Supreme Court to hear Raging Bull copyright case

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a long-running copyright dispute relating to boxing movie Raging Bull in which the laches legal doctrine will come under scrutiny.

The dispute over the movie initially started in 1998, culminating in the Supreme Court’s on October 1, to hear the case.

Released in 1980, the film stars Robert De Niro as boxer Jake La Motta and depicts a gradual decline in his personal life.

However, 20 years prior to the film’s release, after La Motta’s retirement, he collaborated with his friend Frank Petrella to produce a copyrighted book and two screenplays about his life.

“Together, these works allegedly became the basis for the movie,” Supreme Court documents say.

Following Petrella’s death, the film went on to win two Academy Awards, but Petrella’s daughter Paula claimed film producer Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) had infringed on the copyright.

The petition adds that MGM has continued to breach copyright since the film’s release by marketing the movie for DVD sales.

Petrella claimed she had renewed the copyright to her father's work after its initial 28-year term expired in 1991.

However, despite exchanging a series of letters with MGM since 1998, it was not until 2009 that Petrella filed a lawsuit.

In rejecting the initial filing, the US District Court found that Petrella had waited too long, while MGM branded the 18-year delay “egregious and entirely unjustifiable.”

But, in a Writ of Certiorari, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, “ … courts uniformly treat continuing-infringement suits challenging recent infringements as timely, even when they are filed more than three years after the initial infringement,” it wrote.

“I think the Supreme Court was right in as much as the issue needs to be resolved but I would still expect the petitioner’s argument to be rejected,” said Charles Colman, of New York University School of Law.

Colman predicted the Laches legal doctrine, which stipulates that an unreasonable delay when seeking a legal claim will prevent it from being enforced if it has prejudiced the opposing party, would still apply.

“I don’t think the court will get too tangled in the facts. This is more about resolving structural issue in copyright law.

“The petitioner has won part of the battle in the as much as they have got the Supreme Court to view the case but I suspect they will unanimously rule that Laches still applies,” Colman said.

“It looks strange for someone to have waited that long and although the petitioner may have given reasons for the delay, including financial stability, I don’t think court will be persuaded.”

A full argument for the case will be heard in January.