Apple TV+ 'Servant' copyright suit will be heard
An appeals court has ruled that the director of the 2013 film "The Truth About Emanuel" may proceed with her lawsuit against Apple and filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan.
Initially filed in early 2020 by Francesca Gregorini, writer and director of "The Truth About Emanuel," the suit alleged Apple TV+ series "Servant" not only stole the plot of the film but also aped production and cinematography choices.
Both works center around a mother who cares for a doll as though it were a real child and later begins to form strong bonds with a nanny hired to care for it.
The case was dismissed in May of 2020, when Judge John F. Walter said that "Servant" was not similar enough to "Emanuel."
However, an appeals court has ruled in favor of Gregorini. Tuesday's riling says that the earlier dismissal was "improper" as "reasonable minds could differ on the issue of substantial similarity."
In the initial suit, Gregorini demanded damages, an injunction against further production, a recall of any inventory of the infringing material, supervised destruction of any inventory, disgorgement of all proceeds, and punitive damages.
Read on AppleInsider
Initially filed in early 2020 by Francesca Gregorini, writer and director of "The Truth About Emanuel," the suit alleged Apple TV+ series "Servant" not only stole the plot of the film but also aped production and cinematography choices.
Both works center around a mother who cares for a doll as though it were a real child and later begins to form strong bonds with a nanny hired to care for it.
The case was dismissed in May of 2020, when Judge John F. Walter said that "Servant" was not similar enough to "Emanuel."
However, an appeals court has ruled in favor of Gregorini. Tuesday's riling says that the earlier dismissal was "improper" as "reasonable minds could differ on the issue of substantial similarity."
In the initial suit, Gregorini demanded damages, an injunction against further production, a recall of any inventory of the infringing material, supervised destruction of any inventory, disgorgement of all proceeds, and punitive damages.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392190/Grieving-women-buy-lifelike-reborn-baby-dolls-help-mourn-loss.html
If anyone had the right to sue, it would have been the makers of "The Skeleton Key" as "Get Out" was ... well just see this and decide for yourself (and this YouTuber is FAR from the only one to come to that conclusion): and see.
Part of me thinks that this is just an attempt on the director's part to get publicity to kick-start her career.
On July 21, 2020, the court ordered Francesca Gregorini to pay the defendants' attorneys' fees of $162,467.30. The court emphasized the objective unreasonableness of her claims and derided her attempt to twist two highly dissimilar works into similarity.
After reading the plot of this film, I can't see how she could possibly win on appeals. I wonder if she ever paid the defendants in the first case?
Specifically, early dismissal of a copyright case requires a clear matter of law in the extrinsic test. So one could dismiss a case by the original Steamboat Willy against Servant because there is no possibility any "reasonable person" would say the two are related. The case could also be dismissed early if the parts of the work that are claimed to infringe are non-copywritable or tiny (the later is related to the basic concepts of fair use).
In this case, the claimant is saying the overall concept of the movie has been copied. This clearly fails de minimis, and as the plot is copyrightable, fails the extrinsic test. So the decision to dismiss early is not legally supported and is thus being overturned.
You will note there is not one single word on the content itself, nor any claim that the case may succeed. This is purely a matter of law. The claimant will now get to pay more money to try again.
I don't know about "mood" but a lighting design is definitely copyrightable.
How much portion of a plot can be accused as infringement? There are plenty of similarly generalized plots, that there must be a line somewhere. Planet Hollywood thought they could stop anyone in the entire world from using the word "planet" in a company name. I imagine some writers might believe they own the copyright to any portion of their plot. The same thing was accused of "Stranger Things" and "Harry Potter," both far more popular than the stories or their writers who filed suit. I won't watch or read them either, as I bet notoriety is all they are after in the end.