Quentin Tarantino Sued Over Kill Bill Character
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
Quentin Tarantino didn't win an Oscar this week, but this wasn't
exactly what he had in mind for a consolation prize.
The Inglourious Basterds helmer has been hit with a plagiarism lawsuit
by a man accusing him and former Miramax chairman Harvey Weinstein of
stealing his concept for what eventually became a deadly assassin in
their Kill Bill double bill.
In the suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Tuesday, Dannez
Hunter claims he had submitted a treatment to Miramax back in 1999
featuring a character named Ren Short who hails from a historical
Samurai lineage and watches his mother brutally murdered "in a cartoon
format."
Sound familiar?
It just so happens that four years later Tarantino dreamed up an Anime
sequence for his Kill Bill flicks in which a sword-wielding assassin,
played by Lucy Liu, codenamed Cottonmouth, otherwise known as O-Ren
Ishii, witnesses her parents killed on orders from a Japanese mob
boss. In his vision, O-Ren eventually becomes a member of the Deadly
Vipers and takes her revenge by assuming control of the Tokyo Yakuza.
The parallels were just too much for Hunter who felt he had to take
legal action. In a separate allegation, the plaintiff, who describes
himself as a minority and former "inner-city youth," also alleged the
Disney subsidiary passed him over for employment and hired Jews and
whites instead (In the words of Col. Hans Landa, "the Juden!")
So aggravating matters further, he felt particularly shafted when
Miramax never got back to him about his application.
"[Plaintiff] was never given a return phone call, as numerous similar
situated less qualified Jewish and White people were bestowed job
after job after job," Hunter alleges.
Maybe Tarantino should bring in the Bear Jew for this one.
No word why he waited seven—count 'em seven—years to go to court. But
the California native is seeking $1 million in damages.
Reps for the director and Miramax did not return phone calls seeking
comment. No doubt they're thinking it's just a bunch of pulp fiction.
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b170853_not_cool_tarantino_sued_over_kill_bill.html#ixzz0hhySjqek
The Starmaker
TT
> the California native is seeking $1 million in damages.
>
> Reps for the director and Miramax did not return phone calls seeking
> comment. No doubt they're thinking it's just a bunch of pulp fiction.
>
> http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b170853_not_cool_tarantino_sued_over_kill_bill.html#ixzz0hhySjqek
I don't get it...
Hasn't Tarantino copied nearly everything in his movies? Or do "homages"
not count?
:-P
Madara0806
I'm guessing the plaintiff ripped HIS story off from Eric Van
Lustbader's popular 1980 novel, "The Ninja."
steve
On 9-Mar-2010, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In the suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Tuesday, Dannez
> Hunter claims he had submitted a treatment to Miramax back in 1999
> featuring a character named Ren Short who hails from a historical
> Samurai lineage and watches his mother brutally murdered "in a cartoon
> format."
>
> Sound familiar?
It doesnt seem far fetched to me that two people could have that same idea
independantly. But I wonder what Hunter would have to establish to win his
suit? Unless Miramax (or some disinterested party...another studio,
perhaps) has that treatment in thier files...with a date on it...how could
Hunter even establish that he had that idea before QT? And if he could
establish that...what evidence could he show (or would he have to show) to
establish that QT stole his idea rather than dreaming it up himself? And if
he can prove all that...what is the value of a treatment? Vague ideas are
simply a starting point, so his demand fo $1M sounds absurd to me even if
the facts are on his side. The standard should probably be the amount that
studios generally pay for such a treament submitted by a newcomer. That
cant be much.
steve
--
"It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is directed by insolent
passion."
Edmund Burke.
william
>
> It doesnt seem far fetched to me that two people could have that same idea
> independantly. But I wonder what Hunter would have to establish to win his
> suit? Unless Miramax (or some disinterested party...another studio,
> perhaps) has that treatment in thier files...with a date on it...how could
> Hunter even establish that he had that idea before QT? And if he could
> establish that...what evidence could he show (or would he have to show) to
> establish that QT stole his idea rather than dreaming it up himself? And if
> he can prove all that...what is the value of a treatment? Vague ideas are
> simply a starting point, so his demand fo $1M sounds absurd to me even if
> the facts are on his side. The standard should probably be the amount that
> studios generally pay for such a treament submitted by a newcomer. That
> cant be much.
>
America" with not much more than a treatment the studio had received
years ago from Buchwald.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 10-Mar-2010, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Art Buchwald won his suit against the Eddie Murphy flick "Coming To
> America" with not much more than a treatment the studio had received
> years ago from Buchwald.
Any details on how he made his case and how the value of the treatment was
established?
The Starmaker
David Oberman
>It doesnt seem far fetched to me that two people could have that same idea
>independantly.
Reminds me of the strange case over "Sara" by Fleetwood Mac. A
Michigan housewife sued Stevie Nicks & the band & claimed that they
stole her lyrics. Nicks told Rolling Stone at the time (1979) that she
assumed they both formulated various phrases & lines independently of
each other.
steve
Well...obviously a very different case. There was a contract in place, and
evidence that it was not honored. Buchwald didnt have a difficult task of
establishing that the studio had his treatment, since they accepted it as
part of the contract. He had only to establish that the film was based on
his treatment. Further, the value of the treatment (in principle) was in
the contract. THis case is helpful (with respect to the Kill Bill thing) in
one regard, and that is that the court seemed to be satisfied that the film
was based on the treatment based on the fact that the filmmakers had access
to the treatement and that the film was similar to the treatment. That
suggests that the standard is on the side of the plaintiff; that the film
might be presumed to be based on the treatment if the studio had it, the
filmmakers had access to it, and the film showed a similarity. So I guess
if QT cant show an earlier source, he might be in trouble.
steve
Kingo Gondo
牛魔王
http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/TarantinoSuit.pdf
He quotes Uncyclopedia for sources, rants about Jewish conspiracies,
talks about his five years in prison, seems to not be able to tell the
difference between Asian characters,:
"The Plaintiff asserts and alleges Defendant Tarantino due to
discrimination based on Race changed the Ren character who is an
African/Japanese to a VILLIAN that is a Chinese/Japanese character,
while simultaneously switching the attributes of Ren to the Jewish
superhero and hiring less than 1% percent African-Americans for the
production of "Kill Bill." Thereafter, Tarantino had the Jewish
character kill my Japanese/Black character Ren and chopped up her body
parts / arms and threw her into a ditch to signify cutting off the
arms of the Black author, thus amounting to discrimination based on
Race compared to similar situated White Males authors. The Plaintiff
asserts Tarantino killed off his Black/Japanese character in order to
block Hunter from being able to create other plots based on said
character, thus equating to Restraint of Trade."
Flasherly
Reminds me, vaguely -- of the Double Helix, A Beautiful Mind, or
Norbert Wiener, father to computers beautifully flared for approaching
commonsensical writing about entropy theory, how presentment in
communication, ideals formularise to embody expressively chained-
degradation subsequent to an act of transference;- roundabout, have
little doubt, in my having to make some of this up. In university
terms, as it were -- for the abstract versus the concrete -- as
pragmatic dynamics in most directly a capitalistic sense, the latter
of whom, whose agents quietly prowl hallowed halls of university
floors to espy and chance upon inadvertent doors salaciously left
open;-- therein gleaning glimpses of some knowledgeable gist
presented, a practicality of applications transference equates, withal
at some marketable premium, in courses for undercutting abstractions
professors are prone -- muttering to themselves, to dote and fondle
over, on their own worlds leveled in Platonic obscurity -- among an
equality incomprehensibility divvies due shares.
--
...if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them. -Dalai Lama
The Starmaker
New Filing -- Eddie Murphy
Patrick brothers v. Murphy. Pair of scriptwriters say their script was
the basis of hit film, "The Nutty Professor." New Filing CD California.
Full Story -- New Filing November 1996
Backdraft Ruling
Burns, Zoll v. Imagine Films, MCA, Universal. Two Buffalo firefighters
who say significant parts of their screenplays wound up in "Backdraft"
appear to have won a default judgment on liability based on defendants'
"willful bad faith" and failure to produce documents. Ruling WD New
York. Full Story Art New Filing August 1996
Golan Says Wrongly Fired From Film Co.
Producer says he was wrongly fired, manhandled from office, defamed and
bilked of credit and fee; says deft.'s lawyer then refused to draft
settlement unless hired to produce Golan's next film Full Story Film
New Filing August 1999
New File – Niss
Niss v. 1,200 cable companies. Son of author of "Pendulum," who in
related action is claiming ownership, seeks class status for cablers who
rebroadcast HBO showing of the movie; he notes that defendants are
indemnified by HBO. New Filing SD New York. Full Story Film New
Filing July 2000
New Filing – “Clockstoppers”
Santa Fe Entertainment v. Paramount Pictures. The owners of a motion
picture screenplay “It’s About Time” claim that Paramount Pictures
copied without authorization all aspects of their script in its creation
of the film “Clockstoppers.” New Filing CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing June 2003
New Filing – “Freakshow”
Nick Griffin, Mike Ferrucci v. Miramax Film Corp. The authors of a
horror film screenplay entitled “Freakshow” claim that Miramax’s 2002
film, “Halloween Resurrection” copied without authorization creative
elements from the screenplay. New Filing CD California. Full Story
Film New Filing May 2003
New Filing – “Gang of Roses”
Lite Stone Entertainment v. DEJ Productions, Roses and Guns Productions,
et al. The owner of the motion picture screenplay “Jessie’s Girl” claims
the producers of the movie “Gang of Roses” copied the plot and
characters of the screenplay to create their movie. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 2004
New Filing - “Ota Benga” Rights
Roland Films v. Schwab. Indie film company seeks to enforce option on
screenplay “Ota Benga” after disagreement with writer about whether the
option expired or was extended. New Filing SD New York. Full Story
Film New Filing January 2002
New Filing – “The Quest”
Dux v. Van Damme. Martial arts expert says action star didn’t pay agreed
fee for consulting, creating the story for “The Quest.” New Filing LA
Superior. Full Story Film New Filing April 1997
New Filing – “The Red Door”
Saffron v. Praxis. Producer says he has not been paid his fee or given
his credit for film based on the screenplay “The Red Door.” New Filing
CD California. Full Story Film New Filing February 2002
New Filing – “X-Men” Book
David Hayter v. Twentieth Century Fox, Newmarket Press. Screenwriter
claims Twentieth Century Fox and Newmarket Press failed to ensure that
he received credit for his contributions to the motion picture “X-Men 2”
in a book published about the film. New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing June 2003
New Filing – Agent 008
Carlos Jackson v. Various Universal execs. Man claims he dropped earlier
lawsuit against Universal based on promises by execs to help his career,
develop his "Agent 008" script, but execs allegedly reneged. New Filing
LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing August 2000
New Filing – Air Bud
Mendelson, Tamasy v. Malvan Productions, Keystone Entertainment. Writers
of “Air Bud” and its sequel allege they have not received the “net
profits” they were promised and have been cut out of third “Air Bud”
film. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing April 2001
New Filing – Air Bud
Barry Perelman Enterprises v. Keystone. Producer says film company dealt
him out of deal to make "Air Bud." New Filing LA Superior. Full Story
Film New Filing January 1998
New Filing – Alpha Dog
Initial Entertainment v. Nicholas Cassavetes. Film company says writer
hired to help with movie “Alpha Dog” has asserted ownership interest in
the screenplay. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing
December 2004
New Filing – Artist Management
Alcon v. AMG. Film production company wants refund of money it spent on
rights to inspiring true story of integrated 1955 Alabama Little League
team after learning that the story was not true. New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing June 2002
New Filing – Asylum
Schwartz v. Sealskin. Scriptwriter says his former partner took a
jointly written screenplay for “Asylum” and sold it as his own. New
Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing December 1996
New Filing – Barbershop
MGM v. Mark Brown, Beauty Shop LLC. Lawsuit filed over “Beauty Shop,”
allegedly an unauthorized spin-off from the “Barbershop franchise.” New
Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing January 2004
New Filing – Castle Rock
Morris, Richert v. Castle Rock, Sorkin, WGA. Two writers who say their
treatment was the basis of “The American President” and who sought
writer credits allege that the Writers Guild fouled up their challenge
and wrongly waived their rights. New Filing SD New York. Full Story
Film New Filing November 2001
New Filing – Clive Cussler
Clive Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment. Author says production company
has failed to recognize his contractually-required approval rights over
screenplay adaptation of one of his novels, and anyway is taking too
long about it. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing
February 2004
New Filing -- Crimson Tide
Waid v. Disney. Former USN sub captain says his script was the basis for
Crimson Tide. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing
September 1996
New Filing – Dadon
David Dadon v. Avi Lerner, et al. Producers says he helped get "The
Replicant" off the ground, but didn't get his $150,000 or producer
credit. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing July 2000
New Filing – Dante’s Peak
Hines, Jones v. Universal. Two writers say the script for “Dante’s Peak
“ was copied from a script they submitted in 1995. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing March 1997
New Filing – Don Juan Demarco
Laskay v. New Line, American Zoetrope. Writer who bought English
language rights to "Man Facing Southeast" says studios stole concept and
script. New Filing LA Superior. Removal CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing May 1997
New Filing – Drumline
Darryl Lassiter v. Fox. Writer says “Drumline” was copied from his
movie, “Pay the Price,” about Black college marching bands. New Filing
SD New York. Full Story
New Filing – Drumline
Darryl D. Lassiter, 2 Believers Productions, et al. v. Twentieth Century
Fox Films, Fox Entertainment Group. Screenwriter claims that studios
copied several elements from his screenplay and movie “Pay the Price” to
create the motion picture “Drumline.” New Filing SD New York. Full
Story Film New Filing September 2004
New Filing – End Game
Sean Connery v. Peter Guber, Mandalay Pictures. Actor alleges production
company promised him $17 million to be in film “End Game” and kept
stringing him along even when they could not finance the film in order
to maintain the appearance of viability. New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing October 2002
New Filing -- Exit Zero
Butler v. Wimmer. Writer sues collaborator who allegedly took
unfinished, co-written script, reworked it and sold it for own benefit.
New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing November 1996
New Filing – Film Script
Michael Fry v. Estate of Sagan. Writer says he pitched script to son of
Carl Sagan, who sold similar script to 20th Century Fox. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing April 1997
New Filing – Frequency
Selby v. New Line, Emmerich. Writer claims film "Frequency" is
substantially similar to his screenplay "Doubletime." New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing April 2000
New Filing – Harry Shearer
Bernhard/Robson v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman. Producer files malpractice
case saying firm botched negotiations and then arbitration with Harry
Shearer over comedy script. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film
New Filing July 1998
New Filing – Have Gun Will Travel
Paladin V. Time Warner. Producers allege Warner reneged on deal to do
"Have Gun Will Travel" movie. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film
New Filing April 1999
New Filing – Hearsay
Hearsay v. World International. Defendant may have had right to take
over production of film “Hearsay,” but has so changed the content as to
have infringed on the copyright, suit alleges. New Filing CD California.
Full Story Film New Filing August 2001
New Filing – Howard Hughes
Charles Evans v. New Line Cinema. Producer says he worked years on movie
about billionaire Howard Hughes, only to get cut out of the deal. New
Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing February 2001
New Filing – Jackson Pollack
Ruth Kligman v. Pollack Film, Ed Harris, et al. Artist and lover of the
late Jackson Pollack alleges that makers of the movie "Pollack" stole
from her memoir/screenplay. New Filing SD New York. Full Story Film
New Filing October 2000
New Filing -- Kushner Locke
Chapin v. Kushner-Locke. Writer says KL fraudulently induced him to sign
away his rights to a script called "Cutthroat." New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing September 1996
New filing – Lancit
AsIs, Lancit v. Prospero Entertainment. Plaintiffs was declaration that
they, not defendant, are owners of exclusive screenplay and film rights
to the Lois Lowry book “The Giver.” New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing July 2001
New Filing – League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Martin Poll, Larry Cohen v. Fox. Producer and writer claim $100 million
in damages after studio allegedly copies their screenplay to create the
2003 film, “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing November 2003
New Filing – Man Facing Southeast
Jason Laskay v. MCA/Universal. Screenwriter claims “K-Pax” was copied
from screenplay he owns, “Man Facing Southeast.” New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 2002
New Filing – Maximum Risk
Bloom v. Ferguson. Screenwriter accuses writer of “Maximum Risk” of
plagiarising from his script, “Chain Reaction.” New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing April 1997
New Filing – McKenzie
Margaret McKenzie v. Paramount et al. The film “Lucky Numbers” infringes
on the plaintiff’s screenplay “Money Trouble,” suit alleges. New Filing
SD Florida. Full Story Film New Filing April 2001
New Filing – Mike Myers
Universal v. Mike Myers. Studio says actor agreed to do film based on
his comic character "Dieter," demanded more money and points after the
success of "The Spy Who Shagged Me," spent millions, then decided
against doing the movie. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New
Filing June 2000
New Filing - Mimic
Glenn Willis v. Disney. Among other similarities, three-year gestation
period for giant cockroaches is evidence Disney copied script submitted
with internship application in making "Mimic," writer alleges. Full
Story Film New Filing December 1999
New Filing -- Money Train
Masters v. Sony. A writer says the movie "Money Train" is based on the
screenplay Sony optioned from him in 1988. New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing October 1996
New Filing - My Best Friend's Wedding
Barbara Friedkin v. The Cartel Group. Woman says she wrote first draft
of "My Best Friend's Wedding," in part because she had agreed to marry a
college sweetheart if not married by 40, but was dumped from project.
Full Story Film New Filing December 1999
New Filing -- New Line "Easy Woman"
Worth v. New Line. Producer sues New Line for allegedly reneging on deal
to pay him to make the film "Easy Woman." New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing September 1996
New Filing – Northern Ireland
O’Connor v. DreamWorks. Producer says comedy “An Everlasting Piece” was
smothered by studio, at the behest of the British government, “in
indirect support of that government’s military and political occupation
of the North of Ireland.” New Filing CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing May 2001
New Filing – Notting Hill
Nick Villiers v. Eric Fellner et al. Writer says long-time friend and
producer used his ideas for a movie to be called "Cheeks" as part of the
hit "Notting Hill." New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New
Filing October 2000
New Filing – Open Range
Howard Dratch v. Craig Storper, Kevin Costner, Buena Vista Pictures.
