorable.

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Fox is trying to police the internet. An action I saw on wikipedia under the heading ‘exercises in futility’.

      Whether they’re right to sue her (and, legally-speaking, they are) the damage has already been done. Once something gets out on the internet, there’s no getting it back.

      • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

        I’m normally the first one to rail against the studios’ decrepit business model, but mbs is right. This is like posting an e-book or an MP3 that someone else owns. Even if you don’t charge for it, your fair use rights don’t extend to letting everyone else have their own copy for free.

      • mythago says:

        Do you know what “deterrence” means?

    • Brontide says:

      +1

      Fox is the victim of not just copyright, but outright theft of original and unpublished works. The David and Goliath double standard around here is appalling.

    • gparlett says:

      +1 — This is clear and blatant copyright infringement. I think the copyright laws should be changed, I think fair use should expanded, I think things should enter the public domain in a reasonable time, but this is clearly copyright infringement. Whether or not the movie has been released makes no difference.

  9. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    If you don’t want to read the script…uh, don’t read it. Problem solved.

    Or perhaps, like my girlfriend, some people actually like to read all the spoilers before they see a movie. I will never understand these people, but they exist.

    • DanRydell says:

      As I hinted with my “Snape kills Dumbledore” comment, sometimes it’s not your choice to have spoilers revealed. The book was leaked, and people drove past lines of fans waiting to buy it at a midnight release and yelled the spoiler out of car windows.

      Obviously they can’t prevent spoilers from being revealed after release, but a person who goes to the earliest possible showing of a movie shouldn’t need to wear earplugs because people think that being an asshole is funny Youtube material.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      Sometimes I like knowing what lies ahead so I can decide if the rest is really worth my time or not. Besides, the end isn’t as important to me as the overall story; it’s not the destination I anticipate but the journey.

  10. daemonaquila says:

    There’s nothing objectionable about posting scripts for movies that have been released or that have already been bought and made into a movie. (If a person doesn’t like spoilers, they won’t read the script. Hey, no problem!) I think that as a matter of courtesy, though, it would be preferable not to post scripts for movies not yet released. It’s fodder for critics to tear apart movies based on what they’re reading, and not what actually got onto film. Those useless dorks don’t need any help either shilling for studios or finding bad excuses to hate good films while sounding falsely intellectual.

    There IS a legitimate copyright argument to be made by the studios, however. In the grander scheme, it’s stupid to make it. By that same token, all the music lyrics sites should be shut down for copyright violation. But why bother? It increases fans’ enjoyment, which helps sell more music. I think that seeing the screenplay for a favorite movie is no different. Any money the studios could make by selling hard copies of the screenplays (which has occasionally been done) is pretty negligible. Also, the database is very valuable for young writers learning the trade.

    Bad move, Fox.

  11. Rocket says:

    Dumbledore Kills Snape!

  12. Emperor Norton I says:

    “Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.””

    So why aren’t all the studios suing both Movie Spoiler http://www.themoviespoiler.com/ & Movie Pooper http://www.moviepooper.com/pooperpg2.html

    They both give you the endings.
    What a bullshit lawsuit!

    • DanRydell says:

      Going out on a limb here – because those sites aren’t violating copyrights?

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Fair Use Clause — These fall within the purview of “…for the purposes of critique or review.”

  13. cardigan says:

    Telling sign the coffee hasn’t kicked in: I was confused as hell for about two minutes trying to figure out how a comic book character was suing a screenwriter.

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      If any comic-book character could pull it off, it’d be Deadpool fo’ sure.

      • SecretShopper: pours out a lil' liquor for the homies Wasp & Otter says:

        so thats what he had in all those pockets, lawsuits

  14. Kingsley says:

    Only film fans, nuts & geeks read scripts. *waves*

    It is also educational and of great benefit to the creative types, so I believe.

    And yet, nobody should ever post a script/screenplay before the film has been released. See what happens?

  15. OmniZero says:

    There should be no suit here. It is easy for a person to sit down, watch the whole movie, type out the screenplay, and then share it with people. We’ve already HEARD it, why can’t we READ it too?

