Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
James Bond Knockoff? Not if MGM has anything to say about it
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: October 13, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
I read about an interesting case today that not only involves a personal favorite character of mine, but serves to illustrate the way that even old law can continue to change and advance through court interpretation. U.S. District Judge James Otero declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by MGM – the holder of the James Bond copyright – against Universal. The latter studio is in the early stages of producing a film called Section 6, a spy film that intends to focus on the early days of British spy agency MI-6.
MGM alleges that the film bears similarities in theme, character, plot and dialog to the films featuring Mr. Bond, and as such should be killed. Screenwriter Aaron Berg has made fair use and de minimis arguments, while Universal advanced the argument that the film has not yet even received a green light, making litigation about it a “patent waste of resources.”
That Otero opted not to dismiss the lawsuit is in itself not remarkable, given that he is expected to take the plaintiff’s allegations as true for the purposes of this stage. However, his reasoning and further statements appear to be indicative of the strong case that MGM might have. We will discuss these statements after a brief recap of the legal arguments made by the defendants.
Fair use
I’ve mentioned this before, but copyright law does not entitle the owner to be the sole user of a certain work in every situation. Neither would this be desirable – we largely agree as a society that parody should be allowed. When determining whether someone has the right to “fair use,” courts consider the following four factors:
- The purpose and character of the use – i.e. has the work been ‘transformed’ or was it simply copied?
- The nature of the copyrighted work – i.e. is the work good for society, like a utility, or an original creation, like an artwork?
- The amount and substantiality of the portion taken – i.e. is the copied portion unsubstantial, like an unremarkable guitar riff, or central, like an entire chorus?
- The effect of the use on the potential market – i.e. will the defendant’s use deprive the original owner of the ability to make money?
De minimis
There are some cases in which the amount of material that the defendant has copied is so small that the court doesn’t need to consider the above four factors. Keep in mind that the actual size of the material copied isn’t always relevant. Even a small part can be considered significant if it is somehow central to the “heart” of the copyrighted work.
Otero’s ruling
Otero could have simply declined to dismiss the lawsuit and deal with the trial when it occurred, but chose to write a lengthy opinion that looks bad for Universal’s prospects.
Otero noted that the phrase ‘Bond. James Bond’ appears in the defendant’s work, making Berg’s de minimis argument unlikely. He also mentioned a 1995 Honda commercial that was determined to be substantially similar to the James Bond movie, and wrote that “In the current case, Section 6 bears more similarities than the Honda commercial.”
Regarding Universal’s argument that such litigation is a waste of resources at this stage, Otero went even further. Perhaps in light of U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee’s decision to allow a similar case to move forward, ruling that the creation of a script alone can constitute ‘intermediate copying’ in the absence of a film or final script, Otero wrote the following:
“Far from being theoretical or abstract, according to Plaintiffs’ allegations, Universal possesses the right to use the screenplay, and has hired various people for the development of the motion picture project. Those types of ‘transitory’ film-making product make the copyright issues ripe for review. Universal’s assertion that it does not intend to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyright is also irrelevant because good faith is not an excuse for copyright infringement.”
The opinion itself is so redacted that it could pass for a spy agency’s document itself, making it difficult to tell precisely what or how much was copied as an observer. It seems clear, however, that Universal will have to mount an extremely strong defense or dramatically change its script if it wishes to produce this film.
This isn’t the first time that MGM had legal issues protecting one of their most prominent films. Check out the article Raging Bull Case Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court
As a New York entertainment attorney, Check out some of my other posts regarding the legal aspects of copyright in the entertainment industry:
- Seth MacFarlane Accused of Copyright Infringement
- What are the repercussions of copyright and trademark violations?
- Is Copyright Infringement an Issue in Hollywood?
- Industries: Entertainment & Media
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
James Bond Knockoff? Not if MGM has anything to say about it
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
I read about an interesting case today that not only involves a personal favorite character of mine, but serves to illustrate the way that even old law can continue to change and advance through court interpretation. U.S. District Judge James Otero declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by MGM – the holder of the James Bond copyright – against Universal. The latter studio is in the early stages of producing a film called Section 6, a spy film that intends to focus on the early days of British spy agency MI-6.
MGM alleges that the film bears similarities in theme, character, plot and dialog to the films featuring Mr. Bond, and as such should be killed. Screenwriter Aaron Berg has made fair use and de minimis arguments, while Universal advanced the argument that the film has not yet even received a green light, making litigation about it a “patent waste of resources.”
That Otero opted not to dismiss the lawsuit is in itself not remarkable, given that he is expected to take the plaintiff’s allegations as true for the purposes of this stage. However, his reasoning and further statements appear to be indicative of the strong case that MGM might have. We will discuss these statements after a brief recap of the legal arguments made by the defendants.
Fair use
I’ve mentioned this before, but copyright law does not entitle the owner to be the sole user of a certain work in every situation. Neither would this be desirable – we largely agree as a society that parody should be allowed. When determining whether someone has the right to “fair use,” courts consider the following four factors:
- The purpose and character of the use – i.e. has the work been ‘transformed’ or was it simply copied?
- The nature of the copyrighted work – i.e. is the work good for society, like a utility, or an original creation, like an artwork?
- The amount and substantiality of the portion taken – i.e. is the copied portion unsubstantial, like an unremarkable guitar riff, or central, like an entire chorus?
- The effect of the use on the potential market – i.e. will the defendant’s use deprive the original owner of the ability to make money?
De minimis
There are some cases in which the amount of material that the defendant has copied is so small that the court doesn’t need to consider the above four factors. Keep in mind that the actual size of the material copied isn’t always relevant. Even a small part can be considered significant if it is somehow central to the “heart” of the copyrighted work.
Otero’s ruling
Otero could have simply declined to dismiss the lawsuit and deal with the trial when it occurred, but chose to write a lengthy opinion that looks bad for Universal’s prospects.
Otero noted that the phrase ‘Bond. James Bond’ appears in the defendant’s work, making Berg’s de minimis argument unlikely. He also mentioned a 1995 Honda commercial that was determined to be substantially similar to the James Bond movie, and wrote that “In the current case, Section 6 bears more similarities than the Honda commercial.”
Regarding Universal’s argument that such litigation is a waste of resources at this stage, Otero went even further. Perhaps in light of U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee’s decision to allow a similar case to move forward, ruling that the creation of a script alone can constitute ‘intermediate copying’ in the absence of a film or final script, Otero wrote the following:
“Far from being theoretical or abstract, according to Plaintiffs’ allegations, Universal possesses the right to use the screenplay, and has hired various people for the development of the motion picture project. Those types of ‘transitory’ film-making product make the copyright issues ripe for review. Universal’s assertion that it does not intend to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyright is also irrelevant because good faith is not an excuse for copyright infringement.”
The opinion itself is so redacted that it could pass for a spy agency’s document itself, making it difficult to tell precisely what or how much was copied as an observer. It seems clear, however, that Universal will have to mount an extremely strong defense or dramatically change its script if it wishes to produce this film.
This isn’t the first time that MGM had legal issues protecting one of their most prominent films. Check out the article Raging Bull Case Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court
As a New York entertainment attorney, Check out some of my other posts regarding the legal aspects of copyright in the entertainment industry:
- Seth MacFarlane Accused of Copyright Infringement
- What are the repercussions of copyright and trademark violations?
- Is Copyright Infringement an Issue in Hollywood?