Producer says he worked for two years on the film “Open Range,” but was
cut out of his promised role once the project got going. New Filing LA
Superior. Full Story Film New Filing October 2002
New Filing – Organ Donor
Katz, Brooks v. Schneider, Schneider. Writers allege actor and his
brother promised to market their script “The Organ Donor” but marketed a
different, but similar project. New Filing LA Superior Court. Full Story
New Filing -- Pearl Harbor
Gary Compton v. Disney, Bruckheimer, Bay et al. Author says “Pearl
Harbor” infringes on his romantic screenplay “Pearl Harbor Love.” New
Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing June 2004
New Filing – Personals
Carol Gun v. Michael Sargent. Woman says man brought her in to make
contacts and raise money for film project "Personals" but never paid her
or gave her a role in the project as promised. New Filing NY Supreme.
Full Story Film New Filing February 1999
New Filing – Pink Panther
Richlin v. MGM. The heirs of a co-creator of “The Pink Panther” are
seeking to establish ownership rights to half the copyright upon the
film, its story, and characters. New Filing CD California. Full Story
Film New Filing November 2004
New Filing – Pinocchio
Pinocchio II Productions v. Sneller. Defendant's campaign of letters
claiming rescission of rights to "New Adventure of Pinocchio" screenplay
is interfering with exploitation of film. New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing July 2000
New Filing – Ransom
Ann Morgan v. Touchstone, Disney. Writer says the film "Ransom" is based
on her screenplays. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New
Filing December 1998
New Filing - RKO
RKO v. Beatrice Welles. RKO says Orson Welles' daughter is objecting to
remake of "The Magnificent Ambersons"; seeks declaration that RKO has
all rights. Full Story Film New Filing October 1999
New Filing – Robert Downey Jr. & Sr.
Richard Finney, Terence Michael v. Robert Downey, Jr., Robert Downey,
Sr. Actor and director were paid $250,000 to deliver screenplay within
four months, but never delivered, suit alleges. New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing July 2000
New Filing – Shade
Jennifer Silver v. RKO Pictures, Card Mechanics Productions. Producer
claims studios failed to provide her with credit or compensation after
releasing the movie “Shade” based on her screenplay. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing August 2004
New Filing - Shakespeare in Love
Faye Kellerman v. Miramax, Universal. Bestselling author alleges
"Shakespeare in Love" is based on her 1989 novel "The Quality of Mercy."
New Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing March 1999
New Filing – Signs
Trilenium v. Disney. Coincidences between movie “Signs” and plaintiffs’
script “Lord of the Barrens: The Jersey Devil” were too numerous to be
mere coincidence, suit alleges. New Filing CD California. Full Story
Film New Filing September 2003
New Filing – Spider-Man
Newsom v. Columbia Pictures. Author of 1985 “Spider-Man” script says his
material was used in hit 2002 “Spider-Man” movie without credit or
payment. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing April
2003
New Filing – Star Trek
N. Barry Carver v. Paramount. Writer says the similarities of "Star
Trek: First Contact" to the script "A Stitch in Time," which he
submitted to Paramount in 1991, are "bizarrely striking." New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 1999
New Filing - Tarantino Script
Craig Hamann, Expletive Entertainment v. Quentin Tarantino. Writer says
Tarantino is trying to stop him from exploiting decade-old script the
two co-wrote. New Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing
August 1996
New Filing – Tartikoff
Millennium v. Markowitz. Plaintiff says it prepaid defendant $187,500
for screenplay about Brandon Tartikoff; failure to deliver showed not
only breach, but fraud, suit says. New Filing LA Superior; Removal CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing April 2000
New Filing – The Cell
Mattson v. Protosevich, New Line. Writer says his idea and screenplay
for a movie about a female therapist entering the mind of a comatose
patient were used to make "The Cell." New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing September 2000
New Filing – The Deskman
Estrella v. Neo Motion Pictures et al. Author of screenplay "The
Deskman" says TV movie "Suckers" infringes on his work. New Filing CD
California.ntlawdigest.com Full Story Film New Filing September 2000
New Filing – The Last Samurai
Michael Alan Eddy v. Radar Pictures, Interscope, Warner Bros., WGA.
Writer who says he was first of six to work on “The Last Samurai” claims
the film’s producers and the WGA prevented him from receiving the proper
credit due to him the other early writers for their work on the project.
New Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing February 2004
New Filing -- The Long Ride
Martin Ransohoff v. Paramount. Producer says studio chief refused to
approve anyone to direct "The Long Ride" except her husband. New Filing
LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing December 2004
New Filing – The Truman Show
Mowry v. Scott Rudin, Viacom. Writer alleges that the movie “The Truman
Show” is so similar to the screenplay he submitted to the defendants
that it must have been copied. New Filing SD New York. Full Story Film
New Filing May 2003
New Filing – The Whole Shebang
Jeff Rothberg v. Big W Pruductions et al. Plaintiff seeks enforcement of
arbitration award saying defendant filmmakers have no rights to story
“The Whole Shebang” until they pay Rothberg under option agreement. New
Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing August 2001
New Filing – Tomorrow Never Dies
Howard, Beutler, Schlossberg-Cohen v. Danjaq et al. Baltimore
scriptwriters claim latest Bond flick copied their script "Currency of
Fear." We print description of similarities in full. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 1998
New Filing - Travolta
Liteoffer, Mandalay v. John Travolta. Liteoffer and Mandalay sue
Travolta, saying the actor walked away from a role in the film "Double,"
"because his ego had been bruised." New Filing LA Superior. Full Story
Film New Filing August 1996
New Filing - Ulterior Motive
Production company says Fox broke deal to return rights to screenplay
for "Ulterior Motives" after deciding not to make film. Full Story
Film New Filing September 1999
New Filing – Van Daalen
Van Daalen v. Paramount, Resnick. Playwright wants his share of payoff
from film "Lucky Numbers," about a 1980 Pennsylvania lottery scam,
saying it infringes on his play "Trust Me." Full Story Film New
Filing November 2000
New Filing – Walking Across Egypt
Vicky Rocco v. Tamasy, Bell. Writer says her script was ripped off for
the new movie, "Walking Across Egypt." New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing May 1999
Area Type Issue
New Filing – Wedding Planner
Ballard v. Sony. Writer says 2001 comedy “The Wedding Planner” is
strikingly similar to his 1995 script “In the Palm of my Hand.” New
Filing ED Virginia. Full Story Film New Filing January 2004
New Filing – White Man’s Burden
Elena Mareno v. Miramax et al. New York woman alleges "White Man's
Burden" is based on her treatment and screenplay. New Filing SD New
York. Full Story Film New Filing January 1999
New Filing – Zappa’s 200 Motels
Zappa Family v. MGM. Heirs to late musician Frank Zappa allege that his
1971 movie “200 Motels” was not a “work for hire” and that the copyright
and renewal term have reverted to them. New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing July 2001
New Filing – Ziobro
Ziobro v. Skulls Productions. The movie “The Skulls” is allegedly nearly
identical to a story written by the plaintiff, suit claims. New Filing
CD California. Full Story Film New Filing March 2002
Ruling – “Like Water For Chocolate”
Esquivel v. Arau. Judge boots “Like Water for Chocolate” author’s suit
v. filmmaker, saying Mexico is better forum. Ruling NY Supreme Court.
Full Story Film New Filing January 1997
Ruling – Anaconda
Douglas v. Sony. Judge sanctions plaintiff counsel for seeking TRO in
copying case over "Anaconda" without asking for or seeing script. Ruling
CD California. Full Story Film New Filing May 1997
Ruling – Briarpatch
Briarpatch et al v. Phoenix et al. Federal court jurisdiction
appropriate in “Thin Red Line” case. Ruling 2nd Circuit. Full Story
Film Ruling August 2004
Ruling – Coming to America
Folke, Atnafu v. Paramount, Eddie Murphy. In short summary judgment
order, judge rules no reasonable trier of fact could find plaintiffs'
script similar to "Coming to America"; tosses case. Ruling SD New York.
Full Story Film New Filing February 1998
Ruling – Dante’s Peak
Hines, Jones v. Universal. Judges grants summary judgment for Universal
finding that "Dante's Peak" bore little resemblance to plaintiffs'
volcano script "Fire and Ice." Ruling CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing January 1998
Ruling – Godfather III
Nick Marino v. Kenoff & Machtinger. Upholding judgment for the defense
in malpractice case, appeals court deals yet another blow to long
unsuccessful litigant who claims he should have received screen credit
on “Godfather III.” Ruling California Court of Appeal. Full Story Film
New Filing December 2001
Ruling - Horrors
Shoptalk v. Concorde. Release of a film constitutes publications of
whatever portions of the underlying screenplay were used, the 2nd
Circuit says, following reasoning of 9th Circuit decision. Ruling 2nd
Circuit. Full Story Film New Filing April 1999
Ruling – Impact Pictures
May-Zur v. Dadon. Oral testimony, if credible, is sufficient to prove a
wire transfer was made, court says in decision over aborted $35,000
movie deal. Ruling California Court of Appeal. Full Story Film New
Filing October 2003
Ruling – James Bond
Danjaq v. Sony. In last gasp of James Bond litigation, court says laches
bars copyright claim for newly released DVDs of Bond films since
allegedly infringing material on DVD is the same as the original film.