    FOX better remove subtitles from movies as well if they are upset over this. Subtitles do the work for you!

    If the movies aren’t released yet, then I can understand that as it is probably still under some sort of NDA or something like that.

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      Subtitles are a must for deaf people. Don’t even go there.

      • OmniZero says:

        My statement was more of a sarcastic remark with how far some people/businesses take things. I know that it would never happen, or should never happen. Believe me, I am aware of the Deaf community.

    • moderndemagogue says:

      1) You have no idea what a screenplay is; it is not that easy. What you just said is a transcript, not a screenplay. Distributing a transcript is illegal as well without paying the people who made the movie for it.

      2) You paid to watch it — you pay to watch it every time you watch it after the first, either by renting, subscribing to a service, paying extra to purchase a DVD outright, going to a theater again, paying HBO, or watching it on TV or online with advertisements. Now that you’re going to read it, you need to pay the person to read it by purchasing the right to read it — how do you not realize this?

      3) Depending on what type of script it is, there could very well be trade secrets in there. Directors notes, pre-shooting endings, coverage notes, altered non-final story structure, etc… a non-final script that was reviewed poorly online could taint a movies box office performance, who knows, this isnt just about “NDA” and you have no idea what would be covered by NDA.

      • OmniZero says:

        So many accusatory statements in one post! I have no idea about this or that or anything! Why not constructively tell me I’m wrong instead of shouting it out?

        Ok so the screenplay is different. I now know this (since it was crammed down my throat). Trade secrets indeed in there then. The NDA was an example of something people sign to not discuss something or release information about something. I’m sure something similar is in place when people handle screenplays. Am I incorrect about that?

        Also, I but it on DVD once, then never pay to watch it again. I can let it run on my DVD player 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and watch it over and over and over if I so choose.

        And thanks to you, I doubt I’ll ever be commenting on Consumerist again…possibly not even reading/supporting it. If the community has people such as yourself floating around, I do not want to be a part of the community.

        • moderndemagogue says:

          Pretty certain I did constructively tell you why you were wrong — that’s why I gave reasons as to why you were wrong. Often yes, screenplays are not for distribution and/or are distributed to industry insiders with certain representations or assumptions of privacy; often times, they are not, but then when they get bought, they become the property of a different entity which may have totally different feelings about their distribution etc….

          And as to your passive aggressive comments about being too hard on you and frightening you away from consumerist; grow up. You commented with perspectives that are factually wrong and morally indefensible; that Consumerist even deigns to represent this question as debatable is ridiculous. I allowed for the possibility that $15,000,000 is excessive, and a jury would likely grant a far lower award; but they will definitely get the injunctive relief they seek, and that is 100% fair. I can ask someone to give me a million dollars for coughing on me, that doesn’t mean I’m going to get it.

          If you comment on something anywhere, expect people to point out if you’re wrong.

          • OmniZero says:

            Remember kids: Fueling an argument on the internet is more grown up than not.

            It’s not about growing up. It’s about knowing when to stop!

            The way you constructed your comment is what offended me. There is no reason to prove someone wrong by basically calling them an idiot and stupid. Do you do this with people you know in real life? If so, I imagine you may not have many friends. At least where I live, people are nice to each other, even when they are wrong. Statements such as “You have no idea” and “how do you not realize this?” aren’t necessary. If we knew each other in real life, you would have said things differently I’m sure.

            • moderndemagogue says:

              I live in New York — this is how people deal with each other, and in all likelihood, that’s how you would be questioned if you made that same statement. I’m not even in finance / Wall Street, where they wouldn’t have refrained from using explitives to your face. I don’t care about making you feel warm and fuzzy, and my tone if anything did serve to emphasize the ludicrous and completely basis nature of your comments

              It’s not about feelings, its about communicating a point. Now that I’ve made mine, have a nice life.

  16. moderndemagogue says:

    Are you guys all nuts?

    While we can all agree the damages being sought by the RIAA / MPAA are disproportionate to the crimes being committed, they are at least acknowledged generally to be crimes; ie, it is not right to steal music and to upload copies of that stolen music to other people.

