Fox and Marvel waste lawsuit on Tim Allen movie

Posted by Tom Boone on Wed, Jun, 22, 2005 - 1:29 am

Twentieth Century Fox and comic book publisher Marvel Enterprises on Tuesday said they sued Sony Pictures and Revolution Studios to thwart the release of "Zoom's Academy," a film they say infringes on their popular "X-Men" feature films. Both films feature children with special powers feared by the government and shunned by society, who are taught to harness and develop their abilities in a special school, said Fox in a statement.

Later, Warner Bros. announced that it will sue New Line, claiming that "The Wedding Crashers" infringes upon "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" because both films feature actors, props, and dialogue. [Yahoo! News] Fox, Marvel say Sony stole 'X-Men' ideas

3 comments so far...

6/22/2005

9:48 am

pusboy said...

Apart from the high burden of proof for proving copyright infringement, do you really think this lawsuit is frivolous? I have to admit that the first time I heard about Zoom's Academy, I thought, "Hey, it's an X-Men rip-off." I don't really understand how Marvel can sue at this point, since the film hasn't even begun production. I also don't know how in the hell Sony plans to release this thing in less than a year if it hasn't EVEN STARTED SHOOTING. I guess I see your point, but I'd like to see the script to see what "powers" the characters have. If there's a guy with adamantium claws, I'd have to side with Marvel. BTW, I know that you had given up on Dinner for Five, but did you happen to catch Kevin Smith guest-hosting the other night with J.J. Abrams, Jason Lee, Stan Lee, and Mark Hammill? Good stuff. I happen to like the show, but only when I like the guests. I never miss it when David Cross or Bob Odenkirk are on. The show with Burt Reynolds made me hate Burt Reynolds. What an ass. Anyway, this comment has turned into a guest post. Later.

6/22/2005

12:14 pm

no true bill said...

Yes, I absolutely believe this to be a frivolous lawsuit. After all, "Zoom's Academy" is a comedy. There's no question that intentional similarities designed as spoofs, parodies, or satires are protected speech and not copyright infringements. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (aka "The 2 Live Crew Case"), 510 U.S. 517 (1994). I think the similarities between the two movies will be comparable to those found in the "Star Trek" franchise and "Galaxy Quest" (oddly enough, another Tim Allen flick). Sure, the similarities are entirely intentional, but that's the whole point. "Galaxy Quest" is a protected commentary on "Star Trek" just as "Zoom's Academy" will no doubt be a commentary on "X-Men" (at least in part; I suspect the film will also comment substantially on "Harry Potter"). The value of that commentary is unimportant so long as some value exists. In addition, "Zoom's Academy" is itself based upon a comic book: "Zoom's Academy for the Super Gifted" by Jason Lethcoe, which debuted back in 2001. Marvel has never bothered suing Lethcoe over the book, nor is he or his comic part of the current lawsuit. Unless there have been substantial changes made in the film adaptation, it seems a bit fishy that Marvel/Fox believe the film to be an infringement when they don't seem to have a problem with the underlying work. While their failure to sue Lethcoe certainly doesn't prevent them from suing Sony now, it will be a difficult discrepancy to justify to a jury, particularly if the alleged infringements in the film come straight out of the comic book. Marvel/Fox are especially protective of the "X-Men" franchise right now because it has received a substantial amount of bad press recently due to the loss of director Bryan Singer, the departure of his replacement (Matthew Vaughn), and the hiring of another director (Brett Ratner) who has become a bit of a whipping boy in the media. Additionally, keep in mind that Marvel has an ongoing relationship with Sony in the "Spider-Man" film franchise, which has been marred in the past by litigation. I wouldn't be too surprised if the current conflict spiraled out of control mainly because of lingering ill will from past fights about the webslinger. This lawsuit has no hope of succeeding, and Marvel/Fox know it. They are simply trying to pressure Sony into postponing the release date for "Zoom's Academy" until after "X-Men 3" premieres. Using the court system as a bargaining chip for a non-legal issue is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit. If there's any portion of the Marvel/Fox lawsuit may have merit, it's the demand that certain specific references to the "X-Men" be removed from the "Zoom" script. Problem is, that issue is governed by trademark law, not copyright. Since the basis for Marvel/Fox's demand is copyright law, the judge will have no choice but to deny it. One has to assume that the high-priced lawyers hired by Marvel/Fox are just as aware of this as I am, which means they know they can't win. Which means they have no intention of winning. Which means they have an ulterior motive for filing the lawsuit. Which means the lawsuit is frivolous.

6/22/2005

1:01 pm

no true bill said...

According to Variety, my above comments concerning the graphic novel appear to have been addressed by Marvel/Fox in the complaint:

Lawsuit notes that the graphic novel upon which the film is based -- "Zoom's Academy for the Super Gifted," by Jason Lethcoe -- was not strikingly similar to "X-Men," but claims that the script has become a near-copy.

However, another portion of the Variety article supports my contention that the lawsuit was filed merely as a bargaining chip to resolve a non-legal issue -- and is therefore frivolous:

Lawsuit seeks an injunction barring further work on "Zoom" and monetary relief, though Fox and Marvel would likely be satisfied with a new release date and moderate script changes.

The complaint also apparently uses unfair competition law, in addition to copyright, as the basis for its demands. While this restores my confidence in the competence of their attorneys somewhat, it doesn't change my opinion of the likely outcome in the case. I'm in the process of trying to obtain a copy of Marvel/Fox's complaint in the case, but have yet to do so.