# data[].attributes.headline
Start with the Script -- Difference between words and visual

# data[].attributes.subject
Start with the Script -- Difference between words and visual

# data[].attributes.body
Being the director of your own work.

# data[].attributes.headline
Starts with the Script -- The Talking  Cure

# data[].attributes.subject
Starts with the Script -- The Talking  Cure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advertisement

Freud is famed for developing psychoanalysis. This therapy involves treating mental disorders by delving into a person's possible unconscious issues (e.g., repressed fears and conflicts) through techniques like dream interpretation and free association.

He came upon this notion after discussing the case of "Anna O." (a pseudonym for Bertha Pappenheim) with physician-friend Josef Breuer. Anna was Breuer's patient, who was experiencing " hysteria." Breuer had discovered that if he hypnotized Anna, she'd reveal all sorts of information she didn't recall when she was conscious - and her symptoms would lessen afterward. This psychoanalytic treatment became dubbed the talking cure [sources: PBS, Grayling].

After learning about Anna O., Freud tried the talking cure in his own private practice, but found patients would talk pretty freely to him without hypnosis, provided they were in a relaxed position - specifically, lying down on a couch - and if they were encouraged to say whatever came into their heads, a process known as free association. Once a patient talked at length, Freud could analyze what the person said to figure out what past traumas were likely causing the patient's current distress.

After much study and use of the talking cure, Freud decided that mental health issues usually stemmed from repressed thoughts, often of a sexual nature. These could be forbidden sexual urges or due to sexual traumas that were experienced in childhood. By repressing these thoughts or traumas, the patients often ended up suffering from depression, anxiety and a host of other ailments. This is because, while certain thoughts of ours are unacknowledged, they are still in our minds in some form.

By employing the talking cure, or psychoanalysis, a therapist can help a patient dig into the destructive, hurtful issues in their unconscious minds, after which point they can deal with them. To be successful, this therapy usually means meeting with the analyst several times a week for months and maybe even years, depending on the person and their issues.

Psychoanalysis is still in use today, but not widely practiced by therapists (only about 1 in 20,000 Americans use it) [source: Dvorsky]. It can be helpful for those who have longstanding problems they haven't been able to resolve, such as feelings of inferiority that have lingered since childhood. But it's not typically used for, say, someone who has temporary anxiety or depression that stems from a specific, identifiable trauma, such as the loss of a child.

Nevertheless, studies have shown that psychoanalysis, as practiced today, is effective [source: Schedler]. There's less emphasis on dream interpretation and more on helping the patient put words to feelings. The patient often still lies down on a couch during sessions, typically with the therapist nearby, but out of sight, so as not to be a distraction. The patient will then speak of whatever comes to mind in an effort to get the unconscious mind to reveal itself. The analyst tries to interpret what may be going on in a way that is helpful to the patient [source: Kunst].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advertisement Freud is famed for developing psychoanalysis. This therapy involves treating mental disorders by delving into a person's possible unconscious issues (e.g., repressed fears and conflicts) through techniques like dream interpretation and free association. He came upon this notion after discussing the case of "Anna O."

# data[].attributes.body
to emphasis the greatness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ameliorate definition is - to make better or more tolerable. How to use ameliorate in a sentence. Did You Know? Synonym Discussion of ameliorate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Starts with the Script -- Rorschach test

# data[].attributes.subject
Starts with the Script -- Rorschach test

# data[].attributes.body
Ink Blot psychoanalysis exam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Log on to Google today, and you'll see a wispy inkblot. "Share what you see," implores Google Search in boldface, offering you the option to tell your Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ friends what you think the inkblot is meant to look like. Except - gotcha! The inkblot doesn't mean a damn thing, and Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach, born 129 years ago today, developed the test to secretly figure out if his subjects were schizophrenic. The infamous " Rorschach test" has since evolved into a personality evaluation, the idea being that your reaction to the blot speaks to your personality type - and so, now, you've shared the depths of your psyche with everybody who follows you on Twitter. God damn you, Google.

So what does your reaction to a shadowy inkblot say about you? Well, Rorschach believed that every part of your reaction to an inkblot image speaks volumes about who you are: Did you hesitate, then suggest that it might look like a bat? Did you immediately see three elephants fighting over a balloon, or did you just shrug and say "Uh, whatever, maybe a shadow?" Your response apparently speaks to what's going on in your subconscious: children from abusive homes are sometimes court-mandated to examine the inkblot, for example, and often see images of people fighting.