    A screenplay, regardless of whether or not the movie has been released, is not in the public domain. I do not understand how any of you get to the place where you think this is okay. If it is not okay to share the movie freely online, how is it possibly okay to, in essence, share the source code for that movie? Not only might it contain trade secrets, but it certainly could harm the profitability of said movie, and or make it easier to understand the films successes or failures.

    There is a secondary, and legal, market for screenplays; much like there is for books. Downloading a book not in the public domain is illegal, so why is downloading a screenplay any different?

    Simply because these screenplays were widely available, does not mean that their availability from where she got them was not criminal originally, and archiving them as a group only enhances her visibility to any rights holder. It is likely this very fact that made it worth Fox’s while to pursue her.

    Is $15,000,000 probably high? Perhaps, but did she do something both illegal and morally wrong, absolutely. Its completely ridiculous that everyone on this blog thinks its not wrong; if it weren’t for my own livelihood and entertainment, I would hope things like this would cause the entire entertainment industry to die so that people could realize the ultimate outcome of a destroyed economy in the creative sector.

    • daemonaquila says:

      “Not in the public domain” is a technical matter of copyright law, not a measure of what is reasonable or good for society or individuals. The secondary market for scripts is small. Moreover, anyone can transcribe a script from a movie – there is NOTHING secret in there. The studios have very little reason to stamp out the database except for the sake of maintaining all copyright laws to the hilt. In turn, copyright and patent law in this country has turned into a joke that doesn’t protect the actual creators, harms the public, and allows the non-creator fatcats who rule various industries to scrape every possible last penny into their overflowing wallets.

      I’m all for the industry collapsing. If anyone loses their jobs, it will be for a very short time before the industry reorganizes under different rules and different bosses. Hopefully, the rules will be more reasonable for everyone involved. I don’t think there’s anything worth saving in an industry that produces Bridalplasty, Furry Vengeance, the endless adaptations of movies into Broadway shows (Legally Blonde, for crying out loud?), and streams of crappy remakes and reality shows for the sake of saving money on actual creative talent.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        That same industry also laid the foundation for all the best indie flicks, as well as great mainstream movies such as Citizen Kane, Jaws, The Godfather, etc.

        There’s a phrase we have called “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” It sounds to me like you want to throw out the bathtub while you’re at it.

      • moderndemagogue says:

        Okay, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        Not in the public domain, while a technical term, is also a simple fact. If the movie isn’t in the public domain, its highly doubtful the screenplay is. If you have to pay to see the movie (and you pay whenever you watch a movie, whether through purchase of a ticket, purchase of a dvd, or indirect payments through watching advertising etc) why should you not have to pay to read the screenplay? You can’t buy a ticket to go see Jurassic Park, and then claim, well I paid to see the movie, I want a free copy of the book. That doesn’t even make sense; that is obviously intellectual property theft, and redistributing that work for free is clearly copyright infringement. I don’t see where you can say it is good for society to allow people to simply steal others creatives works for free. Why not just give away all movies, why even pay for a ticket? Oh, right, because we don’t live in a communist / collectivist economic state and people need to eat.

        Now, on top of that basic inability to distinguish moral right from wrong, you even more clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. A screenplay is not a transcript of a movie; and if you have ever read a transcript of a movie versus a screenplay, you would tell the difference. On top of that, there are a hundred different versions of a script: shooting scripts, pre-production scripts, revisions, the one version that got “green lit” and the 200 versions that didn’t all of which shed light into the creative process of the individuals involved, and the studio which funded and developed the project. Some of these people may have no problem having their work shared publicly, others may be very pissed off that what they consider to be an unfinished work is now available and therefore added to their oevre for posterity; perhaps its a project where the writer declined to take credit after serious changes were made, but is now attached to it for all time; suppose someone in the industry sees it and say, holy shit, I can’t believe he wrote this, this guy sucks – etc, you have no idea what types of trade secrets are involved and you cannot presume to know given that you can’t even differentiate between a screenplay and a transcription. Your hubris is appalling.

        Look, there is a fair argument to made that some forms of copyright enforcement in this country are way out of line, and that the patent system especially is completely dysfunctional and broken. But that is a far cry from proclaiming an entire genre of creative expression unprotected works. Furthermore, what the hell are you talking about with industry fatcats profiting off the backs of the creatives?

        To my understanding, this is a major problem with the music industry — not film. Paul Haggis, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, these are all non-creative fat cat assholes who exploit everyone around them? You’re nuts. Mostly all highly powered people in that industry have gotten there by making films and tv shows that entertain people, that people pay with their wallet to see; and not just once, but repeatedly making good decisions which the market responds to.

        The barrier to entry is not that high, particularly when for screenplays all you need these days is a laptop and the ability to search google for format information; or a cheap copy of Final Draft. If you think there is a problem with the content coming out of the industry, go make your own. Several of the movies you mention I’ve never even heard of, but what you seem to so ignorantly gloss over, is that telling a good story, that millions of people will cherish is hard, and if the industry were doing a horrible job of it, than no one would pay to be entertained, and they’d just watch cats on youtube all day.

        You seriously need to re-examine your ideology and your severely skewed preconceptions.

        Distributing screenplays online is factually illegal, and morally indistinguishable from disseminating any other creative work that an individual produces to support themselves.

  17. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    Looks like copyright violations to me.

  18. Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh says:

    I agree with the others, I see no problem with it as long as the movie has already been released.

  19. Doughboy says:

    I read that and immediatly thought of Nintento suing Galood in the 80s. Nintendo claimed using a Game Genie would hurt consumers use of a game as their enjoyment would be cut by being able to skip to the end. Didn’t work then either, btw.

    Also why hasn’t The Movie Spoiler, or Movie Pooper been sued if revealing endings is so bad?

  20. Doughboy says:

    I read that and immediatly thought of Nintento suing Galood in the 80s. Nintendo claimed using a Game Genie would hurt consumers use of a game as their enjoyment would be cut by being able to skip to the end. Didn’t work then either, btw.

    Also why hasn’t The Movie Spoiler, or Movie Pooper been sued if revealing endings is so bad?

    • Doughboy says:

      Galoob, sorry. And sorry for the double post, stupid browser.

      • mbd says:

        > Nintento suing Galood in the 80s

        No. Totally different issues. In that case, the issue was whether the end consumer could jump to any part of a legally owned copyrighted work. In this case, the issue is about copying and distributing a copyrighted work.

        Also, Fair Use does not apply in this case. Reproducing an entire work in still a no-no, and the web site is not critiquing the work in any event.

        • Doughboy says:

          I was referring to what they said: “Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.””

          So again my question is why don’t they sue Movie Spoiler and Movie Pooper as I can read the movie and decide to not go (which I have done.) And that is the same thing they are talking about with spoiling enjoyment. Which is the same argument Nintendo made with the Game Genie, that it ruins enjoyment.

          As speaking on infringement. I want to see damages, if this woman has 100 million in her back pocket to finance the movie and put it out before Fox they have an arguement. I get that they have to protect their rights but sending a C&D would have done the same thing, Right? I guess not according to Fox.

        • Doughboy says:

          I was referring to what they said: “Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.””

          So again my question is why don’t they sue Movie Spoiler and Movie Pooper as I can read the movie and decide to not go (which I have done.) And that is the same thing they are talking about with spoiling enjoyment. Which is the same argument Nintendo made with the Game Genie, that it ruins enjoyment.

          As speaking on infringement. I want to see damages, if this woman has 100 million in her back pocket to finance the movie and put it out before Fox they have an arguement. I get that they have to protect their rights but sending a C&D would have done the same thing, Right? I guess not according to Fox.

        • Doughboy says:

          I was referring to what they said: “Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.””

          So again my question is why don’t they sue Movie Spoiler and Movie Pooper as I can read the movie and decide to not go (which I have done.) And that is the same thing they are talking about with spoiling enjoyment. Which is the same argument Nintendo made with the Game Genie, that it ruins enjoyment.

