Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 695 F.3d 946 (Ninth Circuit August 29,
2012). Petrella owns renewal copyright
in Raging Bull book and two screenplays.
Her father wrote the book and screenplays and died in 1981. She filed a renewal application in 1991. In 1998 her attorney wrote to defendants
claiming that Raging Bull was an infringement of her copyright. An exchange of letters was had, ending in
2000. Petrella filed this action in
2009. The district court granted summary
judgment on the equitable defense of laches.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The
Ninth Circuit opined that laches bars a copyright owner’s claim where a
plaintiff, with full knowledge of the facts, acquiesces in a transaction and
sleeps upon his rights. A defendant must
prove (1) the plaintiff delayed in initiating the lawsuit; (2) delay was
unreasonable; and (3) the delay resulted in prejudice. Plaintiff claimed that she had delayed for
personal reasons, together with the fact that the film had not made any
money. The Ninth Circuit analyzed two
types of prejudice: expectations-based prejudice and evidentiary
prejudice. The Ninth Circuit focused on
the many investments that the producers continued to make in Raging Bull during
the relevant time period and found that they had been prejudiced caused by
Petrella’s delay. The Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court’s denial of damages. The opinion provoked a dissent that pointed
out that the Ninth Circuit is the jurisdiction most hostile to copyright owners
and out of synch with other jurisdictions.
The dissent reasoned that the majority opinion confounds the doctrine of
equitable estoppel with laches and misuses the laches doctrine in a manner that
is too broad and vague in a manner not intended by Congress.
www.dunnington.com
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2012-2013 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
No comments:
Post a Comment