A couple of weeks ago I read about a lawsuit concerning Disney's animated film Zootopia. I read about how a writer claimed that Disney had stolen his idea for the film and that the company should have to pay punitive damages as a result.
According to this writer, Disney had stolen the title of the film, 'Zootopia'. The company had also stolen the basic premise and the basic character designs in the film, which the lawyer for the plaintiff tried to argue in court.
When I started reading about the case, at first it seemed like there was a decent case against Disney. As long as you focused on the company stealing the title and you had your focus on the character design, it seemed like the writer was on to something.
However, once you dug a bit deeper and started to pay attention to the case a bit more, things started to get more complicated. Even though there are a lot of similarities, these similarities tend to be too generic and even deceptive.
When it comes to the original film, 'Zootopia' (2016) is an animation that tells a story about a hillbilly bunny called Judy Hopps. This bunny, who becomes a cop and moves to the big city of Zootopia, is what the movie is about.
When it comes to the film, at least 80-90% of its success has to do with our likable bunny. Bunny Hopps is the biggest reason that the movie works so well and that it was such a success both critically and at the box office.
Almost every emotionally meaningful story beat in the film is derived from this character. The character's idealism and her underdog situation is what makes the story work and what makes us care about what happens in the movie.
However, once you dug a bit deeper and started to pay attention to the case a bit more, things started to get more complicated. Even though there are a lot of similarities, these similarities tend to be too generic and even deceptive.
When it comes to the original film, 'Zootopia' (2016) is an animation that tells a story about a hillbilly bunny called Judy Hopps. This bunny, who becomes a cop and moves to the big city of Zootopia, is what the movie is about.
When it comes to the film, at least 80-90% of its success has to do with our likable bunny. Bunny Hopps is the biggest reason that the movie works so well and that it was such a success both critically and at the box office.
Almost every emotionally meaningful story beat in the film is derived from this character. The character's idealism and her underdog situation is what makes the story work and what makes us care about what happens in the movie.
What this all has to do with the lawsuit is that in the plaintiff's treatment, 'Zootopia' apparently isn't about the 'Bunny'. In the plaintiff's version, the squirrel (that isn't even a cop) doesn't seem to be at the center of the story.
Instead, the plaintiff's version revolves more around the 'fox' character that we see in the produced film. This character (a hyena in the plaintiff's concept), isn't that likable and isn't someone that you can easily relate to.
The big problem with this is that if the plaintiff's story had a protagonist that wasn't particularly likable, that concept wouldn't have worked. There were going to be so many problems with the story, regardless of how the treatment would have looked on paper.
Incidentally, Disney admitted that they tried to write a script that revolved around the 'fox' character. They spent almost a year writing different drafts and tried everything to make the story work and to make it worth producing.
The big problem with this is that if the plaintiff's story had a protagonist that wasn't particularly likable, that concept wouldn't have worked. There were going to be so many problems with the story, regardless of how the treatment would have looked on paper.
Incidentally, Disney admitted that they tried to write a script that revolved around the 'fox' character. They spent almost a year writing different drafts and tried everything to make the story work and to make it worth producing.
Eventually, they gave up and decided that the movie simply shouldn't and couldn't be about the Fox. They decided that they needed to start from scratch and thought that the film should instead be about the Bunny character.
What this means is that if Disney actually did steal the concept or the treatment from plaintiff, in that case they also ditched it. Even though the concept might have worked in theory, when they wrote the script, it didn't work anymore.
So as a whole, when it comes to this lawsuit, I think it's safe to say that it doesn't seem to be completely outlandish or frivolous. It seems to be likely that Disney in some ways tried to 'steal' the concept from the writer.
After all, the company is infamous for having stolen other people's material over the decades. They have clearly played fast and loose with copyrighted source material before (for example The Lion King / Kimba The White Lion).
Still, even though this wouldn't be the first time that they stole from other writers, when you consider what we know about the case so far (possibly different, unlikable protagonist / other stuff), the lawsuit is walking on a fairly thin ice.
As far as I'm concerned, even though I don't like siding with a corporation against an individual, in this case one might have to. It might be that in this case the writer didn't create a concept that was strong enough to be protected by copyright laws.
In that sense, if Disney took the idea and made it work, that isn't automatically their fault. It isn't automatically their fault if the plaintiff didn't come up with a story that was good enough and if the story didn't have merit to stand on its own.
What this means is that if Disney actually did steal the concept or the treatment from plaintiff, in that case they also ditched it. Even though the concept might have worked in theory, when they wrote the script, it didn't work anymore.
So as a whole, when it comes to this lawsuit, I think it's safe to say that it doesn't seem to be completely outlandish or frivolous. It seems to be likely that Disney in some ways tried to 'steal' the concept from the writer.
After all, the company is infamous for having stolen other people's material over the decades. They have clearly played fast and loose with copyrighted source material before (for example The Lion King / Kimba The White Lion).
Still, even though this wouldn't be the first time that they stole from other writers, when you consider what we know about the case so far (possibly different, unlikable protagonist / other stuff), the lawsuit is walking on a fairly thin ice.
As far as I'm concerned, even though I don't like siding with a corporation against an individual, in this case one might have to. It might be that in this case the writer didn't create a concept that was strong enough to be protected by copyright laws.
In that sense, if Disney took the idea and made it work, that isn't automatically their fault. It isn't automatically their fault if the plaintiff didn't come up with a story that was good enough and if the story didn't have merit to stand on its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment