Archive

Movies

Army Vet Claims James Cameron Turned His Ideas Into Avatar

December 24, 2011
Contract Law, Movies
Leave a Comment

In a lawsuit filed on December 13, 2011 in the United States District for the Central District of California, Army vet Gerald Morawski filed various contract and fraud claims against Lightstorm Entertainment and James Cameron for allegedly using his ideas to make the the film Avatar. In 1991, Morawski, who has worked in the visual effects industry, sold Lightstorm a set of images for James Cameron’s art gallery. He alleges that he entered discussions with the company to make a film called Guardians of the Eden. The detailed descriptions of the film contained in the complaint sounds strikingly similar to Avatar.  Of course, the validity of his claims is an entirely different matter. Although Morawski’s  illustrations were included as exhibits in the complaint (see below), they do not appear in the electronic document posted by the federal courts.

  1. Morawski v. Lightstorm Entertainment, et al

 

 

New Patent Harbor Suits Part of a Broader Assault on the Film Industry

October 15, 2011
Intellectual Property, Movies, Patents
Leave a Comment

Yesterday’s post about a wave of patent suits against film companies is actually part of a broader assault by Patent Harbor, LLC . Additional research shows that Patent Harbor, LLC filed a complaint entitled Patent Harbor, LLC v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc, et al on May 9, 2011. The complaint contains claims against 41 (!) film companies, including various CBS Films, After Dark Films, Focus Features, HBO, and Miramax. The source of the claims is the same: U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514 ( “Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.”)

  1. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc, et al

Patent Wars Expand to DVDs and Blu-Rays

October 15, 2011
Intellectual Property, Movies, Patents
1 Comment

On October 13, 2011, a Fort Worth, Texas company called Patent Harbor, LLC filed patent suits against various DVD and Blu-Ray companies, including Lion’s Gate Films, Warner Brothers Pictures, and The Criterion Collection. PDF versions of the complaints can be downloaded from links at the bottom of this post.

Per the current trend in patent litigation by holding companies,  the suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division). Corporate disclosure statements included with each complaint indicate that a Delaware company named Brandel, LLC is the sole owner of Patent Harbor.

The suits allege  that the companies violate U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514. The 514 patent, which was issued on  November 4, 1997,  is entitled “Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.” The essence of the claims is demonstrated in the following language from Patent Harbor, LLC v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.

“Upon information and belief, Warner Bros.’s authoring or manufacture of the DVD and Blu-Ray discs, including, but not limited to, exemplary movie  License to Wed, with their content-addressing  features (e.g. illustrated chapter/scene selection) along with the authoring equipment, and/or sale  of the authored discs, on behalf of others and/or itself, infringe one or more claims of the ‘514 Patent.  Upon information and belief, Warner Bros. either performs the authoring,  manufacturing, and/or distribution or directs and controls the  authoring, manufacturing, and/or  distribution through contract. (emphasis added)

Note that the boilerplate complaints contain virtually the same language, including  a version of the paragraph presented above. I intentionally highlighted the language about “illustrated chapter/scene selection” to point out how potentially broad these claims are. Film Esq. will be closely following these cases so look for updates in the near future.

  1. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
  2. Patent Harbor, LLC v. The Criterion Collection, LLC
  3. Patent Harbor, LLC v.  Disney Enterprises, Inc.
  4. Patent Harbor, LLC v.  Lions Gate FIlms, Inc.
  5. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Shout Factory!, LLC
  6. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Platinum Disc, LLC

Film Esq. Returns

October 5, 2011
Comic Books, Movies, Video Games
Leave a Comment

This site has been dormant for much longer than I anticipated. However, I intend to make up for lost time. The site has been moved from Blogger to WordPress, which will provide a better user experience. It will also help content management tremendously. As to the content, I will continue tackle the same topics, but there will probably be a greater focus on video games. However, movies and comics will definitely receive ample attention.

Wolverine "Leaker" is a Weak Link in the Chain

January 3, 2010
Copyright, Criminal Law, Movies, Piracy
Leave a Comment

A FBI arrest was recently made in the leak of the Wolverine film, but it is very obvious that the suspect is only a weak link in the chain. The indictment of alleged Wolverine leaker Gilberto Sanchez, who is a Bronx resident, states that he uploaded a copy of the film to Megaupload, which is a popular file sharing site. This is it. There is still no information about where the file actually came from. In fact, Gilberto Sanchez told the New York Daily News that he bought the file from some “guy on the street for five bucks.” Was his lawyer around? Anyway, it took almost a year for the FBI to arrest Sanchez. If what he says is actually true, it is highly unlikely that the actual source of the file will ever be found.

Why the FBI is Investigating the Wolverine Leak

April 3, 2009
Copyright, Criminal Law, Movies, Piracy
Leave a Comment
Litigation copyright infringement is generally handled as a civil matter (e.g., RIAA music downloading cases) but occassionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursues criminal charges against copyright infringers under 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Such prosecutions are rare. So, the announcement that the FBI is assisting Fox in tracking who leaked the X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie, is a big red flag that a criminal charges will be filed. In this regard, one suspects that the DOJ will attempt to make an example of out of the person(s) responsible for this leak by pursuing the heaviest possible penalties under the federal sentencing guidelines. This should be a very interesting case to watch.

New Legal Strategies Raise the Stakes in Sacha Baron Cohen’s Bruno

March 21, 2009
Movies
Leave a Comment

A special sneak preview of 3 scenes from Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest film Bruno was held at the SXSW Film Festival and Conference in Austin, Texas last week. Fantastic Fest sponsored the screening. The film will not be released until July so this was a highly anticipated screening. Two of the scenes were better than anything in Borat; the remaining scene was quite good but not as powerful as the others.

One thing that is apparent from the footage is that Sacha Baron Cohen has “upped” his game by developing more elaborate setups than those featured in Borat. As reported by The Smoking Gun, these new pranks required a more evolved legal strategy. Some, but not all, of the pranks were setup by approaching interviewees to appear in a German television documentary. In order to bolster the legtimacy of the “documentary,” the Bruno film production set up four “shell companies” called Amesbury Chase, Chromium Films, Cold Stream Productions, and Coral Blue Productions. Each company uses the same Los Angeles mailbox drop, phone number and similar web sites hosted by the same company.

The article from The Smoking Gun suggests that each company was not only setup as a website but as an actual legal entity. A search of filings with the California Secretary of State shows a filing for Cold Stream Productions, LLC on November 13, 2006. The business address is listed as 1800 Century Park East, 10th Floor in Los Angeles, California. This is an office park. The registered agent is Eisner, Frank and Kahan, which IMDB lists as the production legal team.

There are no Secretary of State filings for the other companies. However, a search of Los Angeles County records show the following fictious name filings:

Amesbury Chase Productions, filed on 10/29/2007
Chromium Films, filed on 6/12/2007
Coral Blue Productions, filed on 10/29/2007
Cold Stream Productions LLC, filed on 5/14/2007
Cold Stream Productions LLC, filed on 9/28/2007

It would be very useful to acquire the fictious name statements to see examine other elements of this puzzle. The Smoking Gun presumably has them but perhaps they do not. Look for a follow up post in the near future.

Heroes Versus Astropia: Copying, Infringement or None of the Above?

March 20, 2009
Copyright, Movies
Leave a Comment

Gunnar B. Gudmundsson’s Astropia has only screened twice in the United States but this Icelandic film set box office receipts in its home country. The film’s plot revolves around a pampered young woman whose main source of money (her crooked boyfriend) dries up, thus forcing her to take a job in a comic book store. The only reason she gets the job is because of her looks; she knows nothing about comics or role-playing games. She slowly acclimates to the job and makes new, nerdy friends.


So, when a clip from the popular NBC television show Heroes appeared online that looked very similar to those featured in Astropia, the creators of the film were rather alarmed. This sense of dismay was heightened by the fact that the creative team is currently negotiating for a U.S. remake. This scenario provides a convenient excuse to examine the applicable doctrine for determining copyright infringement in film scripts, books or plays. A legal breakdown will occur in the next post but for now, compare the the clips from Heroes and Astropia shown below. Keep in mind that the analysis goes beyond surface comparisons.

1. Clip from Heroes


2. Scene from Astropia


2008 in Review: Documentary Lawsuit Provides Reminder That Historical Facts Cannot be Copyrighted

February 16, 2009
Copyright, Documentaries, Movies
Leave a Comment
In Novak, et. al. v. Warner Bros. Pictures LLC, et. al., two documentarians who produced a film about the Marshall University football program claimed that Warner Brothers produced and released a motion picture, “We Are Marshall,” that infringed on their copyrights in the documentary.

On October 20, 2008, the court granted Warner Brother’s Motion for Summary Judgment. According to the Hon. Gary Allen Feess, who also presided over the Watchmen copyright lawsuit, the plaintiffs (the documentarians) had the burden to prove that the two films were “substantially similar” under current US copyright doctrine. Warner Brothers successfully argued that that the works are similar only in that they both deal with events surrounding a November 14, 1970 airplane crash, and that those events are historical facts in which no one can claim a copyright interest.