Stewart v. Wachowski
| Citation | 574 F.Supp.2d 1074 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 03-2873 MMM (VBKx).,CV 03-2873 MMM (VBKx). |
| Parties | Sophia STEWART, Plaintiff, v. Andy WACHOWSKI, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Michael Thomas Stoller, Michael T. Stoller Law Offices, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff.
Robert A. Wyman, Bruce Isaacs, David H. Boren, Janna Smith, Wyman & Isaacs, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING THE TERMINATOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE MATRIX DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Sophia Stewart alleges that defendants Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd (collectively, the "Terminator Defendants") willfully infringed her copyrighted literary works by making and distributing The Terminator ("Terminator 1"), Terminator 2: Judgment Day ("Terminator 2") and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines ("Terminator 3").1 Stewart similarly alleges that defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski, Joel Silver, and Thea Bloom (collectively, the "Matrix Defendants") willfully infringed her copyrighted literary works by making and distributing The Matrix ("Matrix 1"), The Matrix Reloaded ("Matrix 2"), and The Matrix Revolutions ("Matrix 3").2 Stewart asserts claims for copyright infringement, declaratory relief, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.3 In separately filed motions, the Terminator Defendants and the Matrix Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court addresses both motions in this order.
Virtually every fact in this action is disputed. Plaintiff Sophia Stewart is a screenwriter who works under the pseudonyms Zenia Kavala4 and Sonya Stewart.5 Stewart's complaint alleges that, on or about May 1, 1981, she created a six-page screen treatment titled "The Third Eye," which was a "scientific account of futuristic life."6 It further alleges that, on or about November 1, 1983, Stewart created a "45-page instrument" titled "The Third Eye."7 The complaint identifies the title of both works as "The Third Eye" rather than "Third Eye." Stewart registered a copyright in the six-page treatment on February 2, 1983, and a copyright in the 45-page instrument on February 6, 1984.8
Stewart asserts that, in May 1981, she mailed the six-page treatment to Susan Merzback, Vice-President of Creative Affairs for Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.9 She also contends that, in response to an October 1983 telephone call from Fox seeking submission of the completed work, she mailed the completed manuscript to Fox's David Madden.10 For the next year and a half, Stewart and her agent, Ester Duffie, purportedly communicated with Fox employees, and made several attempts to submit the manuscript for the studio's consideration. Fox allegedly advised Stewart by mail that it could not accept the manuscript unless it was submitted by an agent registered with the Writer's Guild of America.11
Stewart contends that James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd "act[ed] in concert with Twentieth Century [Fox]" in releasing Terminator 1, Terminator 2, and Terminator 3. She alleges that Fox was an investor in each of the Terminator films, and that it had a role in writing, producing and distributing them.12 She further asserts that each infringes her copyrighted works.13
The Terminator Defendants counter that no person connected with the creative process that led to production of the Terminator films—including Cameron and Hurd—had access to Stewart's "Third Eye" literary materials.14 Although they concede that Fox had access to the Third Eye materials in the 1980's, defendants assert that Fox was not involved in creating or producing Terminator 1, 2, and 3.15 Defendants also contend that neither Cameron nor Hurd had any relationship with Fox until after the release of Terminator 1,16 and that Cameron completed the Terminator 1 screenplay in October 1982,17 before Stewart finished the Third Eye manuscript. Finally, defendants assert that Stewart's claims fail because she cannot establish that her works are substantially or strikingly similar to Terminator 1, 2, and 3.18
As respects the Matrix Defendants, Stewart alleges that, in the summer of 1986, she sent her six-page treatment and 45-page instrument to Andy and Larry Wachowski in response to an advertisement in a national magazine seeking works of science fiction.19 Stewart asserts that, although the Wachowskis received the submission, they did not contact her or return the copyrighted works.20
In March 1999, the Wachowskis, allegedly "acting in concert with Silver, Warner Bothers and Bloom," produced and distributed a film and comic book series titled "The Matrix."21 That same month, Stewart allegedly discovered that the film and comic book series infringed her copyrights in the treatment and the 45-page instrument.22 As a result, she communicated with Warner Brothers and the Wachowskis, demanding that they cease their infringing activities.23 Stewart asserts that she continued to correspond with Warner Brothers about her claim through February 2001.24 She contends that the Wachowskis, "acting in concert with Silver, Warner Brothers and Bloom," released Matrix 2 and Matrix 3 as sequels, and that each was based on her copyrighted works.25 On June 10, 1999, Stewart filed a written complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, charging that the Wachowskis, Silver, Warner Brothers, and others had infringed her copyrights.26 Apparently, she at some point also charged that Terminator 1, 2 and 3 infringed her copyrights.27