Take Card III, for example.

This blot was designed to look like human figures, and measures your approach to other people. If you hesitate on this one, and spend a while trying to figure out what's going on, then some analysts would argue you could be tentative, neurotic, and/or lack awareness in social situations. Three-quarters of people report that the blots look like humans, meaning that if someone doesn't see at least one human figure, this could indicate an unusual response to social interaction.

OK, onto Card II. What do you see?

The idea is that the swathes of red look like blood, and so your interpretation of Card II represents your response to anger. Let's say that you see two people fighting to the death - this might suggest that when someone pisses you off, you want to go all Game of Thrones on their ass. And if you saw two figures trying to make peace with their joined hands, you're potentially calmer in the face of violence. Half of the people who see this card think that it looks like two animals - dogs, elephants, and bears are the most common - fighting in the wild.

Don't panic if the blots still just look like inkblots, or if you've seen your worst nightmares inside those hideous shadowy figures. The accuracy of the test has been widely debated since its outset, with plenty of psychoanalysts believing that the Rorschach Test is about as accurate as the Farmer's Almanac. Even Rorschach himself was tentative about the blot being used as a personality test; he'd developed it only to diagnose schizophrenia. Still, a whole century later, the general consensus is that, yes, your interpretation of a random inkblot will say something about you.

Take Card IV:

Card IV is designed to test your response to authority. The huge, imposing figure, which seems to hover over the viewer - is most often described as an animal hide and/or a rug - and represents authoritative figures: your parents, the government, your boss, you name it. This one demonstrates your feelings towards authority, and, in some cases, the male sex. Your response indicates how you feel about the ruling presence in your life.

Onto Card VII:

After seven wildly confusing black-and-white blots, people often express relief when they get to Card VIII, and sometimes say that it looks like a strange four-legged animal. It's the first multicolored card in the set, as well as the most complex, meaning that people who have difficulty processing information often stumble with this one. The breadth of colors apparently represents an emotional spectrum, and some people feel weirdly uncomfortable about Card VIII - in particular, those with a touch of social anxiety, or those who sufferer from emotional disorders.

There are ten distinctive inkblots in the Rorschach test, and 45 in the Holtzman test, a second-generation inkblot test designed to fix the errors in Rorschach's. (It was 1921, after all.) At present, it's the second most-used test to determine personality and is utilized across the psychiatric board - and you can absolutely be court-ordered to take it. There's a small problem, though: because the ten main blots have become so well-known, it's often argued that people know what responses to give before taking the test, which renders it completely useless.

Now if only Google could tell us what it sees, that would be a trip. Our guess: world domination.
Images: Wikimedia Commons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How You React To This Inkblot Is Everything

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Log on to Google today, and you'll see a wispy inkblot. "Share what you see," implores Google Search in boldface, offering you the option to tell your Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ friends what you think the inkblot is meant to look like. Except -...

# data[].attributes.body
Original Facebook created my Zuckerberg to rate "hot" women.

# data[].attributes.headline
Starts with the Script -- Screen time elapse in real time

# data[].attributes.subject
Starts with the Script -- Screen time elapse in real time

# data[].attributes.body
Toy Story creators let 11 years go by between movies to create a real life effect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
the collective mental activity expressed in the complex, coordinated behavior of a colony of social insects (such as bees or ants) regarded as comparable to a single mind controlling the behavior of an individual organism… See the full definition

# data[].attributes.headline
Starts with the Script -- Screenwriting Credits

# data[].attributes.subject
Starts with the Script -- Screenwriting Credits

# data[].attributes.body
Work represents a contribution of more than 33% if a screenplay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A deep dive into the mysteries of screenwriting credits.

From Courtney:

While you're shooting around the topic could you shed a little light on credits? From what I understand if Scott partners with Scott the credit would be listed as...

Screenplay by Scott & Scott.

However... if Scott was rewritten the credit would be listed as...

Scott and Scott.

I've seen some as watered down as Scott & Scott and Scott and Scott.

Are screen credits that important or have the writers been paid upfront and the credit system is more for show and a the resume?

Or... if you receive solo credit are you paid more... with a partner... etc... etc...

