Rik Carter: Producer and screenwriter in Los Angeles, California.

To provide the facility for sharing your content, they need a license from you to distribute your content without being sued by you. Some sites might translate your content, thus creating a derivative work. However the problem is the general nature of the license which states the general right to create a derivative work rather than specifically stating "translate your content". It would be better to post the script on your own website if you want it public and create a link from here.

Well isnt copyright and patent law attributed to any post when time stamps or proof of concept or idea are presented via correspondence

@Cory - Yeah I'm sure they have it better defined in the Membership Agreement... not that I've checked. Even if that is the case though they should make it more clear exactly what they mean by derivatives. @David, It's not the copyright that is the problem, it is what we allow them to do with our work that is.

Yeah, like Regina says....it's not really such a black-and-white answer without knowing more of the details. This isn't potentially something you learn in four or five paragraphs. Your complex question takes hours to learn - through books; webinars; class room instruction; and sound advice. I don't think you want to be a "one-time check and I'm out of the picture guy." Or maybe you do. That's certainly a lot easier for some people. You need to ask yourself what you really want from the potential deal, and what your personal goals are. Besides pay....upfront pay in a contracted hired writer agreement....upfront pay or backend pay on an option....no pay upfront in a shopping agreement and a percentage of the budget if it sells to someone else.....there's a lot of ways to potentially go about this. If the goal is to create a web series...to a small producer....with a small budget....I'd want to be at least some type of producer on it myself, in addition to being the writer with ongoing responsibilities, and in addition to owning a part of it. I personally would consider forgoing any upfront money in the right situation. That also might involve me assuming some of the financial risk. That also might involve being a part of an LLC with the producer and others with fixed ownership percentages in the LLC for all. If the goal is for the producer that you are working with to raise money elsewhere to fund this....your partial ownership chances can diminish, and might even be eliminated entirely. The bigger it gets, the more complex it gets, and you could actually end up with a one-time payment offer and be out of the picture entirely once the concept moves over to a bigger production company, Internet site or network. Do you want that? Some people would be happy with that, because it gets them some money and helps them get their "feet in the door" and on their way to getting established with the hope that more jobs may come their way. I could be happy with that, too, under the right conditions. And some people who get their feet in the door and on their way to getting established never make another dime in the industry. Some very talented writers have become filmmakers/web series creators/producers and have found ways to raise money or part of the money on their own in order to not get cut out of the picture, and have taken years and turned down options or sales agreements to do just that. Would you like to do that? I did it when I was younger, and may end up doing it again. Without taking years, I put up all the money; made all the deals; and lost all the money. Like most start-up businesses...it boils down to funding; risk/reward assumptions; and agreements. If your head is spinning a bit, it should be. Contracts can be complex, and most laypeople can't even decipher a sentence that has 18 clauses and 400 words. There can be one little itty-bitty clause - the "I screwed you clause" - that you can completely overlook because it's on page eight and your brain is already throbbing by page three and you didn't have a competent attorney. They're sometimes written that way for a reason - to obfuscate the truth - and you'll obviously need an attorney if it gets to that point. Me personally - I'd sure hate to be the person who creates a concept that may go on to be award-winning and financially lucrative, and to not receive adequate compensation/credit/ongoing participation as the writer/series creator/guiding force/ and a producer. You really need to think this through, and hope that the producer that you are working with is not out to get the most he can from you without the proper compensation; isn't trying to screw you; and really is so in love with the concept and WITH YOU that he's also out to make sure you're happy and participating in the ongoing series. You really need to figure out what you want from the potential deal and his goals, and to become adequately competent in understanding how things may work. And you have to be flexible and skilled in the dynamics of negotiations. It's one of the hardest things that writers in your position have to complete properly - besides thinking something up; executing it; and getting someone with access to funding interested in it (or funding it themselves). They have to become extremely astute, razor-focused and goal-oriented business people - or pay others for their expertise in those areas. You're in a whole new world now. Good luck, bro, and I hope it works out the best for you and everyone involved.

Thank you for the help guys. You've given me much to consider. I'll let you know what happens.

It's been some time. What happened?

Hi Raymond, I'm currently writing my first spec. Is it necessary to have written one or more scripts before getting into script reading? I currently work a day job in legal publishing and was looking to do something more relevant.

Ah I have no information at all on UK script reading career strategy.

Michael, it doesn't hurt for a reader to also be a writer with a few finished scripts. But what is more necessary to getting a job is work samples. I don't know anything about the UK job market but I suspect it isn't much different than here in the States. Learn how coverage is written and then do coverage on half a dozen scripts. Use those examples as a sample when applying for a job.

The key benefit to learning on film was expense. If there is a huge incentive to turn the camera off, you learn intentional shooting and turn it on only when you should. The video trained shoot too much material that is mediocre. Another benefit to learning on film was no video playback, no monitor and a lag of a day or more before viewing footage; you had to understand what you were doing and why. When you screwed up, no one knew til later- so you got proficient or unemployed. The romance of sprocket holes, the smell of emulsion and the sound of the whirring noise by your head is so much crap... at least to someone who has exposed millions of feet of movie film and loves where digital is today.

