Kenneth C. Oh
Counsel
212-784-6911 koh@sh-law.comRaging Bull Case Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Author: Kenneth C. Oh|October 17, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added a copyright dispute involving the film Raging Bull to its docket.
Raging Bull Case Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added a copyright dispute involving the film Raging Bull to its docket.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added a copyright dispute involving the film Raging Bull to its docket.
The plaintiff, Paula Petrella, alleges that the film infringes a 1963 screenplay written by her late father, Frank Petrella.
The Academy Award winning film starred Robert Di Nero and was directed by Martin Scorsese. It chronicles the life of champion boxer Jake LaMotta, whose personality in and out of the ring earned the nickname “Raging Bull.”
While the movie is high-drama, the copyright lawsuit is fairly technical. The issue is that Patrella did not file suit until 1999, nearly 20 years after the film was first released. The applicable statute of limitations requires copyright owners to initiate a copyright lawsuit within three years of the alleged infringement. In this case, Patrella cites the DVD release of Raging Bull by MGM Holdings Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment as the basis for her claim.
Meanwhile, the entertainment companies contend that Patrella’s suit should be barred under the doctrine of laches. The equitable remedy bars a plaintiff from seeking recovery because of an undue delay in seeking relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that Patrella filed the lawsuit too late. However, federal courts are currently split on the issue, which cleared the way for a Supreme Court appeal.
Patrella’s attorneys argue that “Congress, not the courts, is responsible for weighing competing interests and policy considerations and setting a limitations period.” However, MGM contends that the delay “in bringing this action was egregious and entirely unjustified.”
The case, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., is being closely watched in the intellectual property community, as heirs of songwriters, screenwriters and even inventors are increasingly taking a fresh look at old claims involving new products. We encourage readers to check back to this blog for updates.
If you have any questions this copyright case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Kenneth Oh, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Raging Bull Case Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Author: Kenneth C. Oh
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added a copyright dispute involving the film Raging Bull to its docket.
The plaintiff, Paula Petrella, alleges that the film infringes a 1963 screenplay written by her late father, Frank Petrella.
The Academy Award winning film starred Robert Di Nero and was directed by Martin Scorsese. It chronicles the life of champion boxer Jake LaMotta, whose personality in and out of the ring earned the nickname “Raging Bull.”
While the movie is high-drama, the copyright lawsuit is fairly technical. The issue is that Patrella did not file suit until 1999, nearly 20 years after the film was first released. The applicable statute of limitations requires copyright owners to initiate a copyright lawsuit within three years of the alleged infringement. In this case, Patrella cites the DVD release of Raging Bull by MGM Holdings Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment as the basis for her claim.
Meanwhile, the entertainment companies contend that Patrella’s suit should be barred under the doctrine of laches. The equitable remedy bars a plaintiff from seeking recovery because of an undue delay in seeking relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that Patrella filed the lawsuit too late. However, federal courts are currently split on the issue, which cleared the way for a Supreme Court appeal.
Patrella’s attorneys argue that “Congress, not the courts, is responsible for weighing competing interests and policy considerations and setting a limitations period.” However, MGM contends that the delay “in bringing this action was egregious and entirely unjustified.”
The case, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., is being closely watched in the intellectual property community, as heirs of songwriters, screenwriters and even inventors are increasingly taking a fresh look at old claims involving new products. We encourage readers to check back to this blog for updates.
If you have any questions this copyright case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Kenneth Oh, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