Credits are hugely important to TV and screenwriters. They are attached to your 'brand', for better or worse depending upon the quality and perception of the final product. They contribute to determining how much you get paid for writing assignments. Residuals and royalty payments are tied to them. And in general, they help to define your career. For more background, you can read this. An excerpt to explain the meaning of various credits:

WRITTEN BY: The writer created the story concept and wrote the screenplay.

STORY BY: The writer created the story (i.e., the plot, theme, main characters, etc.).

SCREENPLAY BY: The writer wrote the screenplay based on someone else's concept.

TELEPLAY BY: Writer wrote the script for a television program based on someone else's concept.

CREATED BY: Typically designated as credit for the creators of television programs, where bonuses and royalties for episodes are involved, and the show's success will determine if co-creators can become an executive.

ON SCREEN PLACEMENT: Generally, the writer's screen credit should be placed next to the director's credit. If the writing credits are in the main titles (i.e. before the film starts), they appear on a title card immediately preceding the card on which the director's credit appears. If the writing credits appear in the end titles (i.e. before the film ends), they appear immediately following the director's credit.

Up until the 40s, it was common to use "screen play" as two words.

Here's the deal with "&" and "and."

When you see an ampersand (&), that means the writers worked together on the project and are considered - at least for that project - a writing team. So whatever revenue they generated in the form of compensation, production bonuses, and residuals gets split. If it's two writers as a team, each gets 50%. If it's three writers as a team, each gets 33%. In the case of a movie like The Simpsons Movie, which has 11 writers with Screenplay By credit, each with an ampersand between them, I have no clue how they divide that pie.

When you see the word "and" between two or more writers, that means the writers worked independently of each other and are not considered part of a team. So for instance if you look at the writing credits for , you'll see this:

Written by Joe Carnahan & Brian Bloom and Skip Woods

That means that Messrs. Carnahan and Bloom are considered a writing team on the project while Woods' contribution was as a solo writer.

Now I choose The A-Team for a reason: If you recall from this post, 20th Century Fox hired 11 sets of writers for this movie project. How come only Carnahan, Bloom and Woods got credit?

That opens the door to the deep, dark mysteries of the WGA credit system. For more information, you can go here to read the official policy in the WGA Screen Credits Manual. Here is a relevant excerpt:

Screen credit for screenplay will not be shared by more than two writers, except that in unusual cases, and solely as the result of arbitration, the names of three writers or the names of writers constituting two writing teams may be used. The limitation on the number of writers applies to all feature length photoplays except episodic pictures and revues.

The default for the WGA is to give no more than 2 writers screenplay by credit. If there is an arbitration, there can be 3 writers.

Why?

As I understand it, this is about trying to maintain some degree of value for a writing credit, the thinking being if, for example, 11 sets of writers' names appeared in the credits, that would somehow diminish the perception of what writers do.

Try telling that to the 9 other sets of writers on The A-Team who did not receive credit.

Now there are, in fact, specific guidelines in determining who deserves writing credit in an arbitration. Another excerpt from the WGA Screen Credits Manual:

Any writer whose work represents a contribution of more than 33% of a screenplay shall be entitled to screenplay credit, except where the screenplay is an original screenplay. In the case of an original screenplay, any subsequent writer or writing team must contribute 50% to the final screenplay.

For an original screenplay, any writer subsequent to the original writer must contribute at least 50% to the final draft of the script to receive any writing credit.

For a non-original screenplay (based on source material), any writer subsequent to the original writer must contribute at least 33% to the final draft of the script to receive any writing credit.

How to determine the percentages of what each writer contributes to a script? Again from the Screen Credits Manual:

The percentage contribution made by writers to screenplay obviously cannot be determined by counting lines or even the number of pages to which a writer has contributed. Arbiters must take into consideration the following elements in determining whether a writer is entitled to screenplay credit:

* dramatic construction;

* original and different scenes;

* characterization or character relationships; and

* dialogue.

It is up to the arbiters to determine which of the above-listed elements are most important to the overall values of the final screenplay in each particular case. A writer may receive credit for a contribution to any or all of the above-listed elements. It is because of the need to understand contributions to the screenplay as a whole that professional expertise is required on the part of the arbiters. For example, there have been instances in which every line of dialogue has been changed and still the arbiters have found no significant change in the screenplay as a whole. On the other hand, there have been instances where far fewer changes in dialogue have made a significant contribution to the screenplay as a whole. In addition, a change in one portion of the script may be so significant that the entire screenplay is affected by it.