What an interesting point of discussion Joe! You are definitely an old soul in a young body. As for me, I feel blessed to have started in the industry when camera negative was the standard for motion picture production. On every level and in every department film demanded a high level of craft from each and every crew member. Lets face it, running a 1000 foot mag is the equivalent to going to your local ATM and maxing out your allowed withdrawals for the day. And that's just for one mag not including processing the neg and telecine costs. You had to have your act together or else your name would be not be on the next day's call sheet. Today there are very competent crews both in camera and lighting departments who perform wonderfully and with great passion. But what I find is that in this digital age the bar is quite a bit lower in regards to basic knowledge in camera, lighting, and grip crafts. When digital first came about it was awful. Everyone was trying to figure out how to get a "film look" with technology that simply would not allow it. Flash forward to today and the digital technology has finally reached the point that camera negative is a consideration but not the standard - digital is. With digital's advancement professional camera, grip, and lighting crews have now crossed over to digital production full time and with their craft the digital age of image capture is truly amazing. But as I mentioned earlier, the base line level of skill and knowledge of newly minted crew members who have not been mentored by camera negative era crew members is not up to par. During the camera negative era, I could count on everyone on set including the nubbies to have the basics down. Today I find more often than not new crew members have to be taught basic grip, lighting, and camera department functions and skills. Heaven forbid I have to turn to my gaffer and ask what stop my key light is because for some reason he read an article that states light meters are superfluous and he could throw his light meter away. So my fear is when the camera negative era crew members retire and fade away, our craft will have lost a vast knowledge base replaced by youtube tutorials and preprogrammed "looks" that can be applied in post. Some have said the romance of film is crap. This may be so. But for me it was a wondrous part of what I loved about making movies. The tick tick tick of the mag. The orange cast of the 85 filter. The ritual of "check the gate". All of this was part of our process. The process of slowing down and becoming expert at your craft. The absolute confidence my focus puller is spot on with her marks. Being elated that the production designer integrated practical lighting fixtures that matched my film stock rated at my ASA with perfect placement in my 1:85 frame. And the most special of all, witnessing the performance of talented actors through the viewing tube creating what will be an iconic scene and being the only one to truly know how magical that moment was. No video village. No camera assistant monitor. Only you and the actors doing the dance. Crap some say? I just know it was pure joy...

Curt, the "film was better" nostalgia is whats crap to me. What is not crap was the autonomy of the DP and camera crew, because of the very waning craft you mention. The film disciplined experience was decidedly superior- I was there too and agree with almost all your comments regarding the film experience and crews and mentoring and craft or lack of it. How do you get newbs to learn film discipline when they for the most part have mere hipster nostalgia and romance that is imagined ( see also Polaroids and Lomogaphy), vs our expertise to counter their tutorial fed DIY short attention span mentatlity? Not from a new Super 8 camera with an LCD. Rik- if not for you and 8mm and Super 8mm, I'd likely not have been in this business. But you know that. Spring in the Bolex still wind up ? ;)

Hi Kevin. What is the status of your 10 film distribution deal?

Signed sometime ago. In post production of my short film as POC for financing of full length. pretty exciting stuff. If interested email me kmartin@kaleidosightfilms.com

Though I'm sure was meant in a negative way… received funding for two of our films that were on that slate… First film goes into pre production September of this year

Your original question had nothing to do with the camera making you talented or not. You asked why someone would buy a camera, and shoot a film, and turn around and buy a different camera. There's lots of reasons to buy a camera, shoot a film, and then turn around and buy a new one. Different films have different requirements. Some films need super slow mo. Some films require a better low-light recording, or you may need to do your next film in 3D, or the production company you hire may require a specific media. There are tons of reasons to change camera's quite often. And it doesn't cost nearly as much as you think. You buy a $5000 camera, shoot your film, flip the barely used camera for $4500 and you can buy a new camera for difference. Depending on how long you need the camera - it can potentially be much cheaper than renting a camera for an extended period of time. As for whether the camera makes you a good filmmaker or not - I have never, in the films I have worked on, talked to a filmmaker who credited or blamed the camera for the success or failure of his film. I've never talked to a filmmaker who said - "well, if only I had THAT camera... my movie would have been better". I think the attitude of being negative towards people who do this stems from people who are jealous they can't do it themselves. While I am SURE there are is a VERY SMALL number of people who do focus too much on which camera they need.... I don't believe it's enough people - or anyone who is actually noteworthy enough - for someone like you or I to be bothered by them. My point is.... don't worry about what others do. Right or wrong, they have their reasons. Focus on what you need to do and leave it at that.

well I've been using my Canon 5d Mark II since I first purchased it. A lot of new cameras out there that offers a lot more things but I've learned that purchasing great lighting can give you a good look. Check out the trailer for my new film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38SPxpYXimQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38SPxpYXimQ

Stop me if you've heard this one: Two Klingons walk into a Romulan bar.. Oh forget it just watch this: http://tinyurl.com/kmueg9l

couple of films i scored got limited distribution at a festival.

