Raging Bull court battle faces another round: Supreme Court rules that lawsuit claiming man’s idea was stolen to make film can proceed 

  • Supreme Court rules Paula Petrella can sue MGM seeking royalties from film
  • Her father Frank collaborated on two screenplays that inspired the movie
  • Court had ruled in 2009 that her claim was filed too late
  • But that decision has been reversed and she can proceed with her lawsuit
  • Fears more relatives could bring claims against movie studios 

By JENNIFER NEWTON

Published: | Updated:


The US Supreme Court has ruled that a copyright lawsuit over the 1980 Oscar-winning film 'Raging Bull' can go ahead despite the movie being more than 30 years old.

The film, starring Robert De Niro as Jake LaMotta and directed by Martin Scorsese, is the story of a boxer who has a self-destructive attitude and obsessive rage.

Frank Petrella collaborated with Mr LaMotta on a book and two screenplays, which is said to have inspired the movie. He died in 1981, passing copyright on to his daughter, Paula.

Scroll down for video

Robert De Niro played the lead character Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, with Frank Petrella said to have inspired the screenplay for the story

Robert De Niro played the lead character Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, with Frank Petrella said to have inspired the screenplay for the story

She tried to sue movie studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) in 2009 seeking royalties due to the continuing commercial use of the film, but the case was dismissed saying the delay of nearly two decades of bringing the case was unreasonable.

However, the Supreme Court has now reversed the ruling giving Ms Petrella the chance to resurrect her lawsuit.

The decision is said to be a blow to movie studios, which have long relied on the legal doctrine of unreasonable delay to prevent distant relatives and estates from bringing copyright claims years or decades after movies have been released.

Federal copyright law allows people to bring copyright claims within three years of an infringing act.

Ms Petrella's claim fell within that time because the studio continued to release the film on DVD and other formats for years and every new release essentially reset the clock for copyright purposes.

MGM argue that she delayed filing her case on purpose in hopes of getting more money, saying she waited until after the 25th anniversary of the movie in 2005 to press her claim.

But allowing the suit to go forward, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: 'There is nothing untoward about waiting to see whether an infringer is making money, so that litigation is worth the candle

'It will put at risk only a fraction of the income MGM has earned during that period and will work no unjust hardship on innocent third parties, such as consumers who have purchased copies of Raging Bull.

Mr Petrella's daughter Paula believes she is entitled to royalties from the film, pictured here, starring Mr De Niro, left and Joe Pesci, right

Mr Petrella's daughter Paula believes she is entitled to royalties from the film, pictured here, starring Mr De Niro, left and Joe Pesci, right

 

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the legal doctrine of unreasonable delay should apply to Ms Petrella's case because she waited 18 years after renewing her copyright to file a lawsuit.

The effect of delaying legal action can give plaintiffs an unfair advantage in a copyright claim as witnesses die and memories fade, Breyer said, and should be a viable defence.

Groups including the Motion Picture Association of America, Consumer Electronics Association, DirecTV and TiVo sided with MGM, arguing that it's unfair to allow plaintiffs to wait years or decades to file copyright claims while studios invest millions in their products.

Ms Petrella won support from groups including the Authors Guild and the Songwriters Guild of America in her case concerning the film Raging Bull

Ms Petrella won support from groups including the Authors Guild and the Songwriters Guild of America in her case concerning the film Raging Bull

But Ms Petrella won support from groups including the Authors Guild and the Songwriters Guild of America. They argued that the rolling three-year copyright protection is fair to artists and gives them incentive to create their works

Jan Constantine, general counsel for the Authors Guild said: 'This is definitely a victory for the little guy who don't have teams of lawyers and boundless financial resources.

While Brad Newberg, a copyright law expert at the Reed Smith law firm in Northern Virginia added: 'What you have now is the ability for a plaintiff to come out of the woodwork and say that some creative work that was a hit in the 70s, 80s or 90s belonged to them.

'I would say there's now going to be an explosion of these types of cases.'

Most watched News videos

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.