Disney fails to sink 'Pirates’ infringement suit
Walt Disney has been unsuccessful in its bid to persuade the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to consider revoking the revival of a lawsuit that claims it stole elements of an earlier screenplay.
In a decision handed down yesterday, Monday, August 31, the Ninth Circuit denied Disney’s petition for a panel rehearing and for a rehearing en banc.
In 2017, screenwriters Lee Alfred and Ezequiel Martinez sued Disney, accusing the film studio of taking elements from their screenplay “Red Hood” for “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”, the first instalment of the blockbuster film franchise.
The US District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the case, ruling that the only similarities between the screenplays were “unprotectable” elements generic to pirate films, such as rum-drinking pirates.
It held that, “at most, plaintiffs have demonstrated random similarities scattered throughout the parties’ works”.
However, the Ninth Circuit allowed the suit to resurface on July 22, holding that the authors of the screenplay had alleged enough similarities to move forward with their suit.
In a petition for a rehearing issued on August 5, Disney argued that in making its decision, the appeal’s panel had filtered out “generic, pirate-movie tropes”, that it had “erroneously “accept[ed] as true allegations contradicting documents that are referenced in the case”, and that it had reversed the district court’s decision based on a few similarities alleged by plaintiff, which were “generic or inaccurate”.
Disney further claimed that the screenwriters falsely alleged that Disney’s anti-hero, Jack Sparrow, had, like their screenplay’s Davey Jones, renounced piracy in favour into a law-abiding, parental life.
By contrast, Disney argued that Sparrow, “never renounces his piracy, does not have an equivalent love interest, does not care for children, is willing to sacrifice everything to be captain of his beloved Black Pearl ship, and continues to live the life of a pirate”.
Disney argued that the panel’s decision conflicts with extensive precedent, and “will chill district courts from resolving copyright cases on motions to dismiss, dragging courts and creators alike into an unnecessary quagmire of discovery and summary judgment”.
It added that the panel’s decision could lead to “no-brainer dismissals” being reversed. However, the court disagreed with Disney’s arguments and no judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk