Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Universal Calls MGM’s James Bond Lawsuit ‘Extraordinary and Needless’
Sounds like a petty lawsuit to me.......
Universal is again slamming MGM and James Bond producer Danjaq Prods.’s copyright infringement lawsuit over U’s “Section 6″ project, calling the litigation “extraordinary and needless.”
With a court hearing looming on July 28 on their effort dismiss the MGM-Danjaq case, Universal and screenwriter Aaron Berg, the author of the “Section 6″ script, challenge the claim that the mere acquisition and copying of the script as part of the development process constitutes infringement and a ripoff of the 007 franchise.
“Since the movie may never be made and, if it is, the screenplay will be very different from the existing one about which plaintiffs complain, there is no need to use a significant amount of judicial and legal resources at this point,” Universal said in a filing with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
MGM and Danjaq filed suit in April, claiming that the “Section 6″ script, set around the formation of MI6 after World War I, nevertheless was a knockoff of the 007 franchise. They have contended that Universal “directly infringed” on their copyrights by reproducing Berg’s “Section 6″ screenplay, distributing copies to entice talent to the project, and then authorizing a revised screenplay that also is infringing.
But in its latest brief, Universal argues that the copies that have been made as “de minimis,” or internal in nature, few in amount and “dwarfed by the cost to the public and the litigants of proceeding with the case.”
“If Universal ever decides to make the movie, and Plaintiffs claim that even the revised screenplay infringes, there would be something to argue about, and the case can then be filed,” Universal said. The studio said that it has assured MGM and Danjaq that the final project will not infringe on the Bond movies.
Universal also challenged the MGM-Danjaq argument that the revised screenplay constitutes infringement because it would be a “separate derivative work based on the Bond works.” No revised screenplay has been created, U contends, and even if it had been by now, it could still use non-infringing elements of Berg’s original works.
Berg, meanwhile, is arguing that the characters, plot, settings and other elements of his screenplay are not “substantially similar” to the modern world James Bond elements that would be protected by copyright. His lawyers argue that MGM and Danjaq have “cherry-picked from the entire James Bond oeuvre” in making their claim. The screenplays “few short phrases possibly evoking the Bond works” are non-infringing as they fall under fair use or the de minimus doctrine, his brief says.
“Using Plaintiffs’ egregiously incorrect approach, ‘Inglourious Basterds’ would infringe ‘The Dirty Dozen,’ ‘The Sopranos’ would infringe ‘The Godfather,’ and ‘Titanic’ would infringe ‘The Poseidon Adventure,’” his brief states.
MGM and Danjaq are represented by Robert Schwartz of O’Melveny & Myers and Marc Becker of Quinn Emanuel; Universal is represented by Bert Fields and Aaron Moss of Greenberg Glusker. Berg is represented by David Aronoff and Amber Henry of Lathrop & Gage.
Universal is again slamming MGM and James Bond producer Danjaq Prods.’s copyright infringement lawsuit over U’s “Section 6″ project, calling the litigation “extraordinary and needless.”
With a court hearing looming on July 28 on their effort dismiss the MGM-Danjaq case, Universal and screenwriter Aaron Berg, the author of the “Section 6″ script, challenge the claim that the mere acquisition and copying of the script as part of the development process constitutes infringement and a ripoff of the 007 franchise.
“Since the movie may never be made and, if it is, the screenplay will be very different from the existing one about which plaintiffs complain, there is no need to use a significant amount of judicial and legal resources at this point,” Universal said in a filing with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
MGM and Danjaq filed suit in April, claiming that the “Section 6″ script, set around the formation of MI6 after World War I, nevertheless was a knockoff of the 007 franchise. They have contended that Universal “directly infringed” on their copyrights by reproducing Berg’s “Section 6″ screenplay, distributing copies to entice talent to the project, and then authorizing a revised screenplay that also is infringing.
But in its latest brief, Universal argues that the copies that have been made as “de minimis,” or internal in nature, few in amount and “dwarfed by the cost to the public and the litigants of proceeding with the case.”
“If Universal ever decides to make the movie, and Plaintiffs claim that even the revised screenplay infringes, there would be something to argue about, and the case can then be filed,” Universal said. The studio said that it has assured MGM and Danjaq that the final project will not infringe on the Bond movies.
Universal also challenged the MGM-Danjaq argument that the revised screenplay constitutes infringement because it would be a “separate derivative work based on the Bond works.” No revised screenplay has been created, U contends, and even if it had been by now, it could still use non-infringing elements of Berg’s original works.
Berg, meanwhile, is arguing that the characters, plot, settings and other elements of his screenplay are not “substantially similar” to the modern world James Bond elements that would be protected by copyright. His lawyers argue that MGM and Danjaq have “cherry-picked from the entire James Bond oeuvre” in making their claim. The screenplays “few short phrases possibly evoking the Bond works” are non-infringing as they fall under fair use or the de minimus doctrine, his brief says.
“Using Plaintiffs’ egregiously incorrect approach, ‘Inglourious Basterds’ would infringe ‘The Dirty Dozen,’ ‘The Sopranos’ would infringe ‘The Godfather,’ and ‘Titanic’ would infringe ‘The Poseidon Adventure,’” his brief states.
MGM and Danjaq are represented by Robert Schwartz of O’Melveny & Myers and Marc Becker of Quinn Emanuel; Universal is represented by Bert Fields and Aaron Moss of Greenberg Glusker. Berg is represented by David Aronoff and Amber Henry of Lathrop & Gage.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This reminds me of a story I once heard that stated Edison wanted a complete monopoly on filmmaking and wanted nobody other than him to shoot films after he and his team created the Kinetograph and the Kinetoscope. MGM needs to learn that there are some things in this world that can't be "owned," especially a spy agency that was founded before the Bond books and films even came into being.
What does MI6 have to say?
They have agents on it as we speak, working as sleepers inside MGM itself. Watch this space for future updates on the proceedings.