Ruling 9th Circuit. Full Story Film New Filing August 2001
Ruling – Jingle All The Way
Murray Hill v. Fox. Jury verdict awarding damages for alleged copying of
another screenplay in film “Jingle All The Way” not supportable given
ruling that original treatment for “Jingle” could not have been copied.
Ruling 6th Circuit. Full Story Film Ruling April 2004
Ruling - Lone Star
Herzog v. Sayles. Circuit agrees with district court that attending film
festival at same time as someone else is not a strong link in a chain of
access; upholds dismissal of "Lone Star" infringement suit. Full Story
Film New Filing November 1999
Ruling - Malcolm X
Aalmuhammed v. Lee, Warner Bros. Dispute over consultant's claim of
co-authorship of movie "Malcolm X," prompts discussion of who exactly is
the "author" of a movie; consultant loses copyright claim. Full Story
Film New Filing February 2000
Ruling – McClintock
Batjac v. Goodtimes, Register of Copyrights. Circuit gives thumbs down
to movie co.'s attempt to resurrect unrenewed copyright in "McClintock!"
by registering two intermediate drafts of screenplay and suing for
infringement of them. Ruling 9th Circuit. Full Story Film New Filing
January 1999
Ruling – Pan and Scan
Batjac v. UAV. In case of first impression, Los Angeles judge finds that
the "pan-and-scan" reduction of the film "McClintock" from wide-screen
to video format is sufficiently original to warrant copyright
protection. Ruling CD California. Full Story Film New Filing June
2000
Ruling – Polydoros
Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox. Non-celebrity whose name and
likeness were used in a fictional movie about sandlot baseball has no
invasion of privacy, negligence or defamation claim. Ruling California
Court of Appeal. Full Story Film New Filing October 1997
Ruling – Regarding Henry
Joan and John Cox v. Paramount. Indiana couple lose claim that
"Regarding Henry" was based on wife's unpublished manuscript of book
about husband's motorcycle accident. Ruling SD New York. Full Story
Film New Filing July 1997
Ruling – Rounders
Grosso v. Miramax. Screenwriter’s claim that the ideas for “Rounders”
were stolen from his screenplay, “The Shell Game,” survive as breach of
implied contract claim, though not as copyright claim. Ruling 9th
Circuit. Full Story Film Ruling October 2004
Ruling – Set it Off
Christopher Robinson v. New Line Cinema. Circuit overturns summary
judgment for defense over alleged copying of script for "Set It Off,"
saying theory of access and claim of similarity were not so far-fetched
as to permit dismissal. Ruling 4th Circuit. Full Story Film New
Filing June 2000
Ruling – Stepmom
Silvers v. Sony. In case of first impression, court in “Stepmom”
plagiarism suit says assignment of copyright cause of action without
underlying copyright is valid. Ruling 9th Circuit. Full Story Film New
Filing July 2003
Ruling – Streetscenes
Streetscenes et al. v. ITC Entertainment, Inc. et al. Citing speculative
value of unmade entertainment products, court reverses part of damage
award in case where production company was found liable for behavior of
individual producer; does not reverse punitive award, however, saying
remand would only “kill more trees” confirming defendants’ bad behavior.
Ruling California Court of Appeal. Full Story Film New Filing January
2003
Ruling – Stromback
Stromback v. New Line. Plaintiff’s dark and humorless screenplay
adaptation of his own poem is not substantially similar to defendants’
Adam Sandler-starring comedy “Little Nicky.” Ruling 6th Circuit. Full
Story
Ruling – The Catcher
Bencich, Friedman v. Hoffman. Authorship of treatment vests writer with
co-authorship of resulting script and, absent other arrangements,
separate right to license script to be made into film. Ruling DC
Arizona. Full Story Film New Filing June 2000
Ruling – The Negotiator
Sam Bailey v. New Regency, et al. Plaintiff who said "The Negotiator"
infringed on his script failed to present
weary flake
Sounds stupid, but the use of anti-semitism automatically gives
it more credibility in my book. Anti-semitism is a vast untapped
market, so desperate to find expression. We are starving to death
without the ability to oppose Jews. I'd prefer that the author
be accused of fake anti-semitism than no anti-semitism at all.