You can see the issue: The guidelines can't be arbitrary because story is an organic entity which means there is by definition a lot of latitude in terms of analyzing multiple drafts. So in some case, as noted above, a writer can change every line and not be deemed to have substantially altered the story while another writer may make a few changes, but are of such importance they are considered to have contributed enough to receive credit.

I have served as a judge on perhaps 10 credit arbitrations. Bizarrely enough, this is where some of my training in biblical studies at Yale came in handy because I learned source criticism, which is the core of what is required when assessing a credit arbitration: determine who wrote what, when they wrote it, what type of content it is, and so forth. The underlying principle judges operate on is that whatever material in the shooting script appears in whatever drafts, the writer of the earliest version of that material gets credit, the assumption being that subsequent writers would have had access to the prior material, even if they claim they never read that script.

There's actually some practical takeaway for your writing from this lengthy post. Look at those categories again: Dramatic Construction, Original and Different Scenes, Characterization and Character Relationships, Dialogue. You don't see Narrative Voice, you don't see Style, you don't see Pace. As important as those are to the marketability of a script, the perception within the industry as to what comprises a story are those four categories above: Structure, Scenes, Characters, Dialogue. That is the guts of a story.

For the record I have three Written By movie credits. I also used a pseudonym for a writing credit on another movie. In addition, I was one of a number of writers on three other movies that got produced for which I received no credit.

I am reminded of the value of those Written By credits every three months when I receive these pale green envelopes with residual checks.

So yes, writing credits are incredibly important.

I have a question for GITS readers: Should all writers who worked on a movie project receive some sort of credit? For instance, after the official Written By or Screenplay By credits are determined, why not in end credits add "Additional Writing Services," then list all the other writers? Everybody and their mother who works on a movie gets a credit. Why not all the writers?

UPDATE: I forgot to mention a couple of things:

The first name listed in a credit with two or more writers is to acknowledge the primacy of their writing contribution to the final script.

Of all the reasons people get hot and bothered within the WGA, credit arbitrations is near the top of the list. Some articles on that if you're interested: here, here, here.

Comment Archive
For more articles in the Go Into The Story Reader Question series, go here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reader Question: Could you explain how writing credits work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A deep dive into the mysteries of screenwriting credits. From Courtney: While you're shooting around the topic could you shed a little light on credits? From what I understand if Scott partners with Scott the credit would be listed as... Screenplay by Scott & Scott. However...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
LinkedIn Learning with Lynda: Online Training Courses for Creative, Technology, Business Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LinkedIn Learning with Lynda: Online Training Courses for Creative, Technology, Business Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn business, creative, and technology skills to achieve your personal and professional goals. Join LinkedIn Learning today to get access to thousands of courses. Lynda is now LinkedIn Learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Perfect harmony for to go-ahead into production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How many times do producers believe their movie is "greenlit," only to be blindsided by the investor or production entity backing out? Not only can this be frustrating, but if the producer has jumped the gun and begun making deals with key cast and crew without money in the bank, he/she could end up in big trouble.

Greenlit is a term of art in the entertainment industry when the heavens have aligned, and the "powers that be" (investors, production studio, or distributor,) have given authorization for the movie to go into production. Beware, however, that you are not likely to get this "greenlighting" authorization via a legally binding documentation that will actually protect you in the case the investor backs out.

By common industry practices, in order to be greenlit, a project should meet most of the following criteria:

Mutually approved Script

Mutually approved Budget

Mutually approved Production Schedule

Lead actors attached (at minimum a letter of intent from actor or rep)

Director attached (at minimum a letter of intent from actor or rep)

Fully executed agreement with a funding source(s) that outlines the amount to be invested, and a cash flow that is in accordance with the talent and crew payments.

Proof of funds in the bank, or at least fully accounted for (i.e. enough cash in the bank, or the bank has approved all the essential elements and will loan against distribution contracts and tax credits)

NOTE: In studio agreements you are likely to see a "no obligation" clause, so even with a fully executed agreement, the studio may have no obligation to fund you. That being said, keep in mind that most Hollywood deals are made under these circumstances without problems.

After these criteria have been met, there will still be script revisions, budgets change, an actor or two may need to be replaced, but in order to be greenlit in the first place, these elements must in place-particularly the money to cover the production budget.