I produced a film that got into SXSW 2012 and won the Audience Buzz Award. That got us extra screenings and then a great review in Indiewire and from there distribution.

A client of mine was set on using as big name artist, actually 8 different ones, for a commercial program for dvd sales world wide. She found by the time one reaches the source of the music piece the cost ended up to be around $16,000 each, WHEW! She is now searching buyout music scores.

Hi, Lisa. I don't claim to be an expert on these kind of legal issues, but I can tell you from experience, I co-wrote an indie production which used a couple of popular songs from the 60's, and was told by the producer that the rights to re-record them cost $5000.00 each, with the restriction that they could only be used for the movie. No soundtrack album, or that sort of thing. Best to contact an attorney, just to be safe. Cheers, and good luck!

You would be a lot cheaper to commission your own orginal music 'in the style of...' Unless you have very deep pockets, avoid all copyrighted material like the plague.

Yes, the rumor that you can't use transitions has somehow taken over this town. And, it's completely false. If your script calls for a transition, put it in there. If you need a SMASH CUT TO, you need it. What better way is there to convey a comedic smash cut? Bottom line is, this is a terribly bad rumor that has somehow swept the screenwriting community. Overuse I can see as an issue, but transitions are just fine and dandy.

i do my best to convey the movie as I see it in my minds eye. if i'm able to do that i'm happy. so far i've only written movies I plan to make - i've never written with the intent to sell.

to be honest if the script is good enough I don't think readers or producers will really care that much. I guess if you are an unknown entity in the writing world then probably avoid using them at all unless it is absolutely necessary. I never use camera angles except for CLOSE ON and PULL BACK or something similar and again only if it is completely necessary for the scene to work. I would make sure only ever to use a camera angle or transition once or twice in a feature

As a board member of SAG-AFTRA I can tell you it's very hard to get a name actor to attach to a project, or even to read the script, before financing is in place. Too many lawsuits over the years. If you have a project with an established director or producer you might have a shot. Once financing is in place it all changes. Then its a matter of scheduling and does the project - and the role - appeal to the talent.

What's a zombie thread? Thanks all for your comments, I've been gone for a while, appreciate your comments and advice on the subject.

Vicki, I’m curious... what’s happened for you over the last five years?

Hey I kind of like those rhyming names I may do a script full of them. Yours Sincerely, Danny Manny.

Also avoid giving characters names with the same first letters like: KLYE AND KENDRA. Distracting to the eye when reading the screenplay—especially in dialogue.

shouldn't really matter if you have a real story. DUH!

What kind of mistakes, goofs, errors, whatever you like to call it are you talking about?

Take into account this. Can actors make mistakes? Can musicians make mistakes? Can camera operators make mistakes? They shouldn't, but honestly it is expected as long as it isn't a consistent problem. Art without mistakes wouldn't be art at all, and computers could do it on their own. That is what makes the flesh and blood of all art forms.

Hello. "Mistakes/Goofs/Errors" are almost always seen by the keen movie watchers. Continuity errors are the most pointed-out mistakes on any given film. The movie "Prancer" had the Reindeer without his harness on his last close-up scene, but the kids that went to the theaters to see this PG-13 movie did not notice. The Editor was quoted as to say that there was no more footage/coverage to( at that time of celluloid film) 'cut-and-paste" a similar close up of Prancer's face. I just watched a French movie DVD via Netflix last week where the girl's cigarette was half-smoked, but exactly 7 seconds later, next scene, the cigarette was just lit, two inches longer. Animal House has the chalkboard with the word "Satan" written differently in the next scene( Donald Sutherland as the Teacher). The list could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the errors left behind the "locked" film are largely attributed to the Editing process, and scheduling. If there is not much time remaining, the "minor" errors will be left just as that. Many cinema fans like catching these "errors". Me personally? I catch almost all errors myself, trying NOT to make the same errors in my short movies. But I still made similar ones nevertheless!!!

I would define a 'Remake' as recreating a Movie following the exact guidelines of a Screenplay from a previously done Film... Adapting a Movie from a Book or Short Story could be done 100s of times, with each interpretation completely different, depending how it is perceived by the Screenwriter...

Yes Leonard mentioning this twice "Jacqueline, why not stay on subject instead of going off on your own tangents." was not gentle. Especially since the 2nd time she had not even said anything recent. Maybe she deleted something or you did not realize you had already posted that to her. Twice publicly is a scold.

Way to go Laura - making a comment bout something said months ago. Nice to see you have to put your two cents in, 'scolding' me for comments everyone else forgot.