Withoutabox?

[Braincramp]

Has anyone ever used this service? I am in the process of making a twelve minute short. I am looking for the most economical, yet effective way to get my material seen.
How many people here have decided to make a film based on their written material? At what point as a writer do you decide to go the extra length and make the film yourself?

[amandag]

Withoutabox is great, free and very efficient. I've used it for a few years. :D

[Braincramp]

Thanks Amandag, liked your trailer also.

[amandag]

Thanks Braincramp :) . Good luck!

[diego80]

I am considering signing up,

But I read this:

under Withoutabox general terms of service..


11. Proprietary rights, Use Rights and Limitations, Representations and Warranties,



You grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license right to use, copy, reproduce, transmit, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any information, data, Work, or any other information associated with your Work (collectively the “Submitted Materials”) you submit to us via the Services in any media or format. You represent and warrant that (a) you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the Submitted Materials you submit to us, (b) such Submitted Materials are accurate, (c) our use of the Submitted Materials will not violate any terms of use in connection with the Website or Services or applicable laws, (d) the Submitted Materials will not cause injury to any person or entity, and (e) you will not provide any Submitted Materials to us that is defamatory, libelous, obscene or might otherwise be considered unlawful.


which I don't like very much..

what's your opinion about that?

[The7thLevel]

Almost every film festival uses Withoutabox as a means of submitting your film or screenplay. In most of them it's exclusively through Withoutabox. So you'll find quickly that you almost have no choice in the matter but to use them.

I've used them for years, for both film and screenplay submissions. It's fine, it's convenient, it's normal. Get used to Withoutabox if you plan on entering festivals.

[diego80]

and doesn't this clause bother you?

[The7thLevel]

Not really. Clauses like that are common for services whose sole purpose is to take your data and share it with third parties. It's literally what the service is meant to do. Take your data and share it with third parties in any manner or format that is necessary to fulfill the service they provide. It's fairly generic.

Again, I stress, it is THE tool for submitting to almost every film festival.

Side note, Amazon owns Withoutabox, just like they own IMDB. One of the services Withoutabox sometimes provides is allowing you to enter the film you were submitting to festivals into IMDB. And then somewhere along the way they also try to get you to put your film up for sale or rent at Amazon.

Take that any way you will, but just so you know who Withoutabox is and how big they are.

[ChristopherCurtis]

and doesn't this clause bother you?

The Amazon Studios clause bothers me. We decided NOT to send our script there because once you submit, you are stuck with them and their payment structure. We have a high concept/marketable mainstream family Christmas comedy, so..soon as we finish this latest draft any day now, we plan to start submitting to the big ones, Amazon will not be one.

WOB, seems to be thee method for submissions, I think scriptapalooza uses and requires it.

[mistyritters]

Not really. Clauses like that are common for services whose sole purpose is to take your data and share it with third parties. It's literally what the service is meant to do. Take your data and share it with third parties in any manner or format that is necessary to fulfill the service they provide. It's fairly generic.

Again, I stress, it is THE tool for submitting to almost every film festival.

Side note, Amazon owns Withoutabox, just like they own IMDB. One of the services Withoutabox sometimes provides is allowing you to enter the film you were submitting to festivals into IMDB. And then somewhere along the way they also try to get you to put your film up for sale or rent at Amazon.

Take that any way you will, but just so you know who Withoutabox is and how big they are.


I've seen several contests recently that have an extended deadline for withoutabox submissions only.

But if you made the normal deadline, you didn't have to use withoutabox.

I think the clause they're using in their terms does deserve some attention.

[bmcthomas]

The Amazon Studios clause bothers me. We decided NOT to send our script there because once you submit, you are stuck with them and their payment structure. We have a high concept/marketable mainstream family Christmas comedy, so..soon as we finish this latest draft any day now, we plan to start submitting to the big ones, Amazon will not be one.

WOB, seems to be thee method for submissions, I think scriptapalooza uses and requires it.

This is not entirely true. You are only "stuck with them" if you accept their offer. Merely submitting doesn't obligate you to anything but the 90 day option.

At the end of the 90 days, they either pass, offer to buy it (I think it's $200K for features), or offer to extend the option for $10k. You don't have to take the money.

[mistyritters]

This is not entirely true. You are only "stuck with them" if you accept their offer. Merely submitting doesn't obligate you to anything but the 90 day option.

At the end of the 90 days, they either pass, offer to buy it (I think it's $200K for features), or offer to extend the option for $10k. You don't have to take the money.


It's like a horse race.

[hscope]

I've used the service for three short films and it's fantastic, particularly as you can now submit to most festivals with an online screener. It's saved me a fortune in mailing costs.

[WaitForIt]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. But such clauses are par for the course. My understanding is it's legalese for "We're going to let other people see your stuff and it's going to show up on someone else's screen, which you should very well already realize since you're here using this service, but just in case you're dense and want to sue us later for showing your stuff to other people using our service, we're covering our arses from the get-go."

[The7thLevel]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. But such clauses are par for the course. My understanding is it's legalese for "We're going to let other people see your stuff and it's going to show up on someone else's screen, which you should very well already realize since you're here using this service, but just in case you're dense and want to sue us later for showing your stuff to other people using our service, we're covering our arses from the get-go."

100%. People often get up in arms when actually spending the time to read terms, but this kind of verbiage is needed for sharing services, of which Withoutabox is one- it's just a professional sharing service at its core. And that means Withoutabox has to take your material, package it in some form, and share it with someone else. Hence the verbiage.

And to make it messier, some such sharing services (not Withoutabox) might use that material in their advertising- but even that isn't as ominous as it sounds. For example, Facebook sometimes takes your Likes or Shares, comments and all, and re-shows them into your friends' feeds even though it happened weeks earlier, because an advertiser is blindly paying for them to do it. Technically that's using your content in advertising- but it's not so crazy as it sounds when you actually see it (just creepy maybe).

Or sometimes you're on a site, and a little Facebook box tells you that your friend liked this page. This is Facebook technically using your info outside of Facebook- sure- but it's only there because you're logged into Facebook (it's technically just a window looking into Facebook, but from a legal perspective, it's outside of Facebook). Hence the verbiage.

Withoutabox doesn't have anything like that, but just pointing out what such verbiage actually means in real-world implementation.

I would say the real problem is that the language of legal is old-fashioned and blunt and ends up sounding more alarming than is necessary. I imagine it's just a matter of time, with enough people suddenly overreacting to Facebook or Instagram term changes, before the standard and commonly used legalese updates to something more understandable in the context of these modern services.

Now, if we're talking about the sale and ownership of creative material, such as is the case with something like Amazon Studios, that's a whole other kind of discussion. Then every single term and condition matters! Better lawyer up!