Frequently, however, producers get themselves into a jam because they begin to spend their own money prematurely, expecting to be reimbursed out of the production funds later. They may sign deals with cast or crew that obligate the production to pay on deal memos that had no business being signed prior to money in the bank. All of a sudden, low and behold, the investor with whom you were seeing eye to eye, no longer returns calls or emails. The producer, believing he/she is on the hook for these obligations, ends up suing the investor when they get pressured by everyone else, causing lawsuits, wasted time, money and aggravation.

That being said, here are some rules for developing and packaging a script that you'd be wise to abide by if you want your project to move forward smoothly and keep you out of legal entanglement:

1. Option the script and/or underlying material to ensure you have the right to develop and exploit the project into a movie or filmed content. (Make sure you cover all your bases and obtain all necessary usage rights.)

2. Build the most reasonable budget that achieves your film's goals, and make sure the actors you have access to can support that budget level (validated by sales projections etc.)

3. Attach that talent, and make sure the deal you make is contingent upon financing. (Or at least have letters of interest from talent that states upon funding, and if their schedule permits, they will participate in your film.)

4. Attach a director that the actors approve/are comfortable with. Again here, make sure the deal is contingent upon production financing.*

5. Do not sign any binding crew or location deals that you are obligated to pay, unless your funding is complete and you are confident you can write a check out of the production funds.

6. When an investor says they can invest, do your due diligence and make sure they can deliver.

Make sure they can show proof of funds.

Have a fully executed agreement that has been written or at least vetted by an entertainment attorney to insure that all the necessary terms, warrants and conditions are included in the document to protect yourself, the production and the investor.

Sit face to face or by video conference with your investor and go over each an every term of the deal to make sure both parties understand what they are getting into.

Get signed approval on a cash flow schedule to insure money will be there when you need it.

Investing in films is a risky and speculative business. You and your investors will be better served by being honest and transparent in the deal making process. I can't tell you how many times I have seen producers sign a shoddy deal, then believe the money is in place, only to be disappointed by a spooked investor who pulls out of the deal. Having worked long and hard to earn the commitment of actors and various other players, it is not only frustrating to have the movie fall apart, but it also puts you in an uncomfortable and comprising position.

The bottom line is that this business is hard and unpredictable enough as it is. Don't add additional layers of complication and volatility by missing key steps in the process. When entering a complex deal such as movie financing, it is advisable to tread very carefully, and cross all your T's. You will be handsomely rewarded for your diligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greenlit - To Be Or Not To Be...When Is Your Movie A Go?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How many times do producers believe their movie is "greenlit," only to be blindsided by the investor or production entity backing out?

# data[].attributes.body
Official acknowledgment of standardized select amount of work personally put into a movie.

# data[].attributes.body
Non-Profit Org that creates and sustains standards for producing credits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Producers Guild of America is a non-profit trade organization that represents, protects and promotes the interests of all members of the producing team in film, television and new media. The Producers Guild works to protect the careers of producers and improve the producing community at large by facilitating health benefits for members, encouraging the enforcement of workplace labor laws and sustainable practices, creating fair and impartial standards for the awarding of producing credits, and hosting educational opportunities for new and experienced producers alike.

"The PGA represents, protects and promotes the interests of all members of the producing team."

PRIMARY GOALS

Expansion of HEALTH BENEFITS to include every Guild member otherwise unable to secure health coverage, whether increased access to the Motion Picture & Television Industry plan, or the creation of new PGA benefits offering a wider variety of insurance.

Providing as many members as possible with JOBS, via expansion of the PGA job listings, continued training opportunities via the Guild's Seminar and Mentoring programs, taking a proactive approach towards contacting new productions and promulgating the PGA as the best source of experienced producing talent.

Continued emphasis on CREDITS, building on strong relationships with the Motion Picture and Television Academies, encouraging studio adoption of the Producers Code of Credits, and pursuing an aggressive and public legal strategy against productions which continue to utilize deceptive credits.

Publicly endorsing the adoption of and adherence to established legal standards for industry WORKING CONDITIONS, including conforming to state law regarding such issues as hours and excessive overtime, as well as workplace safety.

Working with other Guilds, studios, networks and companies to promote the GENERAL WELFARE of our industry and seek a harmonious resolution to issues of contention.

