Disney Facing VFX Firm's Injunction Bid on Three Blockbuster Films (hollywoodreporter.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney Facing VFX Firm's Injunction Bid on Three Blockbuster Films (hollywoodreporter.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday July 21, 2017 @02:40AM from the hot-water dept.

From a report: 'Guardians of the Galaxy,' 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' and 'Beauty and the Beast' are now under the microscope for use of facial capture technology. Upping the stakes over a technology called "performance motion capture," Rearden LLC is going after The Walt Disney Company in a lawsuit filed this week. The plaintiff, a firm incubated by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Perlman, is demanding an injunction prohibiting Disney from distributing Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Beauty and the Beast. The new lawsuit comes a year after Rearden scored a startling injunction against two Chinese firms that purchased allegedly stolen technology known as MOVA, which was being licensed by Digital Domain 3.0. At the time, some legal observers were reading the ruling as notice to Hollywood studios that the facial motion capture technology was out of play. According to Rearden's latest lawsuit in California federal court, Disney didn't listen. "Disney used the stolen MOVA Contour systems and methods, made derivative works, and reproduced, distributed, performed, and displayed at least Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Beauty and the Beast, in knowing or willfully blind violation of Rearden Mova LLC's intellectual property rights."

95 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Frosty Pist by amalcolm · 2017-07-21 02:44 · Score: 0

+1 insightful /s

--
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

America deserves what it's going to get. Since when does using a program grant the author of said programs rights on works produced by said program? Sure, maybe Disney is liable for using unlicensed copy(ies), in which case they need to be penalized for doing so - according to the number of unlicensed copies used. However the author does not automatically acquire rights on original works produced with said program. The author of a word processor does not get royalties on the book you wrote, the owner of a paint gun does not get royalties on the building you painted and the inventor of a car does not get a share of the prize you won in the stock car race. Of course in America, everything is different. So I expect American courts to fuck up IP law even further, so that the whole world can be fucked into one party suing the other party forever and nothing ever getting done.
1. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But Disney MADE those IP laws so dumb. They should reap the whirlwind.
2. Re:Messed up IP laws by thaylin · 2017-07-21 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Who says they are claiming any ownership rights? They are getting an injunction from them using their technologies to create the film, until they are paid for their use of the technologies. this is no different then you creating a processor and me putting putting it in computers and selling those computers.
  I am typically critical of IP laws but this seems pretty cut and dry.
  To use your analogy:
  "The author of a word processor does not get royalties on the book you wrote"
  If the word processor application was stolen then the author would be liable for theft and the works he written possibly not sell able until that is settled.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
3. Re:Messed up IP laws by jedidiah · 2017-07-21 02:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No. They are trying to hijack the ownership rights of works created using software. If this passes legal muster, the implications are very ugly. Like "copyrights on APIs" kind of ugly.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
4. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is no such thing as IP law. There are copyright, patents and trademark laws. Which is it? The 3 of these laws have nothing to do with each other.
5. Re: Messed up IP laws by guruevi · 2017-07-21 03:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is also contract law. If the contract between two businesses states that the company should get royalties or attribution for works produced by the software, then it's entirely possible that they are due royalties and an injunction against further distribution/sales would be possible.
  This is entirely possible under e.g. Creative Commons. Let's say you license something under Creative Commons with Attribution and Disney uses your work without attribution, you would have the right to ask a judge to pull all media (DVD, BluRay etc) and rework it so they put your name in the credits.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
6. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  and the works he written possibly not sell able until that is settled.
  Why so? If my neighbor steals my hammer then all I want is my hammer back. Whether he built a house with it while it was stolen is irrelevant.
7. Re:Messed up IP laws by rogoshen1 · 2017-07-21 03:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This. Exactly this. It couldn't have happened to a nicer company.
8. Re:Messed up IP laws by Dunbal · 2017-07-21 03:45 · Score: 2
  
