You are using an older browser version. Please use a supported version for the best MSN experience.

Supreme Court to Hear 'Raging Bull' Copyright Case; Could Undercut Favorite Studio Defense

6/13/2014

By Josh Dickey
TheWrap

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a copyright claim on Martin Scorseses Raging Bull by the original screenwriters daughter, the high court announced Tuesday — an action that could take away a legal advantage widely used by studios if it breaks her way.

The challenge comes from Paula Petrella, whose father Frank Petrella wrote boxing champ Jake LaMotta's autobiography and an early draft of the screenplay in 1963. She claims rights to Raging Bull reverted to heirs when the author died in 1981, before the 28-year copyright term expired.

Paula Petrellas lawsuit accuses MGM and 20th Century Fox of copyright infringement and seeks at least $1 million in damages. The 9th Circuit federal appeals court which covers Western states and is considered more studio-friendly in copyright cases than other circuits — threw it out in 2009, saying the lawsuit was filed too late.

Also read: MGM Wins Court Battle Over Raging Bull Rights

But the high court has agreed to consider whether the studios laches defense, often successfully employed in copyright cases, applies here. The defense guards against individuals who know they've been infringed upon, but purposely wait for the most advantageous moment to sue; for instance, after a studio starts collecting revenue on a remake, sequel or homevideo release.

If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision, studios can continue using the formidable defense, which they commonly trot out in copyright cases. If it strikes the decision down, more plaintiffs could come out of the woodwork with copyright claims, Jonathan Sokol, partner at Greenberg Glusker, explained to TheWrap. (Sokol does not represent any parties in the Petrella case).

Appellate courts have been split on the use of laches; Petrellas lawyers argue that if the 9th Circuits decision is upheld, it could lead to forum shopping. In its response to Petrella's filing, MGM said the 9th Circuit was correct, and argued that her 18-year delay precipitated several egregious prejudices, including the deaths of key witnesses.

A three-year statute of limitations applies to all copyright cases, so Petrella's damage claim can only reach back to "Raging Bull" revenues MGM has reaped since 2008. A major argument against laches is that the statute adequately covers the interests of defendants in an already short window.

Pamela Chelin contributed to this report

Related stories from TheWrap:

'Grudge Match' Trailer: 'Rocky' Star Sylvester Stallone Fights 'Raging Bull's' Robert De Niro (Video)

Jerry Lewis Heckles Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese at Tribeca

Martin Scorsese Becomes First Filmmaker to Deliver Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities

AdChoices
AdChoices
AdChoices
image beaconimage beaconimage beacon