The Producing Team consists of all those whose interdependency and support of each other are necessary for the creation of motion pictures and television programs. The producing team is comprised of Producers and all those on the career path to becoming Producers, including:

Executive Producers

Producers

Co-Executive Producers

Supervising Producers

Senior Producers

Line Producers

Co-Producers

Associate Producers

Segment Producers

Field Producers

Story Producers

Production Managers

Visual Effects Producers & Coordinators

Post-Production Supervisors & Managers

Production & Post-Production Coordinators

As a unit, the producing team is responsible for the art, craft and science of production in the entertainment industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About the PGA - Producers Guild of America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Producers Guild of America is a non-profit trade organization that represents, protects and promotes the interests of all members of the producing team in film, television and new media.

# data[].attributes.headline
Movers and Shakers -- Woody Allen does not like to work in the sun.

# data[].attributes.subject
Movers and Shakers -- Woody Allen does not like to work in the sun.

# data[].attributes.headline
Movers and Shakers -- Publicly-traded studio

# data[].attributes.subject
Movers and Shakers -- Publicly-traded studio

# data[].attributes.body
Studio shares are bought and sold on the stock exchange.

# data[].attributes.body
Something very bad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
someone or something intensely disliked or loathed -usually used as a predicate nominative; one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority; a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication... See the full definition

# data[].attributes.body
Minors are only allowed to work four hour a day, including rehearsal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Movers and Shakers -- Money before movie 

# data[].attributes.subject
Movers and Shakers -- Money before movie 

# data[].attributes.body
Producer 'Woody' does not write a script until the money has been received.

# data[].attributes.body
France gives a tax refund to those working there. I believe that was for visitors.

# data[].attributes.headline
Movers and Shakers -- De facto, final cut.

# data[].attributes.subject
Movers and Shakers -- De facto, final cut.

# data[].attributes.body
In moneyball, if the baseball team was not happy with the shot there would have to be a retake. Essentially they ruled without having an official claim to rule.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
De facto ( day FAK-toh, dee -⁠, də -⁠, Latin: [deːˈfaktoː] ; lit.   ' in fact ') describes practices that exist in reality, regardless of whether they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms. It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with ("by law").

Jurisprudence and de facto law

In jurisprudence, a de facto law (also known as a de facto regulation) is a law or regulation that is followed but "is not specifically enumerated by a law." By definition, de facto 'contrasts' de jure which means "as defined by law" or "as a matter of law." For example, if a particular law exists in one jurisdiction, but is followed in another where it has no legal effect (such as in another country), then the law could be considered a de facto regulation (a " de facto regulation" is not an officially prescribed legal classification for a type of law in a particular jurisdiction, rather, it is a concept about law(s)).

A de facto regulation may be followed by an organization as a result of the market size of the jurisdiction imposing the regulation as a proportion of the overall market; wherein the market share is so large that it results in the organization choosing to comply by implementing one standard of business with respect to the given de facto law instead of altering standards between different jurisdictions and markets (e.g. data protection, manufacturing, etc.). The decision to voluntarily comply may be the result of: a desire to simplify manufacturing processes & cost-effectiveness ( such as adopting a one size fits all approach), consumer demand & expectation, or other factors known only to the complier. [example needed ]

In prison sentences, the term de facto life sentence (also known as a "virtual" life sentence) is used to describe a "non-life sentence" that is long enough to end after the convicted person would have likely died due to old age, or one long enough to cause the convicted person to "live out the vast majority of their life in jail prior to their release."

A de facto standard is a standard (formal or informal) that has achieved a dominant position by tradition, enforcement, or market dominance. It has not necessarily received formal approval by way of a standardization process, and may not have an official standards document.

Technical standards are usually voluntary, such as ISO 9000 requirements, but may be obligatory, enforced by government norms, such as drinking water quality requirements. The term "de facto standard" is used for both: to contrast obligatory standards (also known as "de jure standards"); or to express a dominant standard, when there is more than one proposed standard.

In social sciences, a voluntary standard that is also a de facto standard, is a typical solution to a coordination problem.

Several countries, including Australia, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States, have a de facto national language but no official, de jure national language.

Some countries have a de facto national language in addition to an official language. In Lebanon and Morocco, Arabic is an official language (in addition to Tamazight in the case of Morocco), but an additional de facto language is also French. In New Zealand, the official languages are Māori and New Zealand Sign Language; however, English is a third de facto language.

