Cameo Clips

Copyright Infringement/Collateral Estoppel

The creators of a film treatment weren't collaterally estopped by a prior ruling against a writer of the treatment's screenplay from pursuing a copyright infringement claim against the defendants that the screenplay writer had unsuccessfully sued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided. Kourtis v. Cameron, 03-56703. Filia and Constantinos Kourtis created the concept for a movie titled “The Minotaur” about a half-human, half, nonhuman character, then hired William Green to write the screenplay. Filmmaker James Cameron considered but passed on the project. Green later sued but lost his case against Cameron for copyright infringement over the film “Terminator II: Judgment Day.” After winning a suit in Australia against Green over copyright ownership of “The Minotaur,” the Kourtises then sued Cameron, his agents and film producer Mario Kassar. The district court dismissed the Kourtises' complaint.

Reversing in part, the appeals court first found that because Green's screenplay was based on the Kourtises treatment, the infringement claim against the Cameron defendants was the same as the one that had been earlier litigated by Green. But the circuit court concluded that the Kourtises weren't collaterally estopped from pursuing their “Terminator II” infringement claim against Cameron because the Kourtises weren't in privity with Green. According to the court: “The one-time agency relationship between Green and the Kourtises does not satisfy the adequacy-of-representation requirement. Green was not acting as the Kourtises' agent when pursuing his claim against Cameron: the Kourtises did not direct him to file suit and they did not stand to share in the recovery if he prevailed. … Moreover, Green's litigating position was adverse to the Kourtises because it was premised upon the allegation that he ' not the Kourtises ' owned the Minotaur copyright.”

A trial judge properly gave a jury an instruction of “Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors for Dangerous Conditions” in a premises-liability suit by a worker who claimed he was injured on a TV show set. Clancey v. Paramount Pictures Corp., B174969. Robert Clancey, who worked as a rigging grip on the TV series “Roswell,” contended that he became asthmatic after inhaling fiberglass particles from damaged soundproofing material while on the “Roswell” set. Clancey sued Paramount, which had leased the show's production studio to Tentieth Century Fox. Clancey wanted the trial judge to instruct the jury that Paramount was liable for negligent management of its property. But after the judge gave an “Independent Contractors” instruction instead, the jury ruled in favor of Paramount.

Affirming in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, noted: “The evidence presented at trial demonstrated Fox hired Clancey and maintained control over safety conditions while filming Roswell at Paramount.”

Copyright Infringement/Collateral Estoppel

The creators of a film treatment weren't collaterally estopped by a prior ruling against a writer of the treatment's screenplay from pursuing a copyright infringement claim against the defendants that the screenplay writer had unsuccessfully sued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided. Kourtis v. Cameron, 03-56703. Filia and Constantinos Kourtis created the concept for a movie titled “The Minotaur” about a half-human, half, nonhuman character, then hired William Green to write the screenplay. Filmmaker James Cameron considered but passed on the project. Green later sued but lost his case against Cameron for copyright infringement over the film “Terminator II: Judgment Day.” After winning a suit in Australia against Green over copyright ownership of “The Minotaur,” the Kourtises then sued Cameron, his agents and film producer Mario Kassar. The district court dismissed the Kourtises' complaint.

Reversing in part, the appeals court first found that because Green's screenplay was based on the Kourtises treatment, the infringement claim against the Cameron defendants was the same as the one that had been earlier litigated by Green. But the circuit court concluded that the Kourtises weren't collaterally estopped from pursuing their “Terminator II” infringement claim against Cameron because the Kourtises weren't in privity with Green. According to the court: “The one-time agency relationship between Green and the Kourtises does not satisfy the adequacy-of-representation requirement. Green was not acting as the Kourtises' agent when pursuing his claim against Cameron: the Kourtises did not direct him to file suit and they did not stand to share in the recovery if he prevailed. … Moreover, Green's litigating position was adverse to the Kourtises because it was premised upon the allegation that he ' not the Kourtises ' owned the Minotaur copyright.”

A trial judge properly gave a jury an instruction of “Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors for Dangerous Conditions” in a premises-liability suit by a worker who claimed he was injured on a TV show set. Clancey v. Paramount Pictures Corp., B174969. Robert Clancey, who worked as a rigging grip on the TV series “Roswell,” contended that he became asthmatic after inhaling fiberglass particles from damaged soundproofing material while on the “Roswell” set. Clancey sued Paramount, which had leased the show's production studio to Tentieth Century Fox. Clancey wanted the trial judge to instruct the jury that Paramount was liable for negligent management of its property. But after the judge gave an “Independent Contractors” instruction instead, the jury ruled in favor of Paramount.

Affirming in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, noted: “The evidence presented at trial demonstrated Fox hired Clancey and maintained control over safety conditions while filming Roswell at Paramount.”