Advertisement

April 20, 2014

Alien v. Predator; Who Prevails in Copyright Dispute?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld an order granting summary judgment on copyright and breach of contract claims against Alien vs. Predator film (AVP) creators, concluding that the alleged similarities between the plaintiffs’ screenplay and the film in issue were insufficient to create factual issues from which a reasonable juror could find actual copying or improper appropriation.  Muller v. Anderson, et al., Case No. 11-1694 (2d Cir., November 8, 2004). 

Appellant James Muller brought suit alleging that the defendants—Paul W.S. Anderson, Davis Entertainment and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation made illegal use of his script for The Lost Continent  (TLC) in their film AVP.  Muller alleged that he sent his script for TLC to various persons or entities associated with defendants and that the defendants subsequently copied elements of his script in AVP

The 2d Circuit, in affirming summary judgment, concluded that the two works are very different—the only real similarity being that they both involved a battle and discovery of a pyramid in the Antarctic.  On one hand, TLC tells the tale of a group of scientists, soldiers and government officials who venture via submarine to a hidden space beneath Antarctica where they find a large pyramid that hold a powerful magic crystal.  The team is subsequently attacked by various inanimate or frozen creatures that come to life.  AVP, on the other hand is the story of the battle between two well-known monsters of science fiction, the Aliens and the Predators, that also happens to take place on an island off Antarctica where a mysterious pyramid is found. 

The district court found, and the 2d Circuit agreed, that Muller failed to adduce facts from which a reasonable jury could find actual copying or improper appropriation, the two elements Muller had to prove to prevail on his copyright claim. 

The Court also explained that although a claim of implied breach of contract would not be preempted by the copyright claims, Muller nonetheless failed to present triable issues of fact on his breach of contract claims.  He offered no evidence of any mutual assent, an element necessary to his claim, and in fact conceded that “[n]o material terms of a contract to pay for ideas were ever communicated, either expressly or by implication between plaintiff and any of the defendants.”

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

McDermott Will & Emery is a premier international law firm with a diversified business practice. Numbering more than 1,100 lawyers, we have offices in Boston, Brussels, Chicago, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Houston,...

+1 312 372 2000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please