Russian was the de facto official language of the central government and, to a large extent, republican governments of the former Soviet Union, but was not declared de jure state language until 1990. A short-lived law, effected April 24, 1990, installed Russian as the sole de jure official language of the Union prior to its dissolution in 1991.

In Hong Kong and Macau, the special administrative regions of China, the official languages are English and Portuguese respectively, together with Chinese. However, no particular variety of "Chinese" referred to in law is specified. Cantonese ( Hong Kong Cantonese) in traditional Chinese characters is the de facto standard in both territories.

De facto political map of the world, May 2019

A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead.

In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently, the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often because it had deposed a previous leader or undermined the rule of a current one. De facto leaders sometimes do not hold a constitutional office and may exercise power informally.

Not all dictators are de facto rulers. For example, Augusto Pinochet of Chile initially came to power as the chairperson of a military junta, which briefly made him de facto leader of Chile, but he later amended the nation's constitution and made himself president until new elections were called, making him the formal and legal ruler of Chile. Similarly, Saddam Hussein's formal rule of Iraq is often recorded as beginning in 1979, the year he assumed the Presidency of Iraq. However, his de facto rule of the nation began earlier: during his time as vice president; he exercised a great deal of power at the expense of the elderly Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, the de jure president.

In Argentina, the successive military coups that overthrew constitutional governments installed de facto governments in 1930-1932, 1943-1946, 1955-1958, 1966-1973 and 1976-1983, the last of which combined the powers of the presidential office with those of the National Congress. The subsequent legal analysis of the validity of such actions led to the formulation of a doctrine of the de facto governments, a case law ( precedential) formulation which essentially said that the actions and decrees of past de facto governments, although not rooted in legal legitimacy when taken, remained binding until and unless such time as they were revoked or repealed de jure by a subsequent legitimate government.

That doctrine was nullified by the constitutional reform of 1994. Article 36 states:

(1) This Constitution shall rule even when its observance is interrupted by acts of force against the institutional order and the democratic system. These acts shall be irreparably null.

(2) Their authors shall be punished with the penalty foreseen in Section 29, disqualified in perpetuity from holding public offices and excluded from the benefits of pardon and commutation of sentences.

(3) Those who, as a consequence of these acts, were to assume the powers foreseen for the authorities of this Constitution or for those of the provinces, shall be punished with the same penalties and shall be civil and criminally liable for their acts. The respective actions shall not be subject to prescription.

(4) All citizens shall have the right to oppose resistance to those committing the acts of force stated in this section.

(5) He who, procuring personal enrichment, incurs in serious fraudulent offense against the Nation shall also attempt subversion against the democratic system, and shall be disqualified to hold public office for the term specified by law.

(6) Congress shall enact a law on public ethics which shall rule the exercise of public office.

Two examples of de facto leaders are Deng Xiaoping of the People's Republic of China and general Manuel Noriega of Panama. Both of these men exercised nearly all control over their respective nations for many years despite not having either legal constitutional office or the legal authority to exercise power. These individuals are today commonly recorded as the "leaders" of their respective nations; recording their legal, correct title would not give an accurate assessment of their power.

Another example of a de facto ruler is someone who is not the actual ruler but exerts great or total influence over the true ruler, which is quite common in monarchies. Some examples of these de facto rulers are Empress Dowager Cixi of China (for son Tongzhi Emperor and nephew Guangxu Emperor), Prince Alexander Menshikov (for his former lover Empress Catherine I of Russia), Cardinal Richelieu of France (for Louis XIII), Queen Elisabeth of Parma (for her husband, King Philip V) and Queen Maria Carolina of Naples and Sicily (for her husband King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies).

The de facto boundaries of a country are defined by the area that its government is actually able to enforce its laws in, and to defend against encroachments by other countries that may also claim the same territory de jure. The Durand Line is an example of a de facto boundary. As well as cases of border disputes, de facto boundaries may also arise in relatively unpopulated areas in which the border was never formally established or in which the agreed border was never surveyed and its exact position is unclear. The same concepts may also apply to a boundary between provinces or other subdivisions of a federal state.

Segregation

De facto racial discrimination and segregation in the United States (outside of the South) until the 1950s and 1960s was simply discrimination that was not segregation by law (de jure). " Jim Crow laws", which were enacted in the 1870s, brought legal racial segregation against black Americans residing in the American South. These laws were legally ended in 1964 by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Most commonly used to describe large scale conflicts of the 20th century, the phrase de facto state of war refers to a situation where two nations are actively engaging, or are engaged, in aggressive military actions against the other without a formal declaration of war.

