What are *you* doing in the Daily Fail?!

[joyful_molly]

I usually don't get mails linking to the Daily Fail (or Daily Heil) with the comment "you MUST have a look at that!" If you've read one article in that rag, you don't have to read the rest. Everything is always the fault of immigrants (they don't work and leech benefits) and single mothers (they don't work and leech benefits); the Muslims are

Comments

[veronica_rich]

I didn't read all the way to the end; does it say down there that this visit was the writer's fantasy or that the lawsuit was already dropped or dismissed? I can't believe it's real. I worked for a lawyer for years and he would've had minor heart failure if a client confronted someone they were suing without him present - and then told the press. Or, you know, dropped them as a client (which I actually saw him do a couple of times) for not following his advice.

(Interestingly, my newspaper was owned by the Fail until a couple of years ago when they sold off most of their publications. Their flagship paper is atrocious, but it's the only English company I ever saw that actually put money into its American properties and employees rather than buying them for mineral rights. *G* It's the one thing I'll give them credit for.)

[joyful_molly]

From what I understand, he talked to her before he got himself legal representation; probably an attempt at settle the issue (if there's one) "between colleagues". Fully agree with you on the "no contact" bit; I've worked for a lawyer as well and she always made it crystal clear to her clients that they should leave the work to her and not get involved themselves. Then again, somebody who writes stuff like

"I notice Emma's blue eyes. Beautiful. She's much prettier in person, I think. I have been asked by my sisters - actually, just about every woman I know - to note what she is wearing. Black stretch pants and a long white sweater with brown flecks. The colour is oatmeal, I am later informed."

is probably capable of everything. Including running to the Daily Fail to whine. And that bit:

"Perhaps, in the end, there's a kind of insane symmetry to it all. Effie Ruskin went to court to prove her virginity, Emma Thompson's Effie is now in court to prove its virginity, and maybe it will - with enough money and power most things are

[classics_lover]

Has he got nothing better to do than whine that two screenplays of the same subject matter came out at the same time? Coincidence doesn't exist, therefore it is THEFT! UNHOLY THIEVING! :-P

While people die in Libya and dissidents claim the Northern Ireland Peace Process failed? Really? That's the worst thing he has to complain over? LOL

I love Emma's affidavit including that the play had bad reviews. ROFL. Bitchy much?

I could totally see Saoirse in the role of Effie, though. She has a certain vulnerability that would work for the character (although she'd have to practice her Scottish burr, lolz) or Karen Gillan from Doctor Who. But not Orlando. Get Damo to do it!

[joyful_molly]

I can understand that an author gets upset about plagiarism - but this case? I might as well run around and sue every other person writing AoS fiction! Of course settings and characters will be rather similar, that goes with the terrain of writing about real people! Gah. It's still possible to have a completely different approach.

While people die in Libya and dissidents claim the Northern Ireland Peace Process failed? Really? That's the worst thing he has to complain over? LOL

Screw people in Libya and the RIRA nutjobs and everything, SOMEBODY WROTE A STORY ABOUT THE SAME PERSON AS HE DID! And like any responsible adult, he did the sensible thing: running to the Daily Fail to whinge about it. Pffft.

I love Emma's affidavit including that the play had bad reviews. ROFL. Bitchy much?If the writing of the play was of equal quality to the article, I'm not surprised it tanked. :P *ducks

Read the whole article

[gryphons_lair]

Sounds to me like Ms Thompson & Co were trying to buy the guy off as cheaply as possible--a bit of text in the credits and 10,000 pounds isn't much, in movie terms--which heavily implies that they don't believe he has a case.

And their final counter-offer--a co-credit on the screenplay, a mention of the play in the closing credits and "a fee in the low six figures"--looks much the same, with the increased cash being at least partly due to a lawyer now being involved on his side.

As for this assertion:
"it was distinctly related to my own screenplay in its time-frame, character development, structure and tone"

Both screenplays were based on the same material, so of course they'd have the same time frame, structure, and, largely, character development (though I note he also cited two distinct differences in character development between the two

Re: Read the whole article

[joyful_molly]

heavily implies that they don't believe he has a case.

I got the same impression. And I agree with you that similarities can't be avoided as the play is based on historical figures. I fully understand that an author would protest plagiarism, but I just don't think this is the case here. Twenty people writing about the same historical character would probably come up with twenty different approaches, despite the given similarities. An author should know that.

Can you imagine knowing you're a normal human being and having people look at you that way over and over and over? And then having to be pleasant about it?

I really couldn't handle that, and I admire people who are in the eye of the public who can. I'm feeling a bit sorry for Emma Thompson; the article and the behaviour of that man is so unprofessional.