Cannot Sue over an idea?

S

Sweetie

Rik asked me to post if I saw any more articles about law cases regarding idea protection.

Just read a story of Jayme Gordon surviving summary judgment motion is now going to trial whether DreamWorks stole and used his ideas and concept that became Kung Fu Panda.

From what it looks like, the trial will be a mess, with plenty of blame and problems for both sides. It'll be an interesting story seeing the value of the franchise.

Article can be found here:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-delivers-setback-dreamworks-kung-432380

If you want to know more, the full ruling can be found here.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/133676805/Panda
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Looks to me that this constitutes a little more than an idea. They've filed for copyright on concept drawings, etc. In this instance, an idea would be like me saying to DreamWorks "Hey! Why not make a film about a kung-fu fighting panda?" Looks to me like DreamWorks ran with much more than an idea.

I'd be surprised if this goes much further anyway. I mean, how can they prove that this is anything more than coincidence?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It was the concept. A bunch of ideas, not a script. While he copyrighted his pictures and whatever notes he had written down.

On top of that, the author A). didn't register his copyright until after Kun Fu Panda's marketing had already begun and B). Destroyed a bunch of his notes.

He also claimed that he came up with the group make up that was in the movie. It will be interesting to see where the case goes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, his concept would have been a bunch of ideas, but having made notes and concept art, and then copywriting them, would constitute more than an idea... It would be something that a company like DreamWorks could be found guilty of stealing.

Anyhow, it does state that he claims to have "registered the work with the Copyright Office in 2000", referring to the concept work. That should be easy to prove. There should be no question of who came up with (or more precisely, developed) Kung-Fu Panda first. As I said above though, how they can prove that it's more than a coincidence, I don't know.

He then registered a book of his concept work in 2011, after the promotion had started for Kung-Fu Panda. If anything, I'd have thought this will make him liable to DreamWorks for stealing their intellectual property.

Interesting stuff...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It will be very interesting to watch this case unfold.

"Gordon’s 2000 and 2011 copyright registrations provide evidence of similarities between the overall works and the two main panda characters that would allow rational jurors to reach differing conclusions," the judge wrote.

I suppose it hinges on if Dreamworks/Katzenberg can prove he didn't see the material. Given the evidence released so far, it seems very unlikely that "Panda Power" and "Kung-Fu Panda" developed independently.

That being said, I doubt Jayme Gordon will walk away with anything other than a bit of satisfaction. Look at Buchwald v. Paramount.

"The California Superior Court decided in 1990 that Buchwald had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his story treatment—and Paramount's unsuccessful scripts based on the treatment—were "similar" to that of the Coming to America movie. Together with the evidence that Murphy and Landis previously had access to Buchwald's treatment, the court determined that the movie's story was indeed "based upon" Buchwald's treatment. Since Paramount never paid Buchwald, as the option agreement specified would occur if a movie based on his treatment were ever released, Paramount did indeed breach the contract. The court went out of its way to avoid criticizing Murphy, who, it said in its holding, was a "creative genius" just as Buchwald was, and the fault in the whole matter lay with Paramount.

In the second phase of the trial in which the court determined the appropriate amount of damages to be paid to Buchwald, Paramount testified that despite the movie's $288 million in ticket sales, it had spent so much money on the movie's development and marketing that, according to the formula specified in Buchwald's contract, Paramount had made "no net profit". The court then found that the formula was "unconscionable" and that Buchwald therefore could pursue a separate tort lawsuit against the company.

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" decision was vacated."

https://www.facebook.com/chainoftitle
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top