Industry Liabilities in Entertainment- What Say You?

Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment 

Mattel, Inc. (founded in 1945)  is the world's largest toy company completely based off of revenue. They are known  for producing popular brand products like Barbie dolls, Hot Wheels, and Fisher Price.  Mattel Inc. filed a lawsuit against MGA Entertainment over rightful ownership of the popular doll brand "The Bratz" dolls of which did indeed hurt the sales of the barbie dolls when the Bratz were on the market. To Mattel's ironic dismay a California judge ruled in favor of MGA Entertainment  forcing Mattel to pay MGA $88.5 million dollars citing that MGA Entertainment is the true owner of the brat dolls because Mattel did not own the drawings of the dolls thus bringing a 7 year long battle to a disappointing close for Mattel but a victorious close for MGA.

 

My Thoughts:

According to this article it just amazes me how a product can start with one company and end up in an ownership battle with another. If MGA Entertainment was indeed the original owners of the "Bratz" dolls as the court ruling decided then how can they have let such a product make its way to Mattel, Inc. to the point where they find themselves in a grueling seven year long lawsuit. That's a prime example of how its so important for business to guard their property or else some bigger company could very well take it and try to claim it as theirs. A win for MGA but also a lesson learned.

Danika Gerner va. Columbia Pictures, Amblic Entertainment, and costuming co-workers on set

So Danika Gerner was some sort of a stunt woman/extra on the set of Men in Black III. She is suing for a supposed wardrobe malfunction that left her "injured". She claimed that costuming provided her with a defective costume that was not in exceptional conditions. As a result she sustained bodily injuries from executing her role on set while wearing that defective costume. Gerner "claims" that the costuming staff, Columbia Pictures, and Amblic Entertainment failed to insure her safety by providing an adequate functionally safe costume in order to perform her role without pain and suffering. As a result she has been unable to perform her normal life routines in addition to whatever other jobs/roles she's committed to. Gerner did not provided specific details of her injuries nor did she specify what costume actually caused the injury. A verdict has not yet been reached the suit is still on going until updates have been released.


My Thoughts:
According to this article, I find this case to be absolutely ridiculous. If your gonna take the time to sue someone you need to come prepared. How can you have the nerve to sue so many people for a so called "injury" you sustained and not specify the type or magnitude of the injuries sustained in addition to not specifying what on the costume is it that caused the injury. People now a days are sooo ready to get up and sue someone over the most ludicrous things and then when they make it to the court room they shrivel up like a raisin because their case holds no water. A court room is neither a game nor a joke. One needs to come prepared with all necessary documentation to demonstrate the credibility of the reason why he/she suing or it will be dismissed in a heart beat by the judge. Also if Gerner was a supposed extra she had to have read a description of what her role in the film would entail and have signed some kind of a waver agreeing to all the good and bad that came along with that specific role. If you sign away and agreed to everything without reading the documentation you were signing, then the fault is even more on you. Movies will require you to take risks you don't normally take in your everyday life. Own up to your decisions and don't complain because you got a scratch, fell, or something which is pretty much what Gerner did, WINE AND COMPLAIN. Don't blame others for your inability to make cognitive, wise decisions.

 Universal vs. The Asylum

Small win for Universal  as they settled a lawsuit with The Asylum over trade dress and copyright infringement.  The Asylum produces low budget knock off versions of large studio movies and distributes them straight to DVD, VOD, and TV just around the same time as the heavily anticipated large studio movie is nearing its premier. The Asylum has its legal reputation well established with the Hollywood lawyers. Thus Universal's suing of The Asylum case is just another addition to the list of movies that have fallen victims to Asylum's cheap productions. Universal eventually reached a settlement with Asylum in which Asylum agreed to change the name of the movie and also modify their marketing and packaging in return for Universal dropping the lawsuit. Universal had the movie "Battleship" set to premier May 18, 2012 and The Asylum made a low budget version of the movie and called it "American Battleship". In addition to creating the film, Asylum was marketing an packaging the movie around the same time "Battleship" was about to premier sending it straight to the stores knowing Battleship would not hit stores for couple more weeks post movie premier.

My Thoughts:
First off as an artist myself, I have a huge issue with this case the most. How can you proudly make a copycat movie and not only name it extremely similar to the highly anticipated box office version in addition to planning the release of the copycat film in stores before the real battleship was set to premier. I see that as a form of malicious sabotage. It's as if Asylum was using the promotional attention of the box office film Battleship to help sell their version in away taking away from the highly anticipated movie as well as ruining the thunder/ momentum of the want to go see the box office film because people may have gone and purchased the copycat version and it ruined it for them. People's ideas may get miss construed also thinking that since American Battleship came out "First" that they were the originators of the concept behind the film and that the box office film "Battleship" is the copycat of that which is totally the contrary. If you're going to make a movie, well then bigolly be original. Why make something that is clearly a copycat version of the original have it set to hit stores before the premiere of the box office movie knowing that something so close in resemblance will take you straight to court and will cost you x- amount that you did not have planned to spend. Well, according to the article post by the Huffington Post, The Asylum has quite the reputation for producing these kinds of copy cat films. It is not their first time they've been taken to court to settle copy right and trade dress infringement. What strikes me odd is that if The Asylum has this notorious history of copycatting films of which each case is recorded, why hasn't anything been done to severely penalize this company. Clearly "Battleship" is not the company's first infringement indiscretion. If they have a history, and are repeat offenders in the like then something needs to be done. They should have learned from the first time and its blatantly clear that either they didn't learn from the first or they just simply don't care and they're stuck in this mindset that it is acceptable to do what they do.

In conclusion, of the three I think that the last article discussed concerning the hit box office film "Battleship" was the one that concerned me the most. Its is a prime example of how you have to be on top of your product or someone else will wittingly try to steal from you and make it their own. The Asylum was pretty much ready to do that but the makers of "Battleship" where able to intervene just in time before their movie premiered in theaters. There are people out there that want to grow with you and there are others that seek to discredit and tear you done. Your company and the product produced by it is your baby. Protect it for all its worth. Stay on your legal issues because someone out there is looking for the perfect opportunity to sue you for whatever they can possibly come up with and if you are not prepared they can get away with the most downright crazy things. Stay on your game and be ahead of your attackers because they will come at you from every which direction.

References:

Belloni, M. (2012, May 31). Universal lawsuit sinks 'battleship' knockoff 'american battleship'. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/universal-battleship-movie-knockoff-331150

Gardner , E. (2012, May 30). May 30 3 days 'men in black 3' extra sues over alleged wardrobe malfunction. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/men-black-3-lawsuit-wardrobe-malfunction-331034

Groom, N., Skariachan, D., Levine, D., Bavdek, M., McCormick, G., & Lewis, M. (2011, April 21). Mattel loses lawsuit with mga entertainment over bratz dolls . Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/mattel-loses-lawsuit-with-mga-bratz_n_852223.html