A sure way not to get staffed

[Write-Away]

Here's a sure way not to get staffed:

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_235172109.html

[jimjimgrande]

it is a sure way however to keep tv professionals away from contests.

[artisone]

What a moron.

[scripter1]

1) I hope someone explained to her that ideas are not copywritable

AND that most Law and Order (or any similar show) always has those same elements in common.

2) Too bad she didn't have a mentor that could encourage her to take the script to the show's producers and try to build on the praise she had been given.

3) Why do people consider the one shot law suit deal first instead of option 2 above?

[winter dreams]

it is a sure way however to keep tv professionals away from contests.

Going by what's written in this story, the result of the suit should actually act to reassure tv professionals who would judge contests, because this case shows that if you judge a contest, you are not in fact entering into an implied contract with any entrant regarding the use of their ideas. (I'm assuming the contest had a very good disclaimer which the entrant had to sign, also).

Interesting that she didn't sue for copyright infringement, there must not have been enough similarity between her script and the show. So her only hope was to show that there was an implied contract between herself and the contest readers that if they used her idea, she would be compensated. (I'm surmising all of this from the story, I haven't read the pleadings in this case).

[mrWr0ng]

Sounds like good news for contest judges who read your script and decide to take it.

I would have gone for the copyright infringement end if there was enough similarity. If not, just another good example of people getting screwed. They say it closely resembled, if there was dialogue, scene setups or something that she could show was taken from her script, then she should have gone that route.

But yeah it doesn't imply a contract. That's fair. But it's a good warning to make sure you copyright EVERYTHING you send out.

[Minibrain]

Are we sure that anybody from Law & Order was even involved in judging?

The court judge's ruling said that her claims of access were invalid. Which leads me to think that the contest misrepresented who the judges were, or who made the comments about the scripts.

[Mac H.]

The court judge's ruling said that her claims of access were invalid. Which leads me to think that the contest misrepresented who the judges were, or who made the comments about the scripts.I wish the US court system was an open & public system rather than a closed one.

According to the website, the California Superior Court won't tell me what the judge's ruling unless I pay them money - which means we are left to speculate based on the presses one or two line summary of what the judge said.

However, the press I've seen didn't mention that the claim of access was invalid - simply that she didn't have a contract or agreement with the other parties. However, until the court system becomes open, I guess we'll have to just speculate...

Going by what's written in this story, the result of the suit should actually act to reassure tv professionals who would judge contests... because it demonstrates that if you judge a contest you may end up having to pay lawyers to deal with a court case that takes the better part of a year to have the first outcome? (There may well be appeals to add to the burden)

If taking part in an activity increases the odds of you being sued (even if you end up winning) you can imagine that it would discourage people from taking part in the activity.

Mac

[artisone]

I wish the US court system was an open & public system rather than a closed one.

According to the website, the California Superior Court won't tell me what the judge's ruling unless I pay them money - which means we are left to speculate based on the presses one or two line summary of what the judge said.

Mac

Of course the court system is an open and public system, the statement above is a silly statement. You are probably being charged an online transaction fee. Anyone can go down to the courhouse and pull any file they want and not be charged one cent. I used to do it all the time as a paralegal.

[Mac H.]

Of course the court system is an open and public system, the statement above is a silly statement. You are probably being charged an online transaction fee.Yes, I deliberately overstated it - a bit tongue in cheek. But it is true - they won't tell me what the judges decision is unless I pay them money. Sure, I could pay someone else money instead (to transport me to the court) but it doesn't change the fact that the court findings AREN'T accessible to people like me unless I pay money for the privilege. If it is a 'transaction fee' or a kickback to the bailiff - it doesn't make a difference to my bank balance!

And why aren't they encouraging people to do it online rather than in person - it would definitely be cheaper in infrastructure for them. In fact, they could just give Google a link to their database and Google would make it all publicly accessible with a cool interface - just like they did with US patents. (eg: www.google.com/patents (http://www.google.com/patents) .. which is a 10,000% better than the 'official' patent search on www.uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov) - All at zero cost to the patent office)

I suspect it is like the change from VCR to DVD - they were cheaper to duplicate (A duplicated DVD costs about $1.20 in small quantities - A Video tape costed double that), but instead of passing the savings onto the consumer, they charged the consumer MORE for them ... because any change is a chance to up the price.

Mac