By [ad_1]
A judge is allowing a lawsuit to move forward involving a special effects company that claims some Disney films stole its effects software.
A judge is allowing a lawsuit by a special effects company against Disney to move forward after rejecting Disney’s argument that it is impossible to connect the profits of the film to the special effect software that was allegedly stolen from the company.
The suit is about allegedly stolen software by a company called Reardon that involves its MOVA special effects technology, a technology that allows the capture of an actor’s facial expressions and translate them into digital imagery. This allegedly stolen technology was used in a number of films, including three films currently under Disney’s ownership, including Guardians of the Galaxy, Beauty and the Beast and Deadpool (obviously, Deadpool’s alleged use of the stolen technology took place before Disney purchased Fox, so the alleged stolen technology was apparently used by a number of different films studios, not just Disney).
The judge decision currently at issue is Disney’s attempt to get the case dismissed under an argument that Reardon could not actually prove financial damages, as how could they prove that its special effects technology had a specific effect on the box office success of those films?
The judge in the case turned down that argument, noting, “This non-speculative evidence supports Rearden’s theory of a causal nexus between the infringement and profits from Beauty and the Beast, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Deadpool. As to these films, it would be reasonable for the jury to infer from Rearden’s evidence that Defendants advertised their use of MOVA and used MOVA-based clips in the film trailer in order to drive interest in the films and thereby increase film profits. To show a causal nexus to indirect profits, there must be evidence that the infringing product is a causal factor, but it ‘need not be the sole causal factor.’”
The judge found Reardon’s argument convincing that there were special behind-the-scenes footage used to advertise the films that highlighted the special effects and that the commercials for the films also bragged about the effects.
Of course, this just means that the case wasn’t dismissed. It does not mean that Reardon will actually be able to prove the technology was stolen or that it will achieve any notable success in getting a cut of the profits (it could be that the court, even if it finds in favor of Reardon, might determine that its cut of the profits is minimal), it just means that the case will move forward.
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
About The Author
[ad_2]
