出版与作家生涯2015tessgerritsen.com
我的《地心引力》诉讼，以及它如何影响每一位向好莱坞出售作品的作家
My Gravity lawsuit and how it affects every writer who sells to Hollywood
导读
文章讲苔丝·格里森因《地心引力》改编与华纳兄弟打官司，梳理好莱坞如何通过合同链条、权利转让和“净利润”会计让原作者难以获得控制权和报酬。对写作者尤其是出售影视改编权的人，这是一堂关于合同、版权归属和报酬条款的风险课。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
出售影视改编权前，先厘清授权链条、衍生权利和最终制片方，明确续集、重拍、改编范围以及自己能否追加报酬或终止授权。
- 02
不要轻信“净利润分成”，尽量争取可审计的总收入、票房或许可费分成，或固定买断加里程碑付款。
- 03
合同里写清署名方式和作品来源，保留创作与沟通证据，避免作品被使用后只剩一个credit。
- 04
确认合同承继与转让条款：原签约公司被收购后，新公司是否必须继续履行义务，避免权利被架空。
HN 评论精选
制片方应主动诚信重新谈判，而不是利用合同漏洞白拿作者成果。
这些人怎么回事？华纳兄弟为什么不能联系苔丝说：“我们要基于《地心引力》拍一部科幻片，想和你合作，也愿意就新版本故事重新谈合同。”也就是诚信行事。结果他们直接坑她，不承认、不给钱？这怎么成了公司的默认思路？这话可能有点报复心，但我希望法院以最痛苦的方式重罚华纳。必须改变那家公司的决策方式。
dxhdr查看英文原文
What's wrong with these people? Why couldn't Warner Brothers reach out to Tess and say "Hey, we're going to produce a sci-fi film based on GRAVITY. We'd like to work with you and are interested in re-negotiating your contract for a new version of the story." You know, acting in good faith. Instead they just screw her, no recognition, no money? How is that the default thought process for a company? This may be vindictive but I hope the court sticks it to Warner Bros in the most painful way possible. Something needs to be done to change the decision making process at that company.
收购方架空原创者合同的风险可能跨行业蔓延，不只发生在影视业。
大家都该停下来想象，如果这个法律先例扩散到科技创业界会怎样。可能会出现经验丰富的程序员加入创业公司并签合同，但公司被收购后合同被宣布无效。两种可能：一是较少见的近乎明目张胆的盗窃——合同规定期权或奖金，收购后母公司不想付；二是更常见的版权问题，软件总有模糊空间，因为软件不断变化，也没人写整个大系统。想到我的创业公司：2000到2002年我开发了一个内容管理系统，它后来成为2002年成立公司的基础；公司成立文件给了我特定版税权，即使我们2008年解散也一样。但假设公司被收购，收购方宣布版税要求无效呢？这和《地心引力》很像。令人担忧。
lisa_henderson查看英文原文
Everyone should stop for a minute and imagine what would happen if this legal precedent spread to the tech startup world. We might then have situations where a highly experienced programmer might sign up with a startup, and sign a contract with that startup, but then have the contract declared null and void if the startup is acquired. I can imagine a "less likely" and "more likely" way this might play out: 1.) "less likely" would be something bordering on blatant theft -- perhaps the contract specifies options or bonuses, but the parent company, after the acquisition, no longer wants to pay. That would be fairly blatant, though not impossible. 2.) "more likely" would, I think, be issues regarding copyright, which, with software, allows something of a fudge factor, since software is always changing, and no one programmer writes the whole of a large system. I'm thinking of my own startup here: during the years 2000 to 2002 I created a content management system, which then became the basis of a company that was formed in 2002. But the founding documents of that company gave me the right to specific royalty payments for the CMS, even if we eventually agreed to dissolve the company (which we did in 2008). But suppose the company was acquired, and then the acquiring company declared that the requirement to pay royalties was null and void? This is very similar to what apparently happened with Gravity. Worrisome.
案件关键在合同相对方和权利链条，不能简单归结为华纳偷故事。
完整裁决比格里森文章里说的更复杂；大部分内容在处理撤诉阶段各种文件的可采性。关键点是：格里森的合同对象是Katja（以及可能的新线），不是华纳；她的论点部分依赖“若无华纳控制，Katja/新线会反对华纳基于已授权作品拍片”，但他们没这么做；她即便有合理怨气，也应向Katja/新线及其前股东追索，华纳付钱给了他们，她实质上是Katja的债权人，若应得钱应从出售收益中出，而非华纳账户。很让人头疼。
tptacek查看英文原文
Here's the whole ruling: https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wb-gravity-lawsuit-order-wm.pdf It's more complicated (of course) than Gerritsen makes it out to be. The Hollywood Reporter does a decent job of explaining the contours: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-knocks-down-best-768627 (and, in fairness, it's more complicated than WB makes it out to be as well). Most of the ruling concerns itself with the admissibility of various documents for the purposes of a dismissal ruling, which is complicated by the fact that the court has to stipulate all of the plaintiffs facts as true and still find no cause for a lawsuit in order to grant the motion. From what I can tell, the meat of the ruling is: * Gerritsen didn't have a contract with WB, but with Katja and, presumably, New Line. * Gerritsen's argument depends in part on the notion that Katja/New Line would, absent control by WB, have fought against WB making a picture based on work they'd already licensed. Katja/New Line didn't do that. * Gerritsen might have a legitimate grievance, but it's with Katja/New Line and its previous owners, who were paid by WB. Gerritsen is thus in effect a creditor of Katja's, and if she's owed something, it's owed from the proceeds of the sale, not from WB's own bank account. Or something like that? It's headachey stuff.
净利润分成在好莱坞会计下常是空头承诺，作者可能只得到署名。
即使他们遵守合同，她除了署名也拿不到什么。合同说她拿利润百分比，而电影很可能永远不盈利。《绝地归来》票房4.75亿美元、预算3250万美元，却从未盈利（见维基“好莱坞会计”）。很悲哀。
chrisbennet查看英文原文
Even if they honor the contract she will get nothing besides being credited. Her contract states that she gets a percentage of the profits - and the movie will probably never make a profit. Return of the Jedi never made a profit "despite having earned $475 million at the box-office against a budget of $32.5 million" (Wikipedia "Hollywood Accounting") Very sad.
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选