  I lent my pen to Bob and you stole the pen from Bob now every check you sign with that pen belongs to me. Yup, makes sense (shaking my head)...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
9. Re: Messed up IP laws by Dunbal · 2017-07-21 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  If the contract between two businesses states that the company should get royalties or attribution for works produced by the software, then it's entirely possible that they are due royalties
  You can't have a contract with someone and hope to enforce that contract on the 3rd party. Otherwise let's you and me sign a contract right now saying that any money earned by any of your neighbors is mine forever. Rearden LLC had a licensing agreement with one or more Chinese firms. Disney might have "borrowed" software from said Chinese firms. Said Chinese firms might even be liable TO DISNEY for not warning Disney about their arrangement with Rearden LLC. Disney never made any arrangements with Rearden LLC. Rearden LLC can go after the Chinese firms to try to enforce said contract. GOOD LUCK enforcing it with Disney.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
10. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  But movies (and any "intellectual property" is not a house. It's entirely idea. And copyright or patent or even trademark inist that ideas CAN BE OWNED. And, moreover, that deriving new works from "someone else's" idea is theft.
  To "IP" your house building is like the neighbour took your bricks and made the house.
11. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. You noted the exact point where thaylin's argument went off the rails. A book is not a 'derivative work' of a word processor. If the software in question cost 100,000 dollars or 100 billion dollars, it would seem the proper action would be to sue Disney for a dollar amount. Not to claim that the works created using the tool are somehow yours to control now.
12. Re:Messed up IP laws by Daetrin · 2017-07-21 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  Are they? IANAL, but my understanding is that one of the intent of injunctions is to get companies to pay legal expenses in some way related to the thing the injunction is against. It doesn't _necessarily_ claim that Rearden owns a portion of the films, it may only be to prevent Disney from continuing to profit from them until they have paid the fees they should have originally paid to Rearden for the use of the software, plus some kind of legal penalty (especially if the violation is egregious as Rearden claims.)
  
  Unfortunately TFA isn't very clear on exactly what they're asking for. "Besides an injunction, Rearden also demands actual damages and profits attributed to infringement." "Profits" could be anything from the standard licensing fee (whatever that is) to a few percent from the box office.
  
  --
  This Space Intentionally Left Blank
13. Re:Messed up IP laws by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2017-07-21 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No. They are trying to hijack the ownership rights of works created using software. If this passes legal muster, the implications are very ugly. Like "copyrights on APIs" kind of ugly.
  Not really. They are saying Disney used a stolen device to produce those works and thus they are not entitled to distribute any of the resulting products. They don't claim to own the product, just that Disney should not be allowed to benefit from their actions until the issue is resolved. To use a car analogy, If I get a sale Ford fender stamping machine and started to sell fenders Ford would get an injunction to stop that. Just because this is a software product doesn't make the idea any different.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
14. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  To "IP" your house building is like the neighbour took your bricks and made the house.
  ... except you still have all your bricks.
15. Re: Messed up IP laws by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2017-07-21 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  If the contract between two businesses states that the company should get royalties or attribution for works produced by the software, then it's entirely possible that they are due royalties
  You can't have a contract with someone and hope to enforce that contract on the 3rd party. Otherwise let's you and me sign a contract right now saying that any money earned by any of your neighbors is mine forever. Rearden LLC had a licensing agreement with one or more Chinese firms. Disney might have "borrowed" software from said Chinese firms. Said Chinese firms might even be liable TO DISNEY for not warning Disney about their arrangement with Rearden LLC. Disney never made any arrangements with Rearden LLC. Rearden LLC can go after the Chinese firms to try to enforce said contract. GOOD LUCK enforcing it with Disney.
  Except Rearden is claiming Disney knew the machine may have been stolen, based on previous contracts with Reardon, and still used it; so they should have been aware of the contractual agreements and thus acted in bad faith.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
16. Re: Messed up IP laws by Dunbal · 2017-07-21 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  Still doesn't give Rearden a cut of Disney's movie income. How much is a license for the software? OK. We'll pay that. Sorry.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
17. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, it'd be terrible if licenses were enforcable. If I rip off GPLed code and sell a product without following the license, the government has no right to stop me profiting from that stolen code.
18. Re: Messed up IP laws by Miamicanes · 2017-07-21 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  No, because you still have the bricks.
  It's more like going out of your way to make your house look cool & unique, then having your neighbor copy it brick-for-brick, simultaneously making YOUR house look like a tacky clone AND devaluing it in the process.
  Infringement isn't theft. Infringement is infringement. Its closest legal analogue is trespass.
  That said, the US has *radically* expanded the scope of IP law over the past 50 years, and much of that expansion has been at the specific behest of Disney. So on one hand... they deserve it. On the other hand, a Disney defeat will ultimately make things even worse for everyone. The ideal, delicious irony would be for Disney to have to spend millions overturning a bad law they caused in the first place. My guess: if the plaintiff is remotely willing to be reasonable, Disney will suck it up, settle out of court, and view it off as an investment in preserving a law they might want to use in the future.
19. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Not irrelevant at all. Take tool rental for example. Generally you pay an hourly or daily rate to rent a tool. So what you are building with that tool does matter, because the bigger the project, the longer you need to rent it, the more you'll end up paying for the tool.
  
  Now, how that plays into the whole "you can't sell your house" thing, I don't know, and irrelevant to my point. My only point, is that what you built (or rather, how long you took to build it) is not irrelevant.
20. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Except you don't. To "IP" you lost your sole right to the idea that is "yours". And as long as someone else has used your "IP", you have lost that sole control, and it is that sole right that IS "IP".
  So, no, you don't get your bricks. Those bricks are still in the house your neighbour built.
21. Re:Messed up IP laws by Gadget_Guy · 2017-07-21 04:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They are trying to hijack the ownership rights of works created using software.
  Just repeating the claim doesn't make it right. Even if the injunction succeeds and monetary damages are awarded, the ownership of the films will still be in the clutches of Disney. Disney owns the films, it is just that they won't be able to distribute them (temporarily).
  
  If this passes legal muster, the implications are very ugly. Like "copyrights on APIs" kind of ugly.
  No, this isn't a precedent-setting case. It is quite normal for injunctions preventing the sale of offending products to be sought during legal cases.
22. Re:Messed up IP laws by Qzukk · 2017-07-21 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  TIL every Disney film comes with the animation software used to make it embedded in it.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
23. Re:Messed up IP laws by Qzukk · 2017-07-21 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  they are not entitled to distribute any of the resulting products
  If I steal a hammer and use it to build a house, the extent of punishment for stealing the hammer is a year or so in jail and/or paying for the hammer plus a fine. Home Depot can't tear down the house or stop people from living in it.
  
  If I get a sale Ford fender stamping machine and started to sell fenders
  Not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, but you're describing every third party aftermarket part maker ever. Unless you are stamping "Ford" onto the fender, then you're violating trademark law.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
24. Re:Messed up IP laws by MobyDisk · 2017-07-21 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  The company is not claiming they have rights on those works. They are asking for a temporary injunction until the case is resolved. Their claim is that Disney should have known that the software was not legally purchased, which makes us have less sympathy for Disney here. If it was a simple licensing dispute, an injunction might seem like overkill. But if Disney knew of it, the injunction is a way of saying "You can't continue to profit from this until you resolve the dispute, since you knew you were violating copyright here."
  
  ...The author of a word processor does not get royalties on the book you wrote...
  They do if that is what the contract says. This product is more like an SDK. Often times stuff like this involves specialty hardware that is leased or software and techniques that are paid for by royalties. The company is likely willing to tweak and make adjustments and provide support, in the hopes that they can profit from a
  blockbuster movie. They probably lose money if the film doesn't make enough revenue.
25. Re:Messed up IP laws by drinkypoo · 2017-07-21 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  If you get a cheap used Ford fender stamping die, you are well within your legal rights to use it (along with your own stamping machine) to make sloppy-ass new fenders from that worn-out die. You're not free to use the other die that they use to stamp their logo onto the fender without their permission, because of trademark and copyright law, but you're explicitly allowed to make copies of automobile parts so long as they are not protected by patent and if they sell you the die, then the die is yours.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
26. Re: Messed up IP laws by msauve · 2017-07-21 04:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "You can't have a contract with someone and hope to enforce that contract on the 3rd party. "
  
  They don't need to. It's a case of infringement. If I have the patent to a process and equipment to implement that process, you might contract for a license limited to using that process and equipment to produce your own products.
  
  If a third party borrows or steals that equipment from you and makes use of it without a license, they are infringing and any product they produce with it is tainted.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
27. Re: Messed up IP laws by MobyDisk · 2017-07-21 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  There are two problems here. The first is your question about the license cost.
  
  How much is a license for the software?
  What if the license is based on royalty payments? You can't let the infringer get around the royalty payment just because they pirated it. Then you would have companies going "$1 per copy, no way! I can pirate it, then just pay a fixed $500 to avoid the royalty, yay!"
  The second problem is that, if Disney did indeed know that they had "pirated" the software, then there can be punitive damages. That means that if the license said "$50 + a 6-pack of beer" the company can get triple damages, or a royalty, or some other such thing. The courts have to decide what is legal and fair according to the law.
28. Re:Messed up IP laws by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2017-07-21 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you get a cheap used Ford fender stamping die, you are well within your legal rights to use it (along with your own stamping machine) to make sloppy-ass new fenders from that worn-out die. You're not free to use the other die that they use to stamp their logo onto the fender without their permission, because of trademark and copyright law, but you're explicitly allowed to make copies of automobile parts so long as they are not protected by patent and if they sell you the die, then the die is yours.
  Correct, but in this case tehy apparently stole the die and machine; and used the patented and copyrighted technology as well.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
29. Re: Messed up IP laws by Dunbal · 2017-07-21 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  . If I have the patent to a process and equipment to implement that process
  While I'm not an attorney, I seem to recall that software patents are MIGHTY SPECIFIC. You can't patent a "process" and all those claims that just add "on a computer" or "on a mobile phone" to older, expired patents have already been tested in court and found to be hogwash. You might be able to patent a specific algorithm. They'd have to demonstrate that the software used the same algorithm.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
30. Re:Messed up IP laws by drinkypoo · 2017-07-21 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Correct, but in this case tehy apparently stole the die and machine; and used the patented and copyrighted technology as well.
  If anyone can buy it, then it's easy to figure out what the remedy is. If you can only license it, then the situation becomes more complicated. Which is the case for this software?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Messed up IP laws by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2017-07-21 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  If I get a sale Ford fender stamping machine and started to sell fenders
  Not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, but you're describing every third party aftermarket part maker ever. Unless you are stamping "Ford" onto the fender, then you're violating trademark law.
  I'm saying if someone stole (I just saw autocorrect turned my misspelling of stolen into sale and hence the confusion) Ford's stamping machine and you used to to make parts Ford could get an injunction stopping the sale of those parts. I realize it is legal to make aftermarket parts, using your own technology as long as you don't violate design patents; but that is not what appears to have happened here.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
32. Re:Messed up IP laws by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2017-07-21 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Correct, but in this case tehy apparently stole the die and machine; and used the patented and copyrighted technology as well.
  If anyone can buy it, then it's easy to figure out what the remedy is. If you can only license it, then the situation becomes more complicated. Which is the case for this software?
  Who knows. From various articles this appears to be a complicated situation involving some major figures as well as a bunch of off shore companies.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
33. Re:Messed up IP laws by Joviex · 2017-07-21 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  I lent my pen to Bob and you stole the pen from Bob now every check you sign with that pen belongs to me. Yup, makes sense (shaking my head)...
  This is an ugly analogy that fails to pass the smell test.
  
  They didnt steal a product that ANYONE CAN BUY IN A STORE FOR 10 CENTS.
  
  They stole tech, proprietary, not a world-wide distributed PEN.
  
  And they KNEW they did.
  
  Knowing is not just half the battle, its the whole intent.
34. Re:Messed up IP laws by Joviex · 2017-07-21 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  they are not entitled to distribute any of the resulting products
  If I steal a hammer and use it to build a house, the extent of punishment for stealing the hammer is a year or so in jail and/or paying for the hammer plus a fine. Home Depot can't tear down the house or stop people from living in it.
  You also cannot compare a widely used, generic tool i.e. hammer with something that is unique, i.e. proprietary software, that is not easy to access or available to joe public, thus rendering your cute analogy moot.
  
  Disney stole. They knew they stole. They made the IP laws around this very topic. They deserve everything they get.
35. Re:Messed up IP laws by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-07-21 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, this is just another in a long line of examples that software is not, nor has it ever been, patentable (based on the requirements for patents), regardless of what the USPTO says. Software should and must eventually be reverted to the realm of copyright. When this will happen is anyone's guess, but the sooner it happens, the better for us all...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
36. Re:Messed up IP laws by hord · 2017-07-21 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  While I hate IP laws, any time I can see Disney getting caught up in it, I smile. The rules makers love their rules... let's see if they love them when they actually have to play by them.
37. Re:Messed up IP laws by Jeremy+Erwin · 2017-07-21 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  The vehicles in question test for the presence of the Ford trademark, and reject the bumper if the trademark cannot be found.
38. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that in the Disney case the stolen technology is more expensive than a hammer only means that the penalty will be proportionally larger. Houses/movies made using the stolen hammer/technology can be used in court as evidence that the object was stolen, but not as something that is subject to be blocked by injunction. The value of the stolen property doesn't change that.
39. Re: Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Each movie copy violates the license. And for infringement the statutory fines can be $75,000 PER COPY. Given the copy is sold for $30, this could cut quite heavily into profits...
  Remember, Jammie Thomas was infringing on $200 of retail product. Yet because "thousands could have downloaded it", she was fined, what $2M before appeal?
40. Re:Messed up IP laws by Rolgar · 2017-07-21 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  But in this case, (if the MPAA's traditional argument is followed) they can cut off your access to the internet and fine you thousands of times the economic impact of the offence for something that's not actually theft.
  For a company making a movie, the equivalent in this case would be being locked out of theaters and BILLIONS in fines.
  I'm usually a live and let live kind of guy, but when somebody abuses the court system, using a high quantity of lawyers and delaying tactics to break opponents who have no chance of a fair day in court, I wouldn't mind seeing the same abuse heaped up on them as they've done to others in the past.
41. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's patent infringement, not theft, You can infringe patents all you want for personal use, but you can't sell anything which uses those patents. The patent holder is allowed to stop the sale of such products as they are allowed to control all public works related to their patent. If a house is built using a patented process which results in a house that is different from other houses, the patent holder is within their rights to demand all the infringing houses are destroyed even if someone else is living. Buying or receiving 'stolen' property isn't an excuse to keep it.
  If the nails were patented (there are nails for hurricanes, less squeaks, etc...) the patent holder is within their rights to pull out every nail from the house. Of course almost every company wouldn't do that because it would cost more money than they'd recover, but they could.
  If the hammer was patented and the driven in nails were normal (hammer just had an odd shaped handle), then there'd be no claim on the nails. If the nails were driven in in a way that only this patented hammer could produce (like makes a star on the nail head), then the patent holder could go after the nails too.
  Disney couldn't have made the voice sync effect without using their software, so they have a claim against everything publicly released which contains those visuals.
42. Re: Messed up IP laws by david_thornley · 2017-07-21 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  The USPTO has granted software patents that look awful general to me, although the courts have been stomping on that to some extent. Rearden is claiming that Disney illegally infringed on their patents in the production of three (and perhaps more) movies. Presumably they have some way to show that, and the court will decide.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
43. Re:Messed up IP laws by david_thornley · 2017-07-21 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Courts have upheld software patents, so they are legal. Rearden claims copyright and trademark infringement also.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
44. Re:Messed up IP laws by Headw1nd · 2017-07-21 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I think in this case the work produced is just a tool used to force compensation. It is similar to a mechanics lien, you have a "claim" to the work, but it only extends as far as your losses/costs. In your example, the neighbor could be forced to sell the house in order to provide you with the $5 your hammer cost, but you would have no claim on the house otherwise.
45. Re: Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Movies haven't made profits in decades. The entire Star Wars saga still hasn't made even a dime in profits.
46. Re:Messed up IP laws by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-07-21 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that old men with no clue have upheld software patents, but my argument is based around the plain language reading of the law that defines what can be patented. The law requires that only processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter can be patented. Software does not fall under one of these categories... http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/r...
  Most legal scholars agree there is a strong argument against any software being granted a patent because there is no physicality to software, it is in essence a purely theoretical thing and therefore falls under copyright. You can patent the hardware that the software runs on, but the software it'self is an algorithm. It is knowledge (as evidenced by being able to be copied with no physical form). Unfortunately, software megacorps have wormed their way into the patent office, because patents give you an exclusivity that extends to the concept, rather than that specific work only... But that doesn't mean that software patents aren't actually a violation of basic patent law requirements. It just means that we have incompetents running the USPTO and sitting on the bench (big surprise).
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
47. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  You are quite confused. Patents only protect against selling something which *uses* the patent when you use the product. Watching a movie doesn't use the patent.
  
  you can't sell anything which uses those patents
  You can't sell software that does facial capture using those patents. A movie isn't such software.
  
  If a house is built using a patented process
  You can't sell a device that can build a house using the patented process. The house isn't such a device.
48. Re: Messed up IP laws by msauve · 2017-07-21 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  You're referring to the ability to take an existing process, and add a simple "on a computer" to it to create a new patent.
  
  That clearly doesn't apply here - unless you can point to some prior art which does motion capture/CGI without a computer.
  
  Process patents are well established as legitimate.
  
  You can certainly disagree with all intellectual property law - there are legitimate arguments on either side - but this is not a case of "on a computer."
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
49. Re:Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  each copy of the movie *uses* the patented tech. Either that or pantone et al (including all the logo registrations and font patents) are void and null, being useless.
50. Re: Messed up IP laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  It was the OP who used the "house/hammer/brick" idea. The analogy is bad, but the only way to make it even close is to make the bricks permanently used in the house. That it falls over still is why the OPs idea isn't analogous, only different.
51. Re:Messed up IP laws by david_thornley · 2017-07-24 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Processes can include software, and they're patentable. I understand that software patents have some boilerplate language to make them legal, and I also believe that some innovations in software should be patentable (the spreadsheet is an example).
  I agree that the laws should be changed, and probably won't be.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Isn't this how Hollywood got it's start? by rsilvergun · 2017-07-21 02:49 · Score: 3, Informative

move outside the reach of copyright and film film film.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Isn't this how Hollywood got it's start? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  How did that extra apostrophe get its start? it's means it is
2. Re:Isn't this how Hollywood got it's start? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-07-21 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Fucking apostrophes. How do they work?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
3. Re: Isn't this how Hollywood got it's start? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Not very well apparently
HAHA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 02:50 · Score: 0

If they didn't have copyright extended to 50 billion years they would have been free of this by now.
What goes around.
FaceRig by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:06 · Score: 0

Is this going to be a problem for FaceRig as well?
(Incidentally, is anyone aware of free/open software to do facial motion capture? Would sure be nice to have in Blender...)
As a content creator by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:11 · Score: 0

Disney must protect its copyrights or risk losing them.
1. Re:As a content creator by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  bullshit. You confuse trademarks with copyright.
2. Re:As a content creator by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  I got a Black Amazon Dot, which matches my vintage 2006 Black Macbook.
Karma by imrahilj · 2017-07-21 03:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is it wrong that I feel amused that this is happening to Disney, after all Disney has done to ruin copyright law?
1. Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this sure would be jacked-up copyright law.
  "Disney used the stolen MOVA Contour systems and methods, made derivative works..."
  If even the plaintiff's lawyers don't understand what a derivative work is, what hope is there for courts to get any of this right?
  Quick primer: a derivative work is a new work that derives from the content of a previous work- a translation, a sequel, a tv adaptation, etc. It is emphatically not something that attaches to the method of production. Recording my movie's sound with THX equipment does NOT make it a Star Wars film. I'd actually need a Skywalker or two, the Force, something...
2. Re:Karma by Megane · 2017-07-21 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure we'll be seeing them sponsor a law to shorten the length of patents any day now.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
3. Re:Karma by johannesg · 2017-07-21 06:25 · Score: 2
  
  Is it wrong that I feel amused that this is happening to Disney, after all Disney has done to ruin copyright law?
  It's schadenfreude, and that is a perfectly legitimate form of entertainment.
4. Re:Karma by david_thornley · 2017-07-21 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  In many cases, a finished product will have parts that are patented or copyrighted. Gnu's gcc leaves copyrighted code in the runtime, and that (and glibc) come with special licenses that make it legal to use gcc and glibc to create non-GPLed software.
  There's also the claim that Disney knowingly and illegally used Rearden technology to profit, and may not profit further from the illegal action until the situation is resolved. That's actually pretty standard.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
complicated... by Goldsmith · 2017-07-21 03:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

The Hollywood Reporter has done a series of good articles on this... worth searching through what's been reported over the last year, it's amazing. There's a mysteriously killed Chinese billionaire, a Silicon Valley inventor giving away his IP because he thinks it's worthless (and it was worthless until the Oscar won by the guys using it), and a ton of extremely shady lawyers.
Both Perlman and LaSalle have been screwed over here, and they both deserve some of the blame for this. Neither one appears to have understood how to commercialize the technology. They were good friends, but they were not able to separate the ups and downs of friendship from their business relationship.
1. Re:complicated... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-07-21 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Both Perlman and LaSalle have been screwed over here, and they both deserve some of the blame for this. Neither one appears to have understood how to commercialize the technology. They were good friends, but they were not able to separate the ups and downs of friendship from their business relationship.
  Thanks for that info that the Hollywood Reporter has a series on this (I didn't quote that part of your post to save space). Yeah, from reading the article this seemed to me to be more about spillover from the Perlman vs. LaSalle case than "Disney stole my stuff because they are EVIL!" Disney has a really good legal team so my guess is that Perlman gets paid off, but nowhere near close to what he thinks he'll get, and everything is resolved confidentially. Probably won't be in his best interests to fight this in court and potentially end up with a ruling that he doesn't own squat and on top of that he just ran up a gigantic legal bill.
2. Re:complicated... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  (I didn't quote that part of your post to save space).
  That's okay, you used up the saved space with this parenthetical comment, anyway, which has now been further duplicated, thus wasting more space.
No Harm by Rashkae · 2017-07-21 03:49 · Score: 1

The request for injunction is completely baseless and fails any legal requirement for even requesting one. This is just a media hound lawyer trying to grab headlines, and doesn't speak well for the merits of the case to begin with.
There is no harm to Rearden from the continued distribution of these movies while the courts figure out how many millions (if any) Disney owes them, ergo no grounds for injunctive relief.
All of the above by tepples · 2017-07-21 03:51 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as IP law.
The liability limitation part of the Communications Decency Act, codified as 47 USC 230, states in part: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property." Interestingly enough, it defines "Internet" but not "intellectual property", which I assume it leaves up to the federal court system to define.

There are copyright, patents and trademark laws. Which is it?
All of the above. From the featured article: "Now, Rearden is now bringing patent, copyright and trademark claims against Disney."
An injunction is necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:58 · Score: 1

Otherwise the big movie company will just slow down the case until the accusers run out of money and can't afford justice. This injunction means that the movie company cannot afford to just wait this out, therefore they will push for a quick resolution.
Remember all those bits about the right to a speedy trial?
1. Re:An injunction is necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  You only have the right to a speedy trial in criminal cases; this is civil.
  I am not a layer, but from my understanding for an injunction to be granted there would have to be ongoing harm. An injunction against Digital Domain to stop doing business with stolen equipment would make sense (apparently it even has the property tags still on it, but it's more complicated as the person who stole it helped develop it). An injunction against the movies being distributed makes less sense as it is hard to show ongoing harm.
2. Re:An injunction is necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  This is correct, and the basis for injunctions.
  In fact, the continuing revenue from these products, should their claim be found to be correct, would increase the final amount due to the plaintiff. That they are asking for an injunction is an incredibly clear sign to the court that the plaintiff is attempting to maximise damage to the defendant rather than be made whole.
3. Re:An injunction is necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  Or trying to minimise the penalty to the defendant. Remember the copyright law has an infringement beyond the value of the goods PER COPY. And even just per GUESS at a copy. Merely because thousands COULD have downloaded Jammie Thomas' ripped copies, she was charged with thousands of illegal copies being made.
  Each movie is an infringement of the owners rights and due a penalty above the cost of that copy.
  So an injunction ensures that the defendant is not made bankrupt by the eventual trial penalties.
4. Re:An injunction is necessary by david_thornley · 2017-07-21 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  The plaintiffs still aren't getting their cut. That's continuing harm.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:10 · Score: 0

Disney's not distributing those movies anymore anyway; you get them through BitTorrent.
The Mouse is the 800 lb gorilla. by MondoGordo · 2017-07-21 04:13 · Score: 1

I sincerely hope they succeed ... it would be delightful to see Disney hoist by their own petard as it were. But the Mouse is the 800 lb gorilla in the IP cage match arena and I'm guessing they'll come out on top.
A writ? This is my surprised face. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:36 · Score: 0

I have others.
Chain of Custody is a Mess by Orne · 2017-07-21 04:49 · Score: 5, Informative

The claim is Rearden, LLC (Pearlman) invents the MOVA technology, and licenses it to Digital Domain Media Group (DDMG). Pearlman hires LaSalle and become friends, but the MOVA technology doesn't quite catch on in the VFX world. In 2012, DDMG goes bankrupt, and reforms out of bankruptcy in China as Digital Domain Holdings Limited (DDHL).
Pearlman moved MOVA to OnLive Inc., declared it bankrupt, and moved the tech ownership to OL2 (a holding company operated by Lauder). In 2012, one of the Rearden partners (LaSalle) wanted to sell the technology to DDHL claiming Rearden wasn't doing anything with it. Lauder sells MOVA to Lauder Partners, who sells it to LaSalle's company MO2 LLC. DDHL instead arranged for MOVA to be sold from MO2 to SHST (Chinese subsidiary of DDHL), who licensed the technology back to DD3 (American subsidiary of DDHL). LaSalle then goes to work for DD3.
In 2015, DD3 sells the MOVA service to Disney. Disney uses the technology in several live-action movies and makes a crap-ton of money. Pearlman now claims whaa? and reforms as Rearden MOVA, claming that they still own the tech. Pearlman claims that LaSalle violated his contract's inventions agreement by selling intellectual property owned by the parent company.
In 2015, SHST attempts to preemptively sue Rearden that it has the rights to MOVA, and Rearden should stop using the name. Meanwhile they transfer MOVA to Virtue Global Holdings Limited (VGH, subsidiary of DDHL). In court, SHST/VGH fails to provide documentation that they owned the software, are counter-sued, and lose; VGH and SSTL are told to stop claming they own the software. DDHL later comes under investigation by Chinese regulators for creating a ton of shell companies to hide profits from the Chinese government.
Rearden claims that
1) they have the rights to MOVA, not DDHL,
2) that DDHL violated software export laws and shouldn't have been allowed to sell MOVA to SHST in the first place,
3) that DD3 didn't have the rights to license the MOVA technology to Disney, and
4) Disney owes a share of their revenue to Reardon MOVA, the parent of Reardon, LLC.
The only thing clear to me is that all of the parties involved are playing the "Hollywood profit hiding" game of creating shell companies to change who declares the revenues, moving profits among the shell companies, then declaring them bankrupt.
1. Re:Chain of Custody is a Mess by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Some student loan companies just failed at this game too.
2. Re:Chain of Custody is a Mess by Headw1nd · 2017-07-21 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks you, that is a hell of a summary. It's like being back in the the old /.
3. Re:Chain of Custody is a Mess by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Good explanation, thank you.
  
  Rearden claims that
  1) they have the rights to MOVA, not DDHL,
  2) that DDHL violated software export laws and shouldn't have been allowed to sell MOVA to SHST in the first place,
  3) that DD3 didn't have the rights to license the MOVA technology to Disney, and
  4) Disney owes a share of their revenue to Reardon MOVA, the parent of Reardon, LLC.
  I do not see how (even assuming the court finds claims 1-3 to be valid) claim number 4 follows.
  In order to make any claim against Disney, Rearden would have to show that Disney acted in bad faith, e.g. that Disney new (or should have known) it was purchasing stolen property. Otherwise the most Rearden could hope to get is an injunction against Disney to cease and desist any further use of the technology unless Disney properly licenses it from Rearden.
Re:Chain of Custody is a Mess -- OnLine by Orne · 2017-07-21 07:53 · Score: 2

Interesting. This is the same Steve Pearlman who invented QuickTime and WebTV.
OnLive Inc. was a cloud-based gaming platform around 2009, that users could play full versions of games, but required dedicated hardware per users on the server side. They never got the costs down before it folded.
Apparently the "declared it bankrupt" involved a legal loophole calld Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors that absolved Perlman of any debt responsibilities by transferring ownership to Lauder Partners. Employees were essentially terminated without pay, with some rehired by the new firm headed by Gary Lauder. Lauder would soon fire Perlman, who would return to his incubator company Rearden Labs to invent DIDO/pCell (under the name Artemis).
So, if one could prove that MOVA was truly an asset of OnLive, then Rearden's argument falls apart, since that asset would have been transferred in the bankruptcy assignment. I assume the courts could not prove this.
Can't Disney just buy them? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 08:55 · Score: 0

Can't Disney just buy them?
Yup. Beautiful example by Kernel+Kurtz · 2017-07-21 09:00 · Score: 1

of what comes around, goes around.
It's a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 09:39 · Score: 0

It's a lawsuit. All they can get is money. They should sell themselves to Disney and Apple (Job's wife Laurene is Disney's largest shareholder). Deep pockets overcome turmoil. Everyone wins.
Why was this stuff patentable? by ChrisMaple · 2017-07-21 17:50 · Score: 1

Clutch Cargo is 58 years old now.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Disney? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:38 · Score: 0

I though Weta Digital https://www.wetafx.co.nz/ did the CGI/VFX for those movies, and so many more.