Talk:Creative Artists Agency/Archives/2016

Merge proposal
Propose merging CAA Marketing to this article. This article already mentions it. The CAA Marketing article is short enough, and its notability is doubtful given that the coverage appears to be from industry trade publications. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the merge proposal because it's a red link.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How CAA protects themselves from lawsuits
I'm a Wikipedian. I wrote a novel Jakk's Journey. It would make a great movie. So I emailed agents, including Simon Green of CAA: how about pitching it to moviemakers? Here's the curiously dubious email I got back... "RE: TOM SULCER - AGENCY REPRESENTATION – “JAKK’S JOURNEY” Dear Mr. Tom Sulcer: We received your email addressed to Simon Green, dated April 27, 2016 inquiring about having Creative Artists Agency represent you for the above-entitled project. Although we appreciate your interest, we have a firm policy of returning all unsolicited material unread. Accordingly, we are forwarding your e-mail and unopened website link back to you and we have deleted your e-mail from our active system. Your unsolicited submission has not been, and will not be disclosed to any executive or other employee of Creative Artists Agency or any other person. You should be aware that many ideas are generated by our employees and our clients or other sources. To the extent that any projects are generated which contain elements similar to what you submitted, the similarities are purely coincidental. Thank you for considering Creative Artists Agency. We wish you much luck in your endeavors. Cordially, CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY Submissions Department / Attachment cc: Simon Green"

- email from CAA to tom sulcer on April 28 2016

So, what is this all about? My guess is CAA, by sending this obnoxious email, is trying to protect themselves from possible future lawsuits, if, for example, CAA represents a story similar to Jakk's Journey, then gets sued, so some lawyer, in court, can point to this email as proof that CAA didn't rip off my novel. How royally stupid. Well, in this article, there should be something about how CAA protects itself from spurious lawsuits -- it is part of their business, and it would be a fine example of another article I worked on, namely, Cover your ass, or maybe, CAA's CYA activity!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like a standard response to me. Yes, they want to protect themselves from being set up. And please don't link to your book on Wikipedia. I have removed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The CAA return email just struck me as super-rude: that in their reply to my query, they assume I'm plotting to sue them at some future point for ripping off my ideas, on the basis of possible similarity, and so they're sending a pre-emptive email with dubious logic (ie 'your email was unread and returned -- how can anybody return an unread email?) probably written by some lawyer, with this being the duty of some unfortunate staffer who signs their emails "Submissions Department". So, what is happening here? That they're concern for possibly overriding hypothetical future lawsuits overrides common decency, and any attempt at positive public relations? Just seems sad that this is how the industry works, or whether CAA is just the worst of the bunch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * They don't want unsolicited material. Their business model likely relies on clients they seek out to represent. They aren't interested in anyone who approaches them, and they told you that. They're just stating a fact. That's the way their business operates. They aren't the only agency around; once they tell you how they operate, and it doesn't meet your expectations, you should go elsewhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you for that explanation, and yes, I am trying everything since I really believe in my book Jakk's Journey -- I worked hard on it for two years, it is creative and funny with powerful metaphysics in it (a side-benefit of contributing to Wikipedia!) and it is not a dud like my first one Common Sense II (an essay). Still, a few days ago, I found a list of the email addresses and names of agents, about 50, and sent a brief query email to them, saying, hey, my book would make a great movie! (and it would!) Most agents did not respond. About 9 nice ones did, polite, saying thank you, no, that they don't represent books to filmmakers, etc. But from Creative Artists Agency, I got this nasty email, suggesting these people are rude, not just from some kind of distorted lawyer-like mentality, but rude from the TOP down -- that they could not find a politer way to state their policy? So, for me, there's a wide gap between this article and the ugly reality underneath, suggests it is ripe for a revamp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: yes, after revamping the article, to go from this to this, yes, well, I understand why talent agencies are litigious. They think in terms of contracts. Loyalty is like breathing. Sudden moves can upend them like rugs yanked. Little wonder they fight like hockey players with teeth missing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)