Death At A Funeral Leads To Lawsuit In A Courtroom
from the who-do-you-believe dept
It's pretty common for people who think that "ideas" can be owned to get upset when someone else makes a movie or a book that has a similar idea to one they had. These often lead to lawsuits that quickly go nowhere. It's actually quite rare to find a lawsuit over the idea of a book or movie that has legs, and it usually has to involve some detailed evidence. For example the famous Buchwald v. Paramount case involved a situation where Paramount had specifically optioned a very similar story (to what became Coming to America) from Buchwald, involving the same actor (Eddie Murphy) and director (John Landis) who eventually made the movie. That case showed direct involvement of many of the parties. Most of these cases are more along the lines of "hey, I had that idea and I sent it to movie studio X, so they must have seen it and copied it." Those don't get very far.However, THREsq has the details on a lawsuit from a woman who does a half decent job of suggesting her lawsuit might be slightly more like Buchwald's than others -- though there are some really wacky aspects to this lawsuit, and I doubt that she'll win. This case involves Pamella Lawrence, who apparently wrote a book about an embarrassing thing (where her clothes were stripped off) that happened to her at a funeral in Jamaica which was caught on film. Her book had the catchy name "Caught on Video ... The Most Embarassing Moment de Funeral, July 11, 1994, Jamaican Volume 1." Two movies, with the much catchier name "Death at a Funeral" have come out in the last few years (one in the UK, and another remake in the US -- neither of which did all that well). Lawrence claims both were based on her book and video. At times, her lawsuit seems to go off the deep end. As THREsq describes:
The woman, Pamella Lawrence, is representing herself in court and has filed a lawsuit stuffed with outrageous claims, including racism, a plot to eradicate the female population of urban cities and allegations of inside jokes within the movie that were specifically intended to humiliate her.Yes, apparently, because the first thing you want to do when infringing on someone's copyright is write into the script jokes intended to humiliate the person. Most of those claims seem like absolutely ridiculous stretches. However, as THREsq notes, this shouldn't automatically be relegated into the "nutty pro se" lawsuit bin:
Yes, many of the claims stretch reason, but Lawrence has also gone to extreme lengths to craft a 54-page complaint that almost looks and feels as if it was drawn up by a $500-an-hour attorney. She cites applicable laws and case citations (although none are required in complaints), copyright registrations, numerous exhibits and perhaps most impressively a frame work intended to bypass the legal pitfalls that typically trip up those asserting idea theft in Hollywood.It still seems like a longshot, but she does describe meeting with studio execs, and even getting involved in a legal dispute previously that ended in a settlement. That all makes for much more interesting reading than the typical such lawsuit, but it still seems pretty thin on actual evidence of anything in the complaint. But, there's also so much pure ridiculousness in the lawsuit that whatever credibility is built up in the other parts may get lost in the deep paranoia. Again, from THREsq's summary:
Lawrence claims the defendants intended to destroy the "female competition" from the "inner city" in relevant markets by distributing the film, that Hollywood has a consistent pattern of discriminating against women as evidenced by the fact it took 82 years for a woman to win best director at the Oscars, and that this case is an example of why there are so few minorities at Sony PicturesYeah, that's not quite how you go about making yourself a credible plaintiff. On top of that, the "similarities" seem incredibly weak as well. Just because there are some generic similarities in characters or parts of a story, it doesn't mean that infringement or breach of any contract occurred. Still, if you want some entertaining reading in the form of a lawsuit filing, here you go:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, death at a funeral, movies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yes, because the US can't innovate so they have to copy the UK instead :)
Now imagine if it were the other way around. Imagine if the U.S. made the book first and then the U.K. copied. What a disaster that would be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090804/1129495769.shtml
But It's OK for Americans to copy others. What a broken legal system we live in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What Wedding?
The article in THREsq says this happened at a funeral, not a wedding, which suddenly makes this whole article make a little bit more sense. I was wondering how getting stripped at a wedding had anything to do with someone dying at a funeral. (I haven't seen either film, so I have no idea what the actual plot is; I'm just assuming someone dies while at a funeral based on the title.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Streisand Anyone
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UK version rocked!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To Mike, Movie Idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UK version rocked!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sooooooo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What Wedding?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Us uk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
udated to your story datedjuly 08,2010
chris rock and excuitives and attorneys for forged federal judge signature and forged and fraulently asumed the role as FEDERAL JUDGE. THE LAWSUIT THE DEFENDANTS HAS A LONG HISTORY OF STEALING COPYRIGHT WORKS RELATED TO EMBEZZLEMENT IN THE WORK PLACE . DEFS HAS HIDDEN THE TRUE VALIDITY OF PLAINTIFF CLAIM BY ONLY PAID $5,000.00 OUTSTANDING MONEY OWED$995,00.00 PLUS OTHER PAYMENT FOR FRAULENTLY RE-SELLING PLAINTIFF PROPERTIES TO 32 DEFS. AND POCKET ILLEGAL WHICH VILOATED TWO COURT ORDER DATED6-29-00 BY HON. DICKRAN TEVRIZIAN & HON MICHEAL BERG 03/06/201 WITH WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO BE HAER BY THE COURT . DEFS CANNOT WIN SO HERE WE ARE DEFS NEW ROLE ACT FRAUDULTLY AS FEDERAL JUDGE
[ link to this | view in thread ]