UPDATE, 4:14 PM: Gawker has responded to Quentin Tarantino‘s legal complaint (read it here) on its website. Since writer John Cook invokes the original story by Deadline Hollywood in two places, I’d like to shed a little context to where Cook has gone wrong in a reply that seems to excuse Gawker’s brazen and cavalier behavior by lumping us into the mix. But he’s wrong. Writes Cook: “Last week—before the publication of the script online but after it had begun circulating in Hollywood—Tarantino loudly turned The Hateful Eight leak into a topic of intense news interest by speaking about it at length to Deadline Hollywood, which had itself obtained a copy. Tarantino’s very public complaints about the leak—which named the six parties (of varying degrees of celebrity and potential culpability) that he believes had access to it—were picked up and amplified afterward by dozens of news sites, including Defamer. It was Tarantino himself who turned his script into a news story, one that garnered him a great deal of attention.”
Related:
Tarantino’s ‘Hateful Eight’ Script Hits The Web
Tarantino Shelves ‘Hateful Eight’ After Betrayal Results In Script Leak
Cook is wrong. I did not obtain and still have not obtained The Hateful Eight. Why would I read a work that made Tarantino, the copyright holder, angry? It was a first draft, and his process is to show that work to select actors, get feedback and dig back in and do a draft that is closer to what he will shoot. The document that Gawker gleefully cites and invites its readers to help themselves to is nothing close to a finished version. In addition, the piece was published because Tarantino wanted the town to know he had changed plans on his next movie, hurt by what he considered a betrayal by a handful of people he gave a first script draft to.
More from Cook: “Quentin Tarantino wanted The Hateful Eight to be published on the internet. This is what he told Deadline, in the course of complaining about the then-small-scale leak to some unknown number of reporters and Hollywood types: “I do like the fact that everyone eventually posts it, gets it and reviews it on the net. Frankly, I wouldn’t want it any other way. I like the fact that people like my shit, and that they go out of their way to find it and read it.”
Gawker is trying to let itself off the hook by taking Tarantino completely out of context. What the filmmaker told me was that he is not a hypocrite. When he is shooting his film and sees the final draft of the script online, he in the past has not been upset and likes that people seek it out. Seems to me that what Gawker is dismissing is the fact that this is Quentin Tarantino’s intellectual property creation. As he said, he owns the fucking thing, and therefore, if a website conveniently plays up an anonymous web address which Gawker readers were encouraged to use so they could “help themselves” to Tarantino’s copyrighted work, Tarantino and only Tarantino can decide whether or not he is incensed. And he alone can seek legal redress as he has done here.
I don’t cover the lawsuits here, but it feels like Gawker is on a slippery slope, and while it might well be difficult to prove whether the website got the script and put it online under an untraceable website–Tarantino’s lawyers say the site asked its audience if anyone had the script draft–there are lots of people in Hollywood who are salivating over the prospect of seeing this case move forward, possibly becoming a cautionary tale that might give bloggers and others on the web second thoughts before they traffic in stolen goods.
EARLIER, BREAKING, 8:19 am PST: Quentin Tarantino is taking Gawker Media to court after the snarky website brazenly posted a link to The Hateful Eight, the first draft screenplay whose leak prompted Tarantino to say he would shelve the film. Tarantino has filed a formal legal complaint this morning in U.S. District Court, Central District Of California Western Division (read it here). The legal complaint charges Gawker with copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement. Tarantino’s case will be led by hard-nosed litigator Martin Singer.
Here is the crux of the legal complaint obtained by Deadline: “Gawker Media has made a business of predatory journalism, violating people’s right to make a buck. This time they’ve gone too far. Rather than merely publishing a news story reporting that Plaintiff’s screenplay may have been circulating in Hollywood without his permission, Gawker Media crossed the journalistic line by promoting itself to the public as the first source to read the entire screenplay illegally. Their headline boasts, ‘Here is the leaked Quentin Tarantino Hateful Eight Script’ — here, not someplace else, but ‘here’ on the Gawker website. The article then contains multiple direct links for downloading the entire screenplay through a conveniently anonymous URL by simply clicking button-links on the Gawker page, and brazenly encourages Gawker visitors to read the screenplay illegally with an invitation to ‘enjoy’ it. There was nothing newsworthy or journalistic about Gawker Media facilitating and encouraging the public’s violation of Plaintiff’s copyright in the screenplay, and its conduct will not shield Gawker Media from liability for their unlawful activity.”
The complaint alleges that Gawker declined to take down the post, or the URL that encouraged readers to download Tarantino’s screenplay.
This development happened after Tarantino told Deadline Hollywood exclusively that he was so frustrated to learn that someone among a handful of people to whom he gave the first draft script, leaked it. He had planned to write another project, and direct the two movies back to back. Instead, he said he would publish his Hateful Eight script, an ensemble Western, and revisit its movie prospects several years down the road. He said he will make that other project next.
In the legal complaint filed by his attorney, Tarantino maintains that Gawker solicited its readers to provide a copy of the script. Shortly after, the post in question appeared with an invitation to its readers to help themselves to the screenplay. I’ve not heard of a lawsuit quite like this one, but in this day and age when digital theft of copyrighted intellectual property is rampant, it will be an interesting scrape to follow, particularly if this becomes a full blown lawsuit. I’ll have more, soon.
In 2012, Gawker was asked by Lena Dunham’s attorney to take down a post that published Dunham’s 66-page book proposal that sold to Random House for $3.5 million. The site did so “on the recommendation from Gawker’s legal department.”
That’s gumption. Poor guy. I hope the WGA partners up with him and takes them down.
WGA has no jurisdiction in an event like this — the material wasn’t written or sold under a guild contract. So WGA is a moot observer. This is plain and simple copyright law.
You mean the WGA is a “moo” observer. Like a cow observer. It just doesn’t matter.
Have I been living with “Uh” too long or did that actually make sense?
Enthusiastic applause.
He’s not a WGA member so not sure if they will partner up with him.
QT isn’t in the WGA. They aren’t going to do anything for him.
Do you know why he’s not in the WGA? Is it philosophical or does he just not want to pay the dues?
Go get them Mike! You did nothing wrong.
If what Gawker did was post a link to an existing copy of the script online, then it could be argued that they were reporting the news – namely, the news that the link existed. Reporting on the link is still reporting. They are protected as journalists in that regard.
It may cost them some money to defend themselves, but the burden is still on QT.
And just FYI: the script is all over town, showing up unsolicited in readers’ and near-readers’ in-boxes everywhere.
QT: A) gave it to 5-too-many-people, B) should have water-marked it, and/or C) Should have kept the only copy at his house, and let his favored posse read it only there.
Gawker has degenerated to sub-tabloid levels of loathsomeness. Hope Tarantino takes ’em for every dime.
Degenerated? Gawker has been trash from the very beginning. I refuse to even click on a link to that site, let alone read anything they write. I hope Tarantino does us all a favour and takes them down.
Though I do not genuflect before QT like so many others, I think this is a horrible infringement on his right to control his own intellectual property. Gawker has crossed the line. I hope he nails them to the wall.
Will the trial be in big super CINEMASCOPE 70MM filmed gloriousness?
So long as they also provide coffee that’s strong, hot, and damn good (or whatever it was)
Team Tarantino!
A rich, famous and hugely influential writer/director like Tarantino is the perfect person to do this. And with him involved, the suit will get enormous attention. The truth is, he’s sustained significant professional damages by a web site that acted in an extraordinarily reckless and malicious way. He’s entitled to significant compensation.
Yep. And you’re on the nose about his fame being a good thing, here. Gawker and its whole family of sites pull stuff like this all the time with lower-tier artists, most of whom don’t have the financial backing to put up a serious fight. If this case can be a symbolic one to help those others, that’d be wonderful.
Good luck with this one. What are the damages, pain and suffering? Is there negligence on Tarantino’s part in protecting his own material? Imagine Tarantino on a witness stand in front of a jury. This whole thing is a waste of time.
Finally !!! GO GET ‘EM TARANTINO..
The fkn bastards deserve to be soaked dry !!!
Hey Mr. Tarantino, don’t be so rash… they were just sharing it man!
In all seriousness, give them hell Quentin.
He’s got a strong case, just as Harlan Ellison did when he sued AOL to take down his stories that were illegally posted. This isn’t like the Pentagon Papers, it’s personal IP.
He does not have a strong case because he will be able to prove any actual monetary damages he suffered because of this in the same way someone like Ellison could. Gawker did not actually host or post the script.
If Tarantino had any integrity he would be suing the agent or agency that ACTUALLY leaked the script in the first place. But because this is a pure PR stunt and I’m sure he doesn’t want to ruffle any industry feathers he’s singling out gawker instead. Both sides get to huff and puff and pound their chests and get a ton of free PR, but nothing will change. Because honestly nothing really needs to change. No one has been able to demonstrate that there’s any significant ACTUAL monetary damages caused to anyone by leaked early drafts of scripts, so it’s really not an issue that civil courts are well-suited to deal with. This is all about posturing and using the courts as a PR machine.
As a writer, I can promise you this, what Gawker did was WRONG. It would be no different than if my editor leaked one of my manuscripts publicly prior to publication. It IS theft, and it WOULD damage my bottom line. Why would anyone (save the few scrupulous people in the world who understand that taking something that was never intended to be FREE OF CHARGE is in fact THEFT) pay money to buy a book when they can steal it? Too many people believe that just because something is available on line that it is free. Well guess what? It isn’t.
I hope Tarantino wins, because protecting intellectual property actually matters to a lot of people who make their living selling what comes from very hard work. Clearly you have zero comprehension of that creative process and the fact that it is NOT free to authors. Writing books requires money up front for research and editing and the actual time one sacrifices doing the work rather than being some slug who punches a time clock and does a half assed job and collects his check just the same as those who do work hard.
HW, people like YOU are the problem. Nothing needs to change? Fine. When some jerk comes and steals YOUR stuff, I hope people respond to you in kind. Nothing needs to change. You should just be more careful.
The lawsuit claims (rightly) that Gawker was fully aware they were infringing on QT’s copyright and acted in a willful and malicious way. Accordingly, they are asking for unnamed punitive damages. This could be substantial as they need not be connected to actual loss of income that QT sustained, but rather based on Gawker’s egregious behavior. I hope he wins a very substantial settlement and donates the money to creating a foundation to protect the copyrights of those artists that don’t have his connections and resources.
I just said something similar, but not as eloquently. Just right.
Yes, the complaint asks for punitive damages, in complaints the Plaintiff will often ask for punitive damages and for the Defendant to buy Plaintiff a pony and everything just shy of the moon. There will be no punitive damages awarded in this case, because it will never get to a jury. If it did, a jury will not award them to someone like Tarantino, unless maybe gawker hires Jerry Sandusky to represent them in court.
It’s easy to get worked up reading one-sided arguments from a position you’re sympathetic with, but gawker will hire competent and forceful counsel I’m sure and this case will never make it to a jury. The point of this is the headline generated by the filing of the suit, not Tarantino’s desire to spend a King’s ransom and a year or two of his creative energy taking this type of fight all the way to a jury.
You nailed it. Well said!
To paraphrase QT, I hope he goes medieval on their asses.
Suing someone because they simply posted a publicly available URL? Good luck with that one. BTW, Tarantino is a flake.
jelly
I’m not a fan of Tarantino’s work and I agree he can be irritating in interviews, etc. but that doesn’t lessen his right to copyright protection of his work. Say what you want about him, but his last 2 movies grossed hundreds of millions in revenue and so he has an argument that this is potentially depriving him of substantial income.
More importantly, I think any creator of original content (writer, painter, designer) should be rooting for QT to prevail. Otherwise, any screenwriter who finds a draft of his script being exposed online because some reader at a production company admired it or wanted to share with his friends will find he has essentially no recourse. Tarantino’s scripts will be made no matter what, not true for most of the rest of us.
The post in question on Defamer/Gawker directs readers to two sites where the script was uploaded. Unless Taratino can prove that Gawker staff were the culprits who uploaded his content, isn’t he directing his attack against the wrong entity? How is this any different than any aggregator site that includes links to the original source for a reference within an article on which they reporting?
If Gawker was aware that the sites were engaging in copyright infringement (as Gawker clearly was) than they were abetting copyright infringement even if they weren’t actually the ones who posted the material online (though they might have also been the entity that posted the screenplay). The suit asks for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful abridgement of QT’s copyright. An aggregator that knowingly publishes copyrighted material that infringes on the copyright owner’s legal rights is likewise potentially liable. particularly if they’re aware (or likely were aware) that they were violating the copyright.
But then wouldn’t hollywoodreporter.com also be guilty of the same thing? They knowingly linked to the Gawker article that linked to the script downloads.
There will be no compensatory damages because QT will not be able to prove he suffered any financial harm. There will be no punitive damages because this case will never make it to a jury. QT got his headline that Marty Singer is suing gawker for a script leak and that’s what this is really all about.
Huge difference between aggregation that doesn’t explicitly promote/encourage illegal activities and Gawker’s self-promotion using the link for its own gain.
It’s about time someone jerked the lead on the “I’m entitled to whatever I want, whenever I want it, free of all consequence,” culture.
Well said, Steve!
I couldn’t find the story at gawker to look at the links. Maybe they took it down? But it SOUNDS like Gawker posted links to other sites where the script was hosted. Which is different than hosting the file on Gawker. This could get into some interesting legal territory about ‘deep linking.’ Still, not very smart for a news company to promote illegal distribution of IP. But it’s more akin to them say hey, if you got to 607 Bear Canyon Dr you can get this.
The suit contends that links to the screenplay were available directly on the Gawker web site. That is also potentially legally important. To use your example, they didn’t just give them the address, but drove them there. This will be for a jury to decide if it goes to trial (they have requested a jury trial) but that makes it a tighter link to Gawker than if they just mentioned the address of where you could find it.
Trying to pull back something that’s been leaked on the internet is like trying to recover a glass of water that you spilled into the ocean.
As for the lawsuit, will QT now go after Dealine.com because they wrote a story, that might encourage the curious to go onto Gawker to find the URL link that contains this screenplay?
Exactly. Might as well sue Google.
And Gawker knows what its doing. Think of all the free PR they’re getting, here and elsewhere.
On a practical level, you’re right, there’s now no way to get the screenplay back from being circulated all over the world. If you were able to download a pdf of it, it’s now sitting on thousands of hard drives.
But there’s a big difference between what Gawker did (knowingly linking on its site to copyright infringed material) and Deadline covering what is an important entertainment story.
Damn Straight!!!! No reputable site would post a link to a pirated new release movie or a PDF of an unpublished book. Gawker absolutely knew better than to do this. Heck, Deadline wrote the story but didn’t publish a link to the script!
At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand with this kind of stuff, and say “No More!”.
How can the internet users who so voraciously consume illegal media like movies and TV shows using torrents etc., see this as any different? Not taking sides here, just pointing out that music/film studios lose money too. So, can we really have it both ways? Can we steal the media we don’t want to pay for, then express outrage when one artist we happen to like falls victim to the very system that allows this?
The people expressing outrage here seem to be in the business, i.e., they’re the people who stand to lose something.
Go to a fan site filled with pirates and ask the same question. They will take the attitude that it’s their God-given right to download whatever script, show, movie, etc they please.
It’s their God-given right to do anything they please. But it’s not their law-given right, because it’s illegal. So, it’s our right to sue them. “Free-internet” folks have been stealing from us for years. They took down the music business, and now they’re onto the film business. And then they justify stealing because Hollywood only puts out “crap” anyway… ignoring the fact that studios can’t take risks on “better” movies because they’re losing too much to pirates.
I hope Quentin guts them.
Gawker will win if they have the gonads to see it through. There is no loss of revenue here. There is no harm to the public seeing the first draft of a movie script. It doesn’t harm QT financially, if anything it drums up business for the movie. He gave out copies of the script without anyone signing a confidentiality agreement. Hope they don’t cave.
Quentin said he planned to publish it so there clearly were financial concerns. Even with that ignored, they still have no right to publish copyrighted material. Photographers and photo agencies have successfully sued websites for using images without permission or payment. How is this any different? Even if not on their servers, they’re using the link to draw hits and at the same time facilitating those who want to pirate the script.
Publish it? How many books would it sell? He going to include that chapter on Hogwarts?
Gawker is a cancer. Let ’em burn. They are to “news” what Hunter Moore’s sites are to nudity.
Marty is incorrect. Gawker was smart enough to not host it on their website.
Gawker Media expressly and specifically directed, encouraged and solicited its “47,000,000 Monthly US Readers” and the general public with click-through URL links on where and how to obtain an unauthorized downloadable copy of the unreleased Screenplay, by
which they intended to and did directly cause, contribute to, enable, facilitate, aid, abet, induce and/or participate in the infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the general public would not have known about or found the complete copy of the Screenplay on the AnonFiles Website if not for Gawker Media’s article post and specific click-through URL links to the Screenplay. Gawker Media’s article linked to the first (and otherwise unknown) incidence of the complete Screenplay being posted online.
Gawker Media’s article and links became the source for spread of the leak, as it was then widely commented upon and referred to by various other media outlets.
(But the script is still at scribd.com and scribd is not listed as a defendant. Why not? Why only anonfiles when they removed the script?)
I’m guessing most of the people that posted above are from the Midwest or some swamp where they don’t get the net?
This is the cheapest promo money Nick has ever spent. Whatever fantasies you are having re this being a crippling blow are just that: fantasies. They did not actually publish the script – nor did they upload it.
Also the script was kind of ordinary. Some financiers just got saved from QTs 70mm circle jerk. “1st draft” indeed.
According to the lawsuit, they directly linked to it knowing they were linking to copyright infringed material. I have a hunch that will be legally significant. The case could be legally significant if it sets case law on copyright infringed material on the web. Anyone expressing their opinion here is just guessing at how a jury might interpret this.
So, swamp then?
The crucial element here (as it is often is!) is ‘malice’.
That’s going to be quite difficult to prove.
In the meantime Gawker gets clicks (I’m going to go ahead and guess that because of the extra attention Gawker comes out a wash even if they lose), DH panders so it gets clicks and comments, writers get to bitch which comes right after masturbation and before getting paid for them, and everyone goes home happy.
Tarantino even gets a ton of play over a very average script and look like some sort of champion of the working man. Drinks all round.
Malice? Like publishing details of a consensual sexual encounter between QT and some starfucker, and then hiring said starfucker as a gossip hack? For her talent, I’m sure.
Gawker is schadenfreude central for a growing legion of angry ineffectuals who like to point and laugh. It’s all malice, and only the idiots and the wilfully ignorant fall for the journalism facade.
Wow, people still read Gawker? That NY-is-the-center-of-the-galaxy time waster is so MySpace. Hope QT cripples them.
Imagine if they had a leaked copy of a Harry Potter book before it had been published and then shared it online. It’s no different. It’s illegal and how sad that in the age of the internet so many people have no concept of what copyright means and that this stuff cannot be shared for free just because you want it to be.
But not smart enough to take it down after several requests.
I like the “getaway driver” analogy, maybe they can use that in the future, and most importantly I hope a new legal precedent can be set here. The behavior from the “adults” at Gawker and their flock of vultures has gone far enough.