Warner Brothers victorious in Matrix copyright suit
A US playwright has lost a copyright lawsuit against Warner Brothers that accused the maker of the Hollywood hit The Matrix of copying of one of his plays.
Thomas Althouse took the studio to court last year after he noticed similarities between the science-fiction film trilogy and his own script called The Immortals.
But in a summary judgment issued yesterday, April 28, at the US District Court for the Central District of California, District Judge Gary Klausner ruled in favour of the studio.
Althouse’s story revolved around a CIA agent, Jim, who becomes immortal and fights against a reanimated Adolf Hitler and his fellow Nazis long into the future in the year 2235.
The dystopian Matrix trilogy, first released in 1999, centred on title character Neo (Keanu Reeves) and his battle to save the world from being run by machines.
However, the court rejected Althouse’s copyright infringement claims.
“The only similarity in plot is that both stories portray a protagonist attempting to prevent a dominant group from oppressing and annihilating a subservient group,” Judge Klausner wrote.
“…. The basic premises of The Matrix trilogy and The Immortals are so different that it would be unreasonable to find their plots substantially similar,” the judgment added.
In the initial complaint, filed last year, the playwright said he submitted his idea to Warner Brothers in 1993; six years before the first of the three Matrix films was released.
But Warner Brothers said Matrix directors, Andy and Lana (formerly Larry) Wachowski began working on The Matrix trilogy in 1992 and completed a first draft of scripts for all three films by 1993.
The court also rejected claims that Neo’s actions were based on Althouse’s protagonist.
“Jim and Neo both attempt to free people from their situation; both characters have nightmares of their significant other dying; and both characters have an enemy who they hate.
“These are all standard elements, commonly found in films and literature,” it said.
Althouse also brought up shared allusions and references to religion but the claims were not considered in the case.
“Plaintiff alleges that both stories have allusions to Christ. However, allusions to Christianity in literature date back hundreds of years and are not generally protectable. Looking at the details of the works, the two works express these themes very differently,” the judgment said.
