Question about an agency

[Mikael]

Hi,

I'm new to screenwrting and have recently sent a script to a company called the Screenplay Agency, whose link I found on the IMDb website. Has anyone heard of them? If so, are they reputable?

I received an email saying that they think my work has commercial potential, and to proceed any further, I need to have a critique done of it by a third party, in order to protect both them and me. This seems fair enough, but the reason for me asking my orginal question is something which appears in the email: 'Think about how it protects you, protects us, and how it provides a meeting point so that we can trust each other and move forward on the same page <get it? "same page" grin>' . Another thing which left me wondering is this:'We don't know how much more 'safe' we can make it. (If you think we are going to steal your work, then you are too paranoid to work with us anyway and we're happy if you decline).' which appears towards the end of a long ,standard reply email, which mainly consists of FAQs and a couple of testimonials from satisfied writers.

I don't have any industry experience, so I've no idea what people are like within the industry, though the two examples given certainly don't strike me as something which would be found in any reputable business correspondence. Should I leave well alone?

Thanks in advance,

Mikael

[Joe Calabrese]

Run.

[dpaterso]

Remember that money should always flow to the writer. If they're asking you for money, that's a bad sign.

-Derek
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)
Take the critiques you get with a grain of salt. Invariably, some of the critics will be kooks, bitter curmudgeons, or complete fools. ~odocoileus

[Mikael]

Thanks guys. I've just replied to them with a 'thanks, but no thanks....'

Mikael

[Maryn]

Good call. IMDb's Shop Talk Writers board also warned people away: http://imdb.com/board/bd0000019/nest/27796320, with quotes from this site and from Victoria Strauss (both credited).

Maryn

[Midia]

Hi all.

I'm new here, but I found this post and thought I must reply to this as I had the same experience with this company as Mikael. The 'agency' requested my work, offered to represent me and sent me their contract. Then they asked me to get my worked critiqued by an outside source which they recommended. I signed the contract and returned it, but the following day I discovered a lot of negative feedback from other writers who had been approached by this agency and that they had been investigated by Preditors and Editors. I decided to opt out of the contract with my 14 rights and I am now in the process of finding a new agent. I can't say that I have found anyone who has a bad experience of using this company, but then I can't say that I found anyone who had a good word to say about them either! So better to be safe than sorry I think!

[scripter1]

is different from a critique.

You WANT a stuido to cover your script. This means that an in house reader, employed BY THAT company will read your script to determine if it fits the needs of the company. They will then write up a report on the script and give you either a PASS, CONSIDER, or RECOMEND.
The coverage is then passed up the chain of command. If you get a recomend then you will know because somebody will call you back to discuss the next step and they will have specific notes to pass along.

I don't know what they do with the considers. I would guess they hold them in a slush file and then go back to them when/if they run out of strong recomends.

If they pass then you will get a standard rejection letter stating that the script doesn't fit their needs at this time.

You can try to get the coverage and they may or may not send it to you.

Anyone who wants to send your script OUTSIDE their own company is pulling something. That isn't the way things are done.

And D's comment can't be stated enough. Money flows TO THE WRITER from stuidos and company's.
Even agents and managers take their cut AFTER a sale, never before.

[dwith]

Mikael I was offered a contract from The Script Agency also, i did some research on them, and found them to be very very shady. They have went by several different names, and i had found a old contract from one of their other company names, and a checked it against my new contract. Everyones name in there company had the same first name, and differnet last names. I emailed them and asked them for an explanation, and never received a reply, which tells me they are scamming.http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/penulist.htm (http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/penulist.htm). this is the link to where i found the info. make sure you tell everyone we need to protect ourselves from these scammers.

[Cathy C]

Just as an aside to those who might see this, make sure if you ever have any questions about script/screenplay agents, producers, and promoters, you check out the Index to Agents, Publishers and Others (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=792) on the Bewares board. It does list discussions about script agents and producers (denoted with green text.)

[xhouseboy]

My emphasis.

. Another thing which left me wondering is this:'We don't know how much more 'safe' we can make it. (If you think we are going to steal your work, then you are too paranoid to work with us anyway and we're happy if you decline).' which appears towards the end of a long ,standard reply email, which mainly consists of FAQs and a couple of testimonials from satisfied writers.


Mikael

The old reverse psychology scam, Mikael. They hope you'll look at this as almost a rejection, but with the door still left partially open, and that you will then grab at that door with both hands.

This agency are well-known scamsters, and operate under many guises.

Give money to no one. If your work is good enough, in time those that matter will pay you in order that they can also profit from your writing.

[msome45]

I've heard bad things about them too. I have also been contacted by them and after doing some research I bailed. I am also new to the game and recently I have been contacted by agents and producers--it seems like you can dig up dirt on every company--there is always someone who thinks they got screwed over by someone--so I have been gun shy to send anything out. Is there a point when you have to say, "my work is copywrited so take the chance?" anyone? (but I've heard a LOT of bad things about The Script Agency)

[xhouseboy]

I've heard bad things about them too. I have also been contacted by them and after doing some research I bailed. I am also new to the game and recently I have been contacted by agents and producers--it seems like you can dig up dirt on every company--there is always someone who thinks they got screwed over by someone--so I have been gun shy to send anything out. Is there a point when you have to say, "my work is copywrited so take the chance?" anyone? (but I've heard a LOT of bad things about The Script Agency)

You simply have to take that chance. But if you are contacted by a producer or an agent as a result of being a member of an online writing group - be wary. If, however, you sent the work to them, and they get back to you stating their interest, it's not too difficult to research the company. Producers: what credits to they have, not only produced works (if even that) but material in development; who are they, their background; they could be a newly established company looking to hook-up with new writers - that's okay, too. Agents: who do they have on their books; how long have they been established, etc.

If you're extremely paranoid about it, also send one registered copy of the work to yourself, and then shove it away in a drawer. It won't matter that you then rewrite the work before sending it out to others, as long as you're loosely staying true to the basic theme of the original.

It a recent case in the UK, the House of Lords ruled that copyright theft can be established without a single recogniseable sentence being apparent from the original work.

[MadScientistMatt]

After hearing how they wouldn't reject any logline, I decided to test this by sending them a logline reading "A fish of soap reflected green velvet and turned on the wooly log." Believe it or not, they asked for the script based on that attrocious piece of nonsense. It's a clear sign they do not read the submissions - they just want to see how much they can get you to pay. I'm tempted to bait them a little, sending them a "script" that is actually a BMP file with its extension changed to DOC, resulting in something they won't be able to open. If they ask for a critique of that, it's a dead giveaway.

[broughcut]

It a recent case in the UK, the House of Lords ruled that copyright theft can be established without a single recogniseable sentence being apparent from the original work.

Was the the fabric design case ;)

Do you have a link or any info to assist with a google?

[xhouseboy]

It was sent to me a couple of years back in an email attachment, since lost. It had some resonance with a dispute I was involved in at the time, and the sender thought I might be interested in it.

Basically, if I recall, it wasn't exactly a new ruling, but the upholding (I think for the first time) of a section of the Act.

The decision was loosely based upon the following.

Section 16 (2) states that copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by copyright. The 'acts restricted by copyright' are set out in Section 16 (1) and include copying the work or performing the work in public. Again in a critical departure from US law, in the UK a joint author cannot exploit a work of joint authorship without the consent of all of the other authors or grant a licence to another person to do so.

Although there is no copyright in a mere idea, and although the protection afforded by copyright is not to have your work 'copied', it is nevertheless possible for a work to be copied and infringed even if not a single sentence from the original can be found in the copy according to the House of Lords, for example, where the original elements in the plot of a play or novel are copied.

[Winterchase]

After hearing how they wouldn't reject any logline, I decided to test this by sending them a logline reading "A fish of soap reflected green velvet and turned on the wooly log." Believe it or not, they asked for the script based on that attrocious piece of nonsense. It's a clear sign they do not read the submissions - they just want to see how much they can get you to pay. I'm tempted to bait them a little, sending them a "script" that is actually a BMP file with its extension changed to DOC, resulting in something they won't be able to open. If they ask for a critique of that, it's a dead giveaway.

Mad, you're sneaky, devious, underhanded and clever. I like the way you think! I wonder if a DDOS would get their attention? I wish I knew how to do it.

[Winterchase]

... it is nevertheless possible for a work to be copied and infringed even if not a single sentence from the original can be found in the copy according to the House of Lords, for example, where the original elements in the plot of a play or novel are copied.

Then am I correct in assuming this is the law behind the lawsuit involving the authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code we've all been reading about lately on this side of the pond?

[xhouseboy]

Then am I correct in assuming this is the law behind the lawsuit involving the authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code we've all been reading about lately on this side of the pond?

Most likely, although in a case like that they've probably dug up a little more comparisons in both texts. I hope they have for their sakes.

Only problem there, as I see it (and I may well be wrong) is that Holy Blood and Holy Grail was also based upon myths, legends, etc, and all of it freely accessible and in public domain, so obviously also accessible to Brown.