L8 nuz
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/13051757#13051757- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tarantino is getting out of fuel. He blew it (at least from a
marketing standpoint) with Grindhouse (why would he partner up with
that Rodriguez?! Rodriguez’s “From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's
Daughter” was a disgrace, while Tarantino’s original version was a
masterpiece. That was a red flag that Quentin decided to ignore)
“Infamous Basterds” had a disappointing end (and not only), although I
admit that Oscar winner Christoph Waltz was a delight. Tarantino was
the writer and the director … hmmm … I’m telling ya he’s going south:
too many weaknesses in the movie.
As for Kill Bill: Vol. 1, I couldn’t see it to the end and I never
tried to see Vol. 2. That kind of silly cartoonish martial-arts BS
might make sense in a video game for 5th graders. At least “Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon” was well made and the Chinese chick was hot. But
Daryl Hannah??! – she was “made” hot by the US media (and therefore
makes millions in H’wood) only cuz she sucked a Kennedy. And Lucy
Liu?! I like well designed oriental stuff, but I’d rather monk down
than date LL …
Flasherly
>
> As for Kill Bill: Vol. 1, I couldn’t see it to the end and I never
> tried to see Vol. 2. That kind of silly cartoonish martial-arts BS
> might make sense in a video game for 5th graders. At least “Crouching
> Tiger, Hidden Dragon” was well made and the Chinese chick was hot. But
> Daryl Hannah??!
"My name is Buck and I'm hear to..." -KB/V1
Try that BS with any 5th grader, and best hope there's no witnesses --
otherwise, it's the lock-up for you. For sure.
Apples & Oranges. CT,HD is folklore, different breed pertaining to
martial arts, or "fighting". When you watch Sand Pebbles, the
fighting match McQueen orchestrates, that is realistically fighting to
an oriental, much as pugilism is to the Westerner. Then there's a
spaghetti take adapted from popular Italian influences, Eastwood and
others myth-ify as bigger than life, which is within that framework
Tarantino expands purposely into absurdity you're proposing. Surreal
sounds formal but close, I'll hazard, to a more positive indicative of
standing reviews. Also, there's a hard Eastern constituency of martial
artists, roughly in equating what doesn't as easily adapt to a Western
appeal for a likes of Eastwood a Dirty Harry roles. Bit more niche
oriented, I'd say.
Not that Westerners wouldn't like their handchops delivered from
actors, just sans pony-tails or silk gowns, and rather attired neatly
in a tuxedo, or at least a suit. Adds a wider dimension in elevating
awe they want to be entertainingly subsumed within. Since Bronson and
Hard Times, a popularly expanding and seriously depicted dimension.
Taken - more of recent, 2008
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/
One of better roles for Liam since Michael Collins. May not that much
of a realistic or elevated role, but the directing isn't about being a
slouch, either;- it's a rush of pure, thrill-riding action once the
afterburner kicks in, about a quarter the way along. Very tightly
scripted, then, gratuitous fastframe fighting onwards, no breaks, no
time hardly to breathe. Liam does top-notch, hell of a job as a one-
man wrecker. If you thought Borne Identity talks to much, then you'll
love Taken.
Anim8rFSK
<81384169-a828-430d...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, if 'not much more' includes a contract from when they optioned the
treatment and a bunch of failed scripts produced from same.
> years ago from Buchwald.
>
> William
> www.williamahearn.com
And got handed net profits by an incompetent judge, meaning he got
nothing.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"
william
>
> And got handed net profits by an incompetent judge, meaning he got
> nothing.
>
"unconscionable" and advised Buchwald to sue separately for damages.
From wiki:
"Fearing a loss on appeal and, presumably, a wave of lawsuits by
authors claiming they, too, had been wronged by the unconscionable net
profit formula, Paramount settled with Buchwald for an undisclosed
amount of money. As part of the settlement, the
'unconscionability' [sic] decision was vacated."
So Buchwald was paid.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Anim8rFSK
<561aef38-7fa0-4eca...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
You skipped a step.
Buchwald wins.
Incompetent judge gives him net profits.
Paramount turns around and pays themselves something like a $35m fee
between departments and says 'see? movie lost money'
They go back to court, and judge - I don't know that it's the same judge
- calls shenanagins. The thing is, anybody who had been paying
attention should have KNOWN that Paramount never shows net profits.
Suit is settled, terms unknown.
Yes, I hope Buchwald got something -- I hope it was a lot, but it's
possible it didn't even cover his attorney fees. When I said he got
nothing, I meant from the original suit, because the judge screwed up.
I stand by that.