Supreme Court revives 'Raging Bull' lawsuit

Published on NewsOK Modified: May 19, 2014 at 3:06 pm •  Published: May 19, 2014
Advertisement
;

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a copyright lawsuit over the 1980 Oscar-winning movie "Raging Bull" can go forward, a decision that could open Hollywood studios to more claims from people seeking a share of profits from classic films and TV shows.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices said that Paula Petrella, daughter of the late screenwriter Frank Petrella, did not wait too long to file her lawsuit against Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer claiming an interest in the film.

Petrella's father collaborated with legendary boxer Jake LaMotta on a book and two screenplays, which inspired the movie directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Robert DeNiro. The elder Petrella died in 1981 and the copyrights passed to his daughter.

She sued MGM in 2009 seeking royalties from continuing commercial use of the film. But a federal judge said she waited too long because she had been aware of the potential to file a lawsuit as early as 1991. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, relying on the studio's argument that Petrella's delay of nearly two decades in bringing the case was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling, giving Petrella a chance to resurrect her lawsuit. The ruling was a blow to movie studios, which have long relied on the legal doctrine of unreasonable delay to prevent distant relatives and estates from bringing copyright claims years or decades after movies have been released.

"What you have now is the ability for a plaintiff to come out of the woodwork and say that some creative work that was a hit in the 70s, 80s or 90s belonged to them," said Brad Newberg a copyright law expert at the Reed Smith law firm in Northern Virginia. "I would say there's now going to be an explosion of these types of cases."

Federal copyright law allows people to bring copyright claims within three years of an infringing act. Petrella's claim fell within that time because the studio continued to release the film on DVD and other formats for years and every new release essentially reset the clock for copyright purposes.

MGM argued that Petrella delayed filing her case on purpose in hopes of getting more money, saying she waited until after the 25th anniversary of the movie in 2005 to press her claim. Meanwhile, the studio had invested $8.5 million to distribute and promote the film assuming there was no other claim to ownership.


by Adam Wilmoth
Energy Editor
Adam Wilmoth returned to The Oklahoman as energy editor in 2012 after working for four years in public relations. He previously spent seven years as a business reporter at The Oklahoman, including five years covering the state's energy sector....
+ show more


Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Oklahoma State's Justin Gilbert signs his rookie contract with the Cleveland Browns
  2. 2
    Tulsa police believe mother, teen son planned deaths together
  3. 3
    Kevin Durant asks for your basketball videos in Summer is Serious 2
  4. 4
    Big 12 basketball: Time, TV listing announced for Sooners' December game against Washington
  5. 5
    Lawsuit: 'Duck Dynasty' stole 'camo' idea
+ show more