          As speaking on infringement. I want to see damages, if this woman has 100 million in her back pocket to finance the movie and put it out before Fox they have an arguement. I get that they have to protect their rights but sending a C&D would have done the same thing, Right? I guess not according to Fox.

        • Doughboy says:

          I was referring to what they said: “Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.””

          So again my question is why don’t they sue Movie Spoiler and Movie Pooper as I can read the movie and decide to not go (which I have done.) And that is the same thing they are talking about with spoiling enjoyment. Which is the same argument Nintendo made with the Game Genie, that it ruins enjoyment.

          As speaking on infringement. I want to see damages, if this woman has 100 million in her back pocket to finance the movie and put it out before Fox they have an arguement. I get that they have to protect their rights but sending a C&D would have done the same thing, Right? I guess not according to Fox.

        • Doughboy says:

          I was referring to what they said: “Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.””

          So again my question is why don’t they sue Movie Spoiler and Movie Pooper as I can read the movie and decide to not go (which I have done.) And that is the same thing they are talking about with spoiling enjoyment. Which is the same argument Nintendo made with the Game Genie, that it ruins enjoyment.

          As speaking on infringement. I want to see damages, if this woman has 100 million in her back pocket to finance the movie and put it out before Fox they have an arguement. I get that they have to protect their rights but sending a C&D would have done the same thing, Right? I guess not according to Fox.

        • Doughboy says:

          I was referring to what they said: “Fox has you, its loyal viewer in mind, in filing this suit, saying the database can harm “the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.””

          So again my question is why don’t they sue Movie Spoiler and Movie Pooper as I can read the movie and decide to not go (which I have done.) And that is the same thing they are talking about with spoiling enjoyment. Which is the same argument Nintendo made with the Game Genie, that it ruins enjoyment.

          As speaking on infringement. I want to see damages, if this woman has 100 million in her back pocket to finance the movie and put it out before Fox they have an arguement. I get that they have to protect their rights but sending a C&D would have done the same thing, Right? I guess not according to Fox.

    • Doughboy says:

      I meant Galoob, and sorry for the double post (stupid browser.)

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      As I posted in response to another comment, it falls under the Fair Use Clause in the Copyright Act, which excludes any production which uses copyrighted material “…for the purposes of review or critique.” which is what I’m assuming those two examples are.

  21. RickinStHelen says:

    screenplays are protected by copyright, which can last the life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years from publication, upto 120 for hired works (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration). As to the internet, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) plays into it here. In both cases Fox is in the right and the screenwriter is in the wrong. As to the wisdom of taking the approach, that is another matter. As someone who has published, I would hate to have the effort I put into a work negated because someone else thought that since it was out there, they could just put it on the net. Everything has a value, and to post without permission is theft. Just ask a certain small cooking magazine about this.

  22. doomsdayZen says:

    Trailers already give away most of the plot to movies, so I don’t buy their argument about it spoiling the enjoyment of viewers.

  23. mbd says:

    >it falls under the Fair Use Clause in the Copyright Act, which excludes any production which uses copyrighted material “…for the purposes of review or critique.”

    So what you are saying is that if I put up a web site thay copies, word for word, each months Consumer Reports Magazine, for free download with the intention of fostering review or critique, I would be legal and Consumer Reports could not sue me? Get real. Fair Use allows you to refer to, and use example from, copyrighted works when reviewing or critiquing. It does not allow the copying and distribution of the entire work, with or without comments.

  24. INTPLibrarian says:

    Their argument is stupid; however it’s pretty clearly copyright infringement. (As others have mentioned, pointing this out doesn’t imply *approval* of current copyright laws.)

    Just because someone else has violated copyright law on a particular piece of work already doesn’t make it alright to violate that copyright yourself. The woman’s an idiot, plain and simple.

  25. Groanan says:

    If seeing the script first makes people not want to see the movie, I cannot wholeheartedly feel for Deadpool here, as they are trying to use advertising to coax people into paying for a movie they will not like.

    I agree that an artist should have the say of when their work is released to the public, if ever, but this is not an artist, this is Fox, and they plan on shoving this movie out (and with movies today, the script is not what I would call their shining artistic value, especially true in the case of action movies).