Relationships

A domestic partner outside marriage is referred to as a de facto husband or wife by some authorities.

In Australia and New Zealand

In Australian law, a de facto relationship is a legally recognized, committed relationship of a couple living together (opposite-sex or same-sex). De facto unions are defined in the federal Family Law Act 1975. De facto relationships provide couples who are living together on a genuine domestic basis with many of the same rights and benefits as married couples. Two people can become a de facto couple by entering into a registered relationship (i.e.: civil union or domestic partnership) or by being assessed as such by the Family Court or Federal Circuit Court. Couples who are living together are generally recognised as a de facto union and thus able to claim many of the rights and benefits of a married couple, even if they have not registered or officially documented their relationship, although this may vary by state. It has been noted that it is harder to prove de facto relationship status, particularly in the case of the death of one of the partners.

In April 2014, an Australian federal court judge ruled that a heterosexual couple who had a child and lived together for 13 years were not in a de facto relationship and thus the court had no jurisdiction to divide up their property under family law following a request for separation. In his ruling, the judge stated "de facto relationship(s) may be described as 'marriage like' but it is not a marriage and has significant differences socially, financially and emotionally."

The above sense of de facto is related to the relationship between common law traditions and formal (statutory, regulatory, civil) law, and common-law marriages. Common law norms for settling disputes in practical situations, often worked out over many generations to establishing precedent, are a core element informing decision making in legal systems around the world. Because its early forms originated in England in the Middle Ages, this is particularly true in Anglo-American legal traditions and in former colonies of the British Empire, while also playing a role in some countries that have mixed systems with significant admixtures of civil law.

Relationships not recognised outside Australia

Due to Australian federalism, de facto partnerships can only be legally recognised whilst the couple lives within a state in Australia. This is because the power to legislate on de facto matters relies on referrals by States to the Commonwealth in accordance with Section 51(xxxvii) of the Australian Constitution, where it states the new federal law can only be applied back within a state. There must be a nexus between the de facto relationship itself and the Australian state.

If an Australian de facto couple moves out of a state, they do not take the state with them and the new federal law is tied to the territorial limits of a state. The legal status and rights and obligations of the de facto or unmarried couple would then be recognised by the laws of the country where they are ordinarily resident.

This is unlike marriage and "matrimonial causes" which are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).

A de facto relationship is comparable to non-marital relationship contracts (sometimes called "palimony agreements") and certain limited forms of domestic partnership, which are found in many jurisdictions throughout the world.

A de facto Relationship is not comparable to common-law marriage, which is a fully legal marriage that has merely been contracted in an irregular way (including by habit and repute). Only nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia still permit common-law marriage; but common law marriages are otherwise valid and recognised by and in all jurisdictions whose rules of comity mandate the recognition of any marriage that was legally formed in the jurisdiction where it was contracted.

Family law - custody

De facto joint custody is comparable to the joint legal decision-making authority a married couple has over their child(ren) in many jurisdictions (Canada as an example). Upon separation, each parent maintains de facto joint custody, until such time a court order awards custody, either sole or joint.

A de facto monopoly is a system where many suppliers of a product are allowed but the market is so completely dominated by one that the other players are unable to compete or even survive. The related terms oligopoly and monopsony are similar in meaning and this is the type of situation that antitrust laws are intended to eliminate.

In finance, the World Bank has a pertinent definition:

A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.

In engineering, de facto technology is a system in which the intellectual property and know-how is privately held. Usually only the owner of the technology manufactures the related equipment. Meanwhile, a standard technology consists of systems that have been publicly released to a certain degree so that anybody can manufacture equipment supporting the technology. For instance, in cell phone communications, CDMA1X is a de facto technology, while GSM is a standard technology.

Examples of a de facto General Manager in sports include Syd Thrift who acted as the GM of the Baltimore Orioles between 1999 and 2002. Bill Belichick, the former head coach of the New England Patriots in the NFL did not hold the official title of GM, but served as de facto general manager as he had control over drafting and other personnel decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
De facto ( day FAK-toh, dee -⁠, də -⁠ , Latin: [deːˈfaktoː] ; lit.   ' in fact ') describes practices that exist in reality, regardless of whether they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms. It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with ("by law").