But where they may have a chance is that one of Brown's characters is almost an anagram of the authors of HB - HG, which kind of suggests that he may have used the book as a source, although as mentioned the info was already out there.

It's nothing like a criminal case. Burden of proof is much less severe. Depends on how the judge sees it. It will all hinge on 'balance of probabilities'.

[broughcut]

it is nevertheless possible for a work to be copied and infringed even if not a single sentence from the original can be found in the copy according to the House of Lords, for example, where the original elements in the plot of a play or novel are copied.

Not sure about that. I'm under the impression that there really isn't any [case] law behind the HBHG lawsuit... it is something of a test case. Had the House of Lords already ruled that the "architecture" of a work is protected by copyright, I doubt so many lawyers would be suggesting these guys are out on a legal limb here?

Interesting quote from the claimant's counsel yesterday, certainly chimes with x's point above, but I think it remains to be seen if this constitutes copyright infringment:

"This case is not about stultifying creative endeavour. It is not about seeking a monopoly on ideas or historical data. [But] it is not as though Brown has simply lifted a discrete series of raw facts from HBHG. He has lifted the connections that join the points up."

Random House's lawyers make their opening statements today.

[xhouseboy]

Had the House of Lords already ruled that the "architecture" of a work is protected by copyright, I doubt so many lawyers would be suggesting these guys are out on a legal limb here?



I was under the impression that it is already enshrined in the Copyright, Design and patents Act 1988, and it formed the basis of the favourable ruling in the 'Stones In His Pockets' case a couple of years ago.

I was actually quoting from the Act, not making my own point.

Also, this case: Rock Follies. Fraser v Thames Television [1983] 2 All ER 101

Again, a favourable outcome for the plaintiffs, and this was as near as you will ever get to the 'protection of an idea'. Fraser's work, at the time he pitched it, was nowhere even yet close to the architecture stage.

Don Fraser won his case (and substantial damages to boot) on the matter of confidentiality. He told them what he intended to write, they liked it. Don Fraser never did get down to writing his scripts. Someone else ran with his idea.

The courts agreed with him.

[broughcut]

I was under the impression that it is already enshrined in the Copyright, Design and patents Act 1988, and it formed the basis of the favourable ruling in the 'Stones In His Pockets' case a couple of years ago.

Unless there was an appeal, she lost the case. Only had copyright on her notes (ie her precise expression of her idea).

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11711,1220000,00.html


I was actually quoting from the Act, not making my own point.
I didn't notice it in your reply, sorry probaby me.

Don Fraser won his case (and substantial damages to boot) on the matter of confidentiality. He told them what he intended to write, they liked it. Don Fraser never did get down to writing his scripts. Someone else ran with his idea.

Great example, thanks.

url:
http://www.copyright.theft.btinternet.co.uk/rockfollies1.html


The court would prevent a person who had received an idea expressed in oral or written form from disclosing it for an unlimited period or until that idea became general public knowledge provided (a) that the circumstances in which it was communicated imported an obligation of confidence
As you point out this is contract law and has nothing to do with copyright, but it's a great example. Contract law can also protect pitches made by a writer in the expectation that he/she will be hired if the idea is exploited by the producer--a contract can normally be argued to exist between writer/producer, whether explicit (an agreement at the beginning of the meeting), or implied (eg in circumstances were both parities are professionals, it's a reasonable assumption that the writer is not volunteering his ideas just for kicks). cheers for the info.

[xhouseboy]

[QUOTE=broughcut]Unless there was an appeal, she lost the case. Only had copyright on her notes (ie her precise expression of her idea).


Youre right, Broughcut. My fault. Apologies. I probably should have been clearer as to what I meant by 'favorable ruling' and it was a rather strange one, and perhaps a wrong choice of words on my part.

The Court also found that implied consent (Brighton's) was now effectively revoked by the litigation such that Jones could not in future exploit the 1999 script without Brighton's permission and a payment of 12.5% of net writer's income. Although this did not exclude Brighton from rewriting the opening of the 1999 script to effectively cut Jones out of the picture.

So one one hand, you have a favourable decision for Jones. On the other, there was some suggestion that Brighton did have a case.

There were two further claims brought against Jones for breach of contract. The first was that she failed to pay the royalty participation owed to Dubbeljoint (the jointly owned company set up by Jones and Brighton). Jones paid this prior to trial and it did not have to be considered by the Court. The second was that Jones had failed to credit Dubbeljoint in theatre programmes as required. Jones also conceded this point prior to trial and promised to give credit in the future.

The most crucial thing to come out of this was that it created a significant loophole in the TMA agreement.

[broughcut]

x, thanks for the excellent info.