Followers of Pirates of the Caribbean should pay attention because we have a fresh update upon this case. A California Federal Judge Marshall just blocked Disney’s attempt to dismiss a case involving the widely known Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
This dispute dates back to November 2017, when Lee Alfred II and Ezequiel Martinez Jr. filed a lawsuit against Disney over through the franchise. The duo claimed that their spec film challenged pirate stereotypes by making Davy Jones amusing rather than terrifying and that their work was plagiarised to a large amount during the development of Jack Sparrow when their producer forwarded it to Disney.
In May 2019, Disney experienced defeat when District Court Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granted its motion to dismiss after seeing similarities between the 2000 spec as well as the 2003 blockbuster ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of a Black Pearl,’ which was full of unprotected conventional pirate fare. The case was then reopened by the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals in July of 2020. The Circuit Court, on the other hand, determined that the script was substantially similar to the picture to withstand a request to dismiss.
However, the appeals court stated that it was premature to declare the identical parts unprotect able and that further data and expert testimony would be beneficial. “It would be particularly relevant in this instance, since the works in question are over twenty years old as well as the blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise may also have changed which is now regarded as pirate-movie clichés,” the court wrote in its judgment.
Disney was handled by lawyers Alfred and Martinez in court. They also submitted an additional case lately, asking for summary judgment, which Marshall fiercely refused owing to contradictory expert testimony. Disney understands my argument that the writers’ experts were inexperienced with the pirate’s type as well as the legal analysis that now the substantial similarity determination is founded on. “These arguments have been to the weight of Plaintiffs’ report,” Marshall explained, “and the Court cannot evaluate evidence on summary judgment.”
In the order, Marshall writes, “Plaintiffs’ expert opines that the parties’ works are substantially similar and share original elements, whereas Defendant’s expert opines that the parties’ works are not substantially similar and those common elements in the parties’ works are common in the pirate genre generally.” “A real question of material fact in dispute regarding whether the works are substantially similar is thereby created by the judgments of the parties’ experts.”