Search Articles
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — Disney and the company suing it on claims the House of Mouse vicariously used copyrighted facial motion capture technology in several movies without permission finally saw trial kick off after years of legal wrangling.
Attorneys made their opening arguments in an Oakland courtroom before U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar on Wednesday. Plaintiff Attorneys for Reardon — which developed the MOVA Contour technology at issue — argued Disney benefited from access to the facial performance motion capture tech by contracting with the company DD3, which employed a former Rearden employee.
Rearden claims the employee stole equipment and copies of a copyrighted software program from a secure facility before he left for DD3 in 2013. Disney hired DD3 to create lifelike animated characters for hit films — including 2017’s “Beauty and the Beast” — with the MOVA Contour technology, which uses phosphorescent makeup on actors’ faces and synchronized cameras and software to transform expressions and movements into lifelike animations.
Rearden’s attorney Jerrod Patterson said Rearden was key to developing the tech which makes movie characters like Hulk realistically carry an actor’s expression on a computer-animated image.
Motion capture technology development at Rearden began in 1999 to tackle the problem of “the uncanny valley” where lifelike characters can be represented in computer-animated films. Its tech went on to be used in many films, including in the “Harry Potter” and “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchises.
Patterson said the technology was then stolen from Rearden by DD3 and eventually used by Disney in “Beauty and the Beast,” The technology was critical to create Beast, he said, detailing the film’s plot and the need for viewers to believe in the central love story.
“The only way to do that is to make the Beast more lifelike,” he said, showing clips of actor Dan Stevens in a motion capture rig.
Patterson said his team will prove that DD3 got MOVA from a former Rearden employee and that Disney benefited financially from DD3’s infringing the MOVA copyright, and failed to exercise its rights to control DD3 activity.
When a DD3 affiliate which the employee had given MOVA to later sued Rearden, a resulting trial determined Rearden owned the assets it lost due to bankruptcy in 2012 and DD3 was ordered to stop using it. Patterson said Disney attorney Jon Chow knew about that order but did not immediately tell Disney production staff rushing to finish “Beauty and the Beast.”
“He failed utterly to supervise what DD3 did,” Patterson said. “Why did he do this? Disney directly benefited financially.”
Disney attorney John Spiegel told jurors that Rearden is going after the company for what DD3 had done and has acknowledged Disney did not infringe the copyright.
“Disney respects the law of copyright,” Spiegel said, adding he will show Disney did everything that was practical to ensure that DD3 was not committing infringement, and that Rearden left that out.
Spiegel showed DD3’s contract with Disney, which said no services being offered would violate any company’s copyright. He said the company had already worked with DD3 on films like “Maleficent” and “The Avengers.”
“Disney took this practical step of making DD3 agree to this contract to make sure that DD3 only used software on ‘Beauty and the Beast’ that it had the legal right to use,” Spiegel said. “It’s the standard practice in the movie industry.”
He downplayed the value of MOVA tech and said that contrary to Rearden’s claims, “who owned the MOVA assets was in question the entire time ‘Beauty and the Beast’ was being made.”
It has been a long, complicated road to trial. Tigar previously dismissed some claims against Disney, finding Rearden had not plausibly shown DD3 used the MOVA software.
Rearden has argued Disney knew about and could have stopped DD3’s purported infringement, because Disney had the right to terminate DD3’s services under contracts for the two films. It seeks damages and claims about $400 million of lost net profits.
To succeed, Reardon must convince jurors that Disney got access to MOