Re: Writer of "Gravity" says her lawsuit affects all writers?
I'm a lawyer
Originally posted by Captain Nemo
View Post
AFAIK, no on in this thread is a lawyer - everything in this thread is speculation. Might be useful to get the perspective of an entertainment lawyer.
For those who seem to doubt the merits of the case (which is not what is at issue in the judge's ruling) it seems to me she has a very strong case, quite similar to the successful plagiarism suit of Art Buchwald against Paramount, re Eddie Murphy's 'Coming to America' which she cites. The key concept in the judge's ruling in the 'Buchwald' case was *access*. Paramount and Murphy (through his managers) had extensive access to Buchwald's treatment. Below, I've linked a law journal article on the Buchwald case, which includes an interesting history of the concept 'net profits' in Hollywood. An excerpt re *access*:
"Admitting that there were differences between Buchwald's 'King for a Day' and 'Coming to America', the 'Buchwald' court observed that 'where, as here, evidence of access is overwhelming, less similarity is required."
In Gerritsen's case, Cuaron, the director of 'Gravity' was attached to the film almost immediately after the rights were sold to New Line in 1999, and clearly had access, not only to the book, but to the additional material she wrote under contract, although she had no awareness of his connection to the film until she was informed of it in February of 2014. Whether her involvement can rise to the 'based on' standard of Fink v. Goodson and Todman (cited in the article), in certainly merits the 'inspired by' standard of Minniear v. Tors. Aside from receiving the profit participation stipulated by her contract, this phrase would surely skyrocket the sales of her book, whose similarity to the film had already been noted by many readers.
For those who think it's somehow 'too late' for Gerritsen to prevail, this is rarely the case in civil law. I have a novelist friend who recently filed a successful suit against a film producer to recoup $250k in royalties from the video sales of a film made in 1978.
The second link here, also with an eye on the Buchwald case, is is sort of a thumbnail ethnography of the fundamentally corrupt, insider culture of Hollywood, the reasons why it's so difficult to file a successful plagiarism suit why so few are filed, and the ostracism of those who manage to win their cases rather than settling.
I would like to hear something from a lawyer regarding the issue of whether New Line's contract was assignable to WB in this case. I asked a non-entertainment lawyer about this, and he said there are very few instances in which both the assets and liabilities are not assumed by the surviving company in a merger.
http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-conten.../02/marcus.pdf
http://www.filmreform.org/sue.htm
For those who seem to doubt the merits of the case (which is not what is at issue in the judge's ruling) it seems to me she has a very strong case, quite similar to the successful plagiarism suit of Art Buchwald against Paramount, re Eddie Murphy's 'Coming to America' which she cites. The key concept in the judge's ruling in the 'Buchwald' case was *access*. Paramount and Murphy (through his managers) had extensive access to Buchwald's treatment. Below, I've linked a law journal article on the Buchwald case, which includes an interesting history of the concept 'net profits' in Hollywood. An excerpt re *access*:
"Admitting that there were differences between Buchwald's 'King for a Day' and 'Coming to America', the 'Buchwald' court observed that 'where, as here, evidence of access is overwhelming, less similarity is required."
In Gerritsen's case, Cuaron, the director of 'Gravity' was attached to the film almost immediately after the rights were sold to New Line in 1999, and clearly had access, not only to the book, but to the additional material she wrote under contract, although she had no awareness of his connection to the film until she was informed of it in February of 2014. Whether her involvement can rise to the 'based on' standard of Fink v. Goodson and Todman (cited in the article), in certainly merits the 'inspired by' standard of Minniear v. Tors. Aside from receiving the profit participation stipulated by her contract, this phrase would surely skyrocket the sales of her book, whose similarity to the film had already been noted by many readers.
For those who think it's somehow 'too late' for Gerritsen to prevail, this is rarely the case in civil law. I have a novelist friend who recently filed a successful suit against a film producer to recoup $250k in royalties from the video sales of a film made in 1978.
The second link here, also with an eye on the Buchwald case, is is sort of a thumbnail ethnography of the fundamentally corrupt, insider culture of Hollywood, the reasons why it's so difficult to file a successful plagiarism suit why so few are filed, and the ostracism of those who manage to win their cases rather than settling.
I would like to hear something from a lawyer regarding the issue of whether New Line's contract was assignable to WB in this case. I asked a non-entertainment lawyer about this, and he said there are very few instances in which both the assets and liabilities are not assumed by the surviving company in a merger.
http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-conten.../02/marcus.pdf
http://www.filmreform.org/sue.htm
Comment