David White
Many famous movies have quietly been at the center of several copyright disputes. I was shocked to learn that James Wan, famous director of both the Saw franchise and The Conjuring series, has been involved in not one, but two copyright legal proceedings. His most recent case, Adam Cosco v. Atomic Monster, Inc., et al., is the focus of this post.[1] Copyright infringement proceedings involve a level of subjectivity which can lead to different interpretations by courts, as we see here when comparing Adam Cosco to Price v. Fox Entertainment Group.[2] Both cases hinge on access and similarity.
In Adam Cosco v. Atomic Monster, Inc., the plaintiff argued that Malignant plagiarized elements from his screenplay Little Brother.[3] Specifically, Cosco alleged that Wan had access to his script and used it to create Malignant. The court determined that Cosco could not provide sufficient proof that Wan had access to his script, despite the fact that Cosco provided a future Malignant producer with his screenplay and his work had been circulated among many of the producers that ended up working on the Wan film.[4] The court felt that the 50 similarities between the two works weren’t compelling and leaned on a surprising freedom of speech defense, dismissing Cosco’s complaint.[5]
Similarly, the case of Price v. Fox Entertainment Group involved claims that the movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story had stolen the concept from an earlier script about a dodgeball tournament.[6] In this case, the court ruled in favor of Fox, determining that the similarities between the two works were too general to prove copyright infringement.[7] The court found that dodgeball, as a sport, and its common tropes were not protectable elements under copyright law.[8] Interestingly on the access prong, despite clear evidence suggesting that the producers had likely seen Price’s work, the Court could neither confirm nor deny access, underscoring the difficulty of proving access without direct and obvious proof.[9]
The subjective nature of substantial similarity—how a court views the similarities between works—and access can often sway these cases in unpredictable ways. What may seem a clear case of infringement may turn out to be dismissed, which we’ve seen above. Regardless, shame on those that maliciously steal ideas from others, as copyright law is intended to protect original works of authorship, but it doesn’t always feel that way.
[1] Adam Cosco v. Atomic Monster, Inc., No. 22SMCV00746 (Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty. 2023).
[2] Price v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
[3] Complaint, Adam Cosco v. Atomic Monster, Inc., No. 22SMCV00746 (Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty. 2023).
[4] Id.
[5] Adam Cosco, supra note 1.
[6] Price, supra note 2, at 385.
[7] Id. at 388.
[8] Id.
[9] Price v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., 2007 WL 241389, 8 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).