Producing : Packaging IP as a Value-Bearing Asset by Baron Rothschild

Baron Rothschild I think you should define your piece of strong IP. Generally, it means a particular script. Because there is no copyright, and therefore no IP in an idea, unless you are speaking of adaptation rights to something already in the marketplace.

Absolutely, Shadow — and I agree with you. IPBSEs don’t treat ideas as IP. The ‘strong IP’ in this context refers to the creator’s fixed work: the script, the bible, the world rules, the continuity documents — the elements that are copyright‑protected once they’re expressed in tangible form.

The framework I built simply helps creators organize and protect those structured elements as a cohesive asset, rather than leaving them scattered across drafts, notes, and versions.

Baron Rothschild I see, well then to answer your two specific questions:

Q1: When you’re packaging a project, how important is the underlying IP structure?

I am assuming in these answers that we are deciding to produce a property as the main producers so we can get it to market, on our own account, rather than being hired to produce it. In the latter case, we don't care about any of that stuff.

Still not sure what you mean specifically by "underlying IP structure" but it likely depends on the state of the IP we are looking at. If it's a script, that's literally all we care about aside from proof of copyright or chain of title. If it's a book still to be adapted, then we want very solid market numbers and we satisfy ourselves that the market the project wants is appropriate and real. If it's a biography or something that 3rd party personality rights might be affected by, that's a whole other thing but we again look for a legal assignment of life story (if necessary) and consider which 3rd party rights need cleared. We couldn't care less what the creator thinks about that and wouldn't rely on anything they have outside of legal documents. We're producing a script. World rules, continuity documents, etc. are relevant to production design, and the Director gets creative control of all that. That's the rule, because the Director is good at translating written story into a 90 minute or 2 hour screen experience, and writers are pretty awful at that. If a creator wanted to restrict that, then we would likely not take a project on, because we're concerned with audience and marketability first and we have to be able to craft a project so that people buy it. Of course if the marketability is related to production design, then that is part of the whole concept, but still the Director's idea must rule. Those things are the exclusive province of the Director or, in a series, the Showrunner, not the original writer, unless that person is the same person. In which case, we aren't likely involved as they are the producer and don't need us. There are exceptions, but they are inevitably tied to the existing market for the IP and/or the standing of the writer/creator of the IP.

There is a caveat to all that: We insist that the writer must normally sign off on changes to scripted dialog or significant scripted passages. Because the writer may have specific reasons for choosing specific phrasing, which potentially changes something else in the script. However, this writer may not be the actual creator of the IP, for example, when adapting a book to screen.

Q2: Do you look for creators who already understand ownership and long-term value?

Nope. If we are developing a show or a franchise, it is not as collaborative as other parts of the process. We ensure we have the rights to move forward regardless of the creator's ideas on ownership or long term value. To do otherwise almost always wastes a producer's efforts and resources because at some point the original creator will decide they want something new or different, or even lose interest. This is not just a common experience. It's almost a guaranteed experience. So our own understanding of the long term value is what rules. If the creator is experienced in the industry, then their opinion might be important and we do discuss that with them at the beginning and we will be informed by those opinions to the extent they are valid. If they are not experienced in the industry, then they are de facto not qualified to make the decisions we have to make. So it depends on the project, but we adjust accordingly.

Shadow, this is incredibly helpful — thank you for breaking down how producers evaluate IP. When I said ‘underlying IP structure,’ I wasn’t referring to creative control or production design. I meant the way a creator organizes and documents their world, rights, and continuity so that the chain of title is clean, the asset is cohesive, and the project is easier to evaluate from your side.

My interest is in how creators can prepare their IP so that when it does reach a producer, everything is already structured, documented, and clear. Not to restrict directors or showrunners — but to make the underlying rights and world architecture easier to understand and package.

Your perspective helps me refine that distinction, so I appreciate the insight. That makes complete sense, Shadow — especially the part about producers needing stability and long‑term consistency regardless of where the creator’s head is at. When I talk about creators understanding ownership or long‑term value, I’m not referring to them trying to control production decisions. I’m more focused on helping creators keep their rights, documents, and world materials organized so that when a producer like you steps in, everything is already clean, clear, and easy to work with.

In other words, I’m interested in the creator’s side of preparation — not in influencing the producer’s side of decision‑making. Your explanation helps me sharpen that distinction, so thank you for laying it out so clearly.

Baron Rothschild So your description of the "underlying IP" is clearer. Basically, anything other than the script is not needed and not wanted, unless it affects production design. If for some reason working papers are attached to a script and copyright registered (which would be very weird), then those are included. If it's a series, then the series bible will be part of the copyrighted work.

But take for instance Dune. No one cares about Frank Herbert's working papers or doodles or sketches or alternate stories or sequels. They are not what is being optioned. The book is being optioned and we hire a script writer to work from what is in the book. The vision of the creative team comes from the book and the script they develop from it.

So the writer needs (1) the script, (2) the registration of copyright (if it exists), and (3) if there are 3rd parties involved, the legally executed assignments and releases. Keeping in mind that (4) the writer is going to guarantee that the work is original to them and will indemnify the producer if turns out it breaches someone else's copyright. Anything else is irrelevant and distracting. Further materials can only raise questions, not make it easier to assess.