#Kung fu panda 1 summary trial#

The judge concluded that it is too early to determine this on summary judgment. вЂњGordonвЂ™s 20 copyright registrations provide evidence of similarities between the overall works and the two main panda characters that would allow rational jurors to reach differing conclusions,вЂќ the judge wrote.ДreamWorks also argued that regardless of the similarity, Kung Fu Panda was an independent creation, which would bar an infringement lawsuit. The judge also rejected attempts by DreamWorks to find in its favor on the issue of substantial similarity. All of these discrepancies must be resolved by the trier of fact, and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.вЂќ Later he maintained that he never opened unsolicited submissions at his office but sometimes opened them if they came to his home. вЂњAt his initial deposition, he indicated that he sometimes opened submissions and skimmed the opening paragraphs before concluding they were unsolicited materials and forwarding them to the legal department. вЂњKatzenberg appears to have provided conflicting testimony regarding his procedures for handling unsolicited submissions,вЂќ the judge continued.

PHOTOS: 10 Inappropriately Sexy Cartoon Characters вЂњAlthough DreamWorksвЂ™s policy required prompt return of unsolicited materials with a rejection letter, Gordon received only a letter, which made no mention of his submissions,вЂќ Tauro wrote. Gordon testified that he sent his вЂњPanda PowerвЂќ materials to Jeffrey Katzenberg at DreamWorks in October 1999. District Judge Joseph Tauro said genuine issues of fact remain as to the issue of access. HereвЂ™s an example:ДreamWorks had asserted that Gordon has failed to provide any evidence of access by anyone at DreamWorks to his art. He also included side-by-side comparisons of his work and DreamWorksвЂ™.

For example, he includes a picture of himself with former Disney president Michael Eisner. His complaint contained all sorts of illustrations and pictures. The plaintiff said he registered the work with the Copyright Office in 2000 and had submitted multiple packages of his work to studios including the Walt Disney Co. He says his work featured вЂњa Kung Fu fighting giant panda who likes to eat his companion, a rare small red panda who also is a Kung Fu fighter and a Kung Fu fighting super group known as the вЂњFive Fists of FuryвЂќ that consists of a tiger, crane, mantis, monkey and a venomless snake.вЂќ Gordon brought the lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court in February 2011 and is looking for statutory damages and any profits obtained from allegedly wrongful acts.ДЄccording to his amended complaint, Gordon has spent much of his lifetime creating characters and storylines including the вЂњKung Fu Panda property,вЂќ which he says was developed in the 1990s.

#Kung fu panda 1 summary trial#

The judgeвЂ™s decision potentially sets the stage for an uncommon occurrence in Hollywood: a trial concerning a major studio in which a jury would determine whether the plaintiffвЂ™s work was stolen or the studio independently created its hit film. WhatвЂ™s even more extraordinary is not only did the artist, Jayme Gordon, survive a summary judgment motion but also a judgeвЂ™s pronouncement that he spoiled evidence in the case. PHOTOS: 5 of HollywoodвЂ™s Female Directors to Know