The Matrix defendants contend that the Wachowskis independently created Matrix 1, 2, and 3,28 and that none of them had access to Stewart's Third Eye literary materials.29 Defendants dispute Stewart's allegation that the Wachowskis placed an advertisement soliciting works of science fiction in a magazine in 1986, and further dispute that Stewart mailed her literary works to the Wachowskis.30 Defendants assert that the purported similarities between the Third Eye literary materials and the Matrix films do not rise to the level of protectable expression.31 They also contend that the Third Eye literary materials are neither substantially nor strikingly similar to the Matrix films.32
As a threshold matter, the court must determine which works constitute Stewart's copyrighted "Third Eye" literary materials. The operative complaint alleges:
"Stewart is the legal and beneficial federal copyright claimant, owner, and author of the following intellectual property: (1) `The Third Eye,' United States Copyright Office Registration Number Txu 117-610, effective date of registration, 2 February 1983, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1; (2) `The Third Eye,' which ... work was completed 1 May 1981, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2 (the work for the created epic manuscript was completed in 1983, and includes the entire text (original story), the original treatment for a motion picture, which is the document referenced in Exhibit 1); (3) `The Third Eye' (add on manuscript), United States Copyright Number Txu 154-281, 6 February 1984, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 3 (which includes the add on manuscript, by Sophia Stewart under her pseudonym Zenia Kavala, the original draft, graphic illustrations, character analysis, synopsis); and (4) "The Makings of The Third Eye," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 4."33
The exhibits attached to the complaint do not track this allegation. Exhibit 1 is a copyright registration for a work titled "Third Eye" by Sophia Stewart. Exhibit 3 is a copyright registration for a work titled "Third Eye (Add-on Manuscript)" by Sophia Maciél Stewart/Zenia Kavala.34 Exhibit 2 is the six-page treatment,35 and Exhibit 4—which is identified in paragraph 2 as "The Makings of The Third Eye"—is in fact a 47-page manuscript accompanied by a table of contents, forward, preface and introduction.36 Although the complaint alleges that "`The Third Eye' (add on manuscript)" includes, inter alia, "the original draft, graphic illustrations, character analysis, [and] synopsis," none of the exhibits includes these items. Similarly, although the complaint states that a document titled "The Makings of The Third Eye" is attached, no exhibit bearing that title is included. Finally, although the complaint consistently refers to Stewart's works as "The Third Eye," the treatment and the 47-page manuscript attached as exhibits bear the title "Third Eye."
In her opposition to the pending motions, Stewart now contends that "there are three sets of documents which make up [her] protected literary works."37 These are
1. "Third Eye" by Sophia Stewart consisting of a 6-page treatment.
2. "The Third Eye" by Zenia Kavala consisting of (i) a 2-page synopsis, (ii) a single page character list, (iii) a 2-page "character analysis," (iv) 5 pages of illustrations, (v) a single page outline of the manuscript titled "The Making of The Third Eye," (vi) and the "original" manuscript consisting of 29 pages of text, plus 5 pages containing the title page, table of contents, forward, preface and introduction.
3. "Third Eye" by Sonya Stewart, a manuscript consisting of a table of contents, forward, preface, introduction, and a 47-page manuscript.38
The court will refer to the first document as the treatment, to the third document as the 47-page manuscript, and to the components of the second set of documents as (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricketts v. CBS Corps.
...is an exception where the felony copyright infringement is related to a conspiracy. See Opp'n at 40-41 (citing Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2005) and Kevin Barry Fine Art Assocs. v. Ken Gangbar Studio, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 3d 959, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ). However......
-
Pizzuti v. Nat'l Broad. Co. ("nbc")
...has, in one capacity or another, watched, read, written, compared and/or analyzed literary works.14See e.g., Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1106 n. 130 (C.D.Cal.2005) (expert was an English professor who had previously testified in several matters regarding substantial similarity......
-
Stabile v. Paul Smith Ltd.
...(citing Walker v. Univ. Books, Inc., 602 F.2d 859, 864 (9th Cir.1979) ) (emphasis in original); see also Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1103 (C.D.Cal.2005) ("At base, ‘striking similarity’ simply means that in human experience it is virtually impossible that the two works could h......
-
Dept. of Transp. and Dev. V. Kition Shipping
...356 F.3d 880, 889 (8th Cir.2004) (noting that newspaper articles were hearsay and also unrelated to proceedings); Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F.Supp.2d 1074 (C.D.Cal.2005) (Even when the actual statements quoted in a newspaper article constitute nonhearsay, or fall within a hearsay exception,......