The following (taken directly from the cineme submission page) is <br />perhaps the most egregious to me (Note: WAN=World Animation Network):<br /><br />&quot;4. I recognize that WAN has a production and programming staff that is constantly developing new programming and programming concepts which may be similar or identical to the Material or theme, idea, plot, format, characters and/or other respects. I understand and agree that I will have no other rights against WAN, because of the use by WAN of any such similar or identical material, ideas and/or concepts. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, I further understand and agree that your use of material containing elements similar or identical with those contained in my Material shall not obligate you to negotiate with me or entitle me to any compensation or other claim, if because you or other persons or entities (including your employees) independently have submitted or prepared or may hereafter submit or prepare material containing similar or identical elements, or because of any other reason, you determine that you have an independent legal right to use such material. I covenant that I shall not bring or assert any claim, action or proceeding against WAN in connection with any of the foregoing.&quot;<br /><br />This seems to me like a license to steal people&#39;s work...am I wrong?

yes it does sound lik that doesent it.

<b>Hi</b><br /><br /> Doesn&#39;t this clause exist in many different instances? For instance I checked out LucasArts just for fun a while ago and they had an similar clause for submitted demo reels.<br /><br /> I guess similar clauses is a &quot;cover my ass&quot; clause so that you cannot come after the fact and say that Star Wars III or some character therein was based upon the demo reel you sent in five years ago and demand compensation.<br /><br /> I am no expert on intellectual property, but I guess that in the end it boils down to how much you trust these guys.<br /><br /> Just my &#036;0.02. <br /><br />Best regards<br />/ Daniel

sure but if you show stuff on your screens you could atleast admit intellectual property. A demo reel si a bit different, besides even if you didnt submit your reel 5 years ago theyd be in big trouble if you had psoted it on your website since you still could sue them, because you didnt submit the reel you havent made a contract with them.<br /><br />Just something to thinkabout fort thoose who make the stupid clauses.

a lot of times these clauses, if brought into court, do not stand up at all.<br />Its similar to the, not respouncible for lost or stolen items, not respouncible for damages signs on things. In reality, yes they are.<br />Heres the thing, why would they put on a free show? Most places charge in order for you to submit things, what kind of reputation do these guys have? Have they ripped people off before? If you submit something, and a year later they have something similar enough that 8 out of 12 jurors say is the same thing, and you can prove your concept was created before theres you&#39;ll probbaly win damages.<br />A lot of people asume becouse it says something in a contract you have no legal recourse, when in reality, you do.

Thanks for all your comments.<br /><br />From what I understand, the folks who run Cineme have been in<br />the process of starting up their own cable network devoted to<br />animation. Part of their plans also included producing an <br />animated feature as well as content for their tv network, eg.<br />episodic animated tv shows. As far as I can tell the only thing<br />to materialize from Cineme is the festival itself. 2005 is the 3rd<br />year. This is the first year that they plan to run accepted <br />entries on television, which accounts for most of the legal <br />agreements on their submission page.<br /><br />The section I quoted above seems, as Daniel mentioned, to<br />be a &#39;cover our ass&#39; statement. I guess it makes me squeamish<br />because I draw a distinction between my reel and a finished<br />piece of animation with a story and characters. (My reel is<br />a compilation of short clips as opposed to complete story<br />pieces.) I guess I don&#39;t consider my reel to be the intellectual<br />property that I consider my finished pieces to be. Perhaps<br />I&#39;m wrong to make this distinction.<br /><br />Back to the &#39;cover my ass&#39; thing, from a submitter point of<br />view it looks like they are giving themselves permission to<br />pillage the work of those who submit to them. Perhaps they really<br />mean to say &quot;don&#39;t sue us if we/cineme unintentionally produce<br />something that looks like yours&quot;. <br /><br />I guess my suspicious feeling towards this is somewhat colored by <br />the fact they are a fledgling network with no apparent proven track <br />record.<br /><br />jtk77 maybe right that these clauses are contestable in court...

well yes jtk is right you cant vawe certain kinds of reponsibility by putting a clause like this. BUt you can fool a lot of people into thinking you can. Im not entirely sure this is one of them tough. BUt sce ythey dont apy for it id asume you dont vawe of your rights.