Hollywood studios are left and right sued for theft of ideas for movies and TV shows to create. This copyright violation are almost always rejected before they ever demonstrate thanks stretching Court "substantial similarity" between plants.
But a plaintiff might get actually before the Court.
Late last week a federal judge denied a summary motion made by DreamWorks Animation and paramount pictures--the artist's claim that his work on the 2008 film Kung Fu Panda, the more than $630 million worldwide grossed hit. (Read the complete ruling here.)
Photos: 5 by Hollywood's female directors know
What is even more extraordinary, is not only survived the artist, Jeffrey Gordon, a summary motion, but also as a judge saying that he tainted evidence in the case. The judge's decision potentially paves the way for an unusual occur in Hollywood: a study of a large Studio in which a jury would determine whether the claimant work was stolen, or Studio independently created his comedy.
Gordon brought the complaint to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in February 2011 and is seeking statutory damages and any profits from allegedly wrongful acts.
According to his amended complaint, Gordon has spent much of his life to create characters and storylines, including the "Kung Fu Panda property", which he says was developed in the 1990s. He says that his work presented "a Kung Fu Kampf giant panda, which like to eat; his companion, a rare Red Panda, who is also a Kung-Fu fighter; "and there is a Kung Fu Kampf super group known as the"five fists of Fury", a tiger, crane, Mantis, monkeys and a venomless snake."
The claimant said that he recorded the work with the Copyright Office in the year 2000 and had several packages of his work with studios, presented including the Walt Disney Co. illustrations and images of all kinds contained his request. It contains for example a picture of themselves with the former Disney Chairman Michael Eisner. It included also side-by-side comparison his work and DreamWorks'. Here is an example:
DreamWorks had claimed that Gordon has failed to demonstrate any access by everyone at DreamWorks on his art. But last week US district judge Joseph Tauro declared that genuine issues of fact with regard to the issue of access remain.
Gordon testified that he his "Panda power" sent materials to Jeffrey Katzenberg at DreamWorks in October 1999.
"Although DreamWorkss policy rapid return of unwanted materials with a rejection letter required, Gordon received only a letter, which mentions his contributions,", Tauro wrote.
Photos: 10 inappropriately sexy cartoon characters
"Katzenberg apparently contradictory statements regarding its procedures have made available for dealing with unsolicited submissions," continued the judge. "His first statement he had that he sometimes open entries and skimmed the opening paragraphs before, be of not expressly requested information and it will be forwarded to the legal department." He later claimed that he open but sometimes they opened never unsolicited in his Office when they got home. All of these discrepancies must be resolved by the trier fact and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate."
The judge pointed to attempts by DreamWorks in their favor on the issue of substantial similarity.
"Gordon's 2000-2011 copyright registrations similarities between the entire works and the two most important Panda demonstrate characters that would allow rational jury to different conclusions," the judge wrote.
But that's not all.
DreamWorks argued independently from the resemblance of Kung Fu Panda an independent institution, the violation of a lawsuit would bar. The judge came to the conclusion that it is too early to determine this on summary judgment.
"Gordon claimed his 'Panda power'-materials to DreamWorks sent before the Studio work started on the film," he wrote. "Trier fact must decide whether DreamWorks film is then independently developed or whether Gordon's submissions the process affected."
As a result, DreamWorks motion for summary was denied.
Gordon's gone further than many other copyright claimant, including Angelina Jolie suing over in the land of blood and honey, James Cameron about avatar, Fox about the TV-series touch and Emma Thompson --Effie, to cite just a few examples.
And everything happens despite implementation of Gordon that Tauro finds disturbing.
In the spring of 2008, Gordon saw a promotional trailer for Kung Fu Panda. He took all its existing "Panda power" materials and compiled them in a book titled book by v.e., and destroyed all existing materials. The book was then registered at the US Copyright Office.
Gordon was later asked in a deposition why he crushed the material. "I make a practice to destroy everything," he replied. "If I make a new book, I destroy the old stuff."
The judge said: "whether he acted in bad faith or simply as part of his artistic process intends the destruction of less, can render even though this compromising the appropriate sanction."
Tauro says that at the time of the destruction of Gordon was "committed, appropriate evidence" to have seen the Kung Fu Panda trailer. While Gordon said, he was not viewing litigation, he was also a copyright registration. He acknowledged after the display of the film trailer also a potentially significant changes to materials. Other evidence in the case suggested that Gordon commercial deletion used permanently relevant files from the computer remove software, and there is an e-Mail to a potential witness allegedly instruct that individual relevant files to delete.
But despite all this, the judge will not go so far, to accept the case of DreamWorks demand dismissed. The judge says the evidence "not sufficiently clear to justify harsh and undesirable penalty of termination."
As a result, the case moves forward, and Gregory Madera looking at fish & Richardson, the Attorney for Gordon, a trial in September or October.
DreamWorks says it cannot comment on pending legal matters.
E-Mail: eriq.gardner@thr.com; Twitter: @eriqgardner
No comments:
Post a Comment