Santa Paws, the magic of Christmas and a posse of elves

Paws portrayed while meditating on the difficult
relationship between copyright and magical icicles

Just in time for Christmas, three writers have brought an action against Disney and Others before the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division, claiming copyright infringement in their 1991 copyright children's story Santa Paws. In particular, they allege that 2009 and 2010 Disney film screenplays and direct to home video motion pictures Santa Buddies: The Legend of Santa Paws and The Search for Santa Paws (the "Santa Paws Films") are unauthorised copies of their script and ask the Court order an accounting of the revenues generated by the Santa Paws Films, as well as compensation for the harms suffered.

The main plot thread of the plaintiffs' script is about a dog which is given as a gift to Santa Claus, who names it "Paws". When the Christmas spirit in little boys and girls begins to dwindle (as evidenced by a magical Christmas tree whose lights begin to dim with the fading Christmas spirit) at the hands of the evil ice witch and her magical icicle, it is up to Paws to embark on an ultimately successful search and rescue mission to save Christmas.

The plaintiffs attempted to shop their script to entertainment industry contacts for the purpose of developing and commercially exploiting it. Among the others, a subsidiary of Disney expressed interest in producing Santa Paws. However, nothing came of it.

In 2009 and 2010 Disney began distributing the Santa Paws Films.

According to the plaintiffs, these are filled with substantial similarities to Santa Paws, including instances of verbatim lines of dialogue and screen activity at comparable key plot points, as well as similar uses of a magical icicle and magical Christmas tree in addition to the overarching similarity of expressing a story about Santa's new dog who saves Christmas in spite of the best efforts of a domineering and holiday-spiritless female antagonist.

As rightly pointed out by The Hollywood Reporter, the most entertaining part of the lawsuit is probably this statement by the plaintiffs' attorney:

"We understand Disney is investigating the matter. My clients feel strongly the investigation into the genesis of Santa Paws is something which should have been investigated by Disney and its posse of film making and distributing elves before they sucked in tens of millions of dollars in revenue. Santa knows who has been naughty and nice. It is my clients' position that Dickens could not have come up with a more Scrooge-like scenario. Why not just kick the crutch out from under Tiny Tim and sell it on eBay? It is my clients' genuine hope the true spirit of Christmas will prevail and the defendants will do the right thing for all who believe in Santa and the magic of Christmas."

In the Land of Blood and ... Copyright

Back in February this year, Croatian journalist James Braddock sued Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie and Others before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He claimed copyright infringement in his 2007 book The Soul Shattering, seeking also an emergency injunction against the film's release.

The book is a factual account of the tragedies suffered by Bosnian and Herzegovinan women and children during the Bosnian War and was originally published in Croatia. In particular, Mr Braddock claims that a film written and directed by Ms Jolie – In the Land of Blood and Honey –, which is due to be released in the U.S. next 23 December and has already attracted some criticism, amounts to an infringement of his copyright.

Mr Braddock asserts that in a few occasions he was approached by the defendant Mr Eden Sarkic, an executive film producer in the Bosnian region with Scout Film, to discuss the possibility of creating a film from his own book. Mr Braddock also came in touch with Ms Jolie’s Make It Right charity, seeking to establish a partnership to build villages or houses across desolated cities, including Sarajevo and New Orleans.

In 2010, the plaintiff learned that Ms Jolie had been involved in the making of a new film to be set in Bosnia, for which Mr Sarkic appeared to be an executive producer. Scout Film was also actively involved in the production.

According to Mr Braddock, In the Land of Blood and Honey has striking similarities with The Soul Shattering. In particular, he claims that these concern:

• Key plot elements - Both the works illustrate a love story which takes place in war-torn Bosnia and Herzegovina in the early 1990s;
  
• Characters - In both works, the main female character is a Croatian living in Sarajevo, who is captured and imprisoned in a Serbian-held concentration camp located in a village. This, according to the plaintiff, is unusual, since most camps were located in abandoned industrial or agricultural complexes. In addition to this, the main female character is subject to continuous abuse and rape by soldiers and officers in the camp and is forced to become a servant at the camp headquarters, a duty which was apparently assumed by very few of the captives. Also, the book’s and film’s main male character is the deputy camp commander, the son of a high-ranking “Greater Serbian” nationalist and officer of the Yugoslav People Army, who struggles with his own emotions and his military duty. Amidst his struggle, he helps the main female character escape from the camp.
  
• Events, sequences and settings.

This being the background to the case, a couple of days ago, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Angelina Jolie said that she has never read Mr Braddock’s book. The actress played down the lawsuit, stating: “It's par for the course. It happens on almost every film". She added: “There are many books and documentaries that I did pull from. It's a combination of many people's stories …  But that particular book I've never seen."
There is no doubt that the case of plots is a very difficult and fascinating one in the realm of copyright. Furthermore, US case law has not been very consistent so far. We’ll see what happens next and to which of the parties the Court’s decision will actually look a jolie one.