On Tuesday, January 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a copyright dispute concerning the iconic 1981 boxing movie “Raging Bull.” The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an heir to the early screenplay for what became the movie “Raging Bull,” can claim copyright infringement against MGM Holdings Inc. (MGM), and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment (20th Century Fox).
Paula Petrella’s father Frank Petrella wrote Jake LaMotta’s autobiography and contributed to the first draft of the “Raging Bull” screenplay in 1963. Petrella now claims that MGM and 20th Century Fox owe her money for infringing the copyright of her father’s screenplay. Petrella sued MGM in 2009 when they were marketing the movie on DVD. Petrella sought damages for the three years before and after her suit was filed and an injunction to halt the distribution of the film until a financial agreement was reached.
MGM and 20th Century Fox put their gloves up and argued that Petrella waited too long to assert her claim. MGM contends that since Congress added a provision to copyright law setting a three-year statute of limitations on copyright cases, the doctrine of laches limits late claims like Petrella’s. A federal district court in California and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of MGM and dismissed Petrella’s claim all together. The lower courts held that under the doctrine of laches, a party cannot file a suit after unreasonable lengths of time.
The Supreme Court Justices are now in different corners of the ring. Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling in favor of Petrella would change the economics of copyrights, and open the doors for copyright suits that should have been timely filed. Justice Scalia told Petrella’s lawyers that MGM “invested substantial amounts of money, and then, when that money starts to pay off, you file suit and you get three years’ worth of their profits.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor thought otherwise, and thought that even if Petrella seeks damages at such a late date, perhaps there isn’t anything wrong. But Justice Sotomayor did recognize that given MGM’s reliance on Petrella’s failure to act for 18 years, “they shouldn’t be put out of business and told that they can’t continue their business.”
Petrella’s lawyers fought back that copyright is a property right, and comes with the right to exclude presumptively and “ought to remain on the table to exclude with injunctive relief.”
A ruling by the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June 2014.
‘Raging Bull’ Supreme Court Ruling Could Impact Hollywood’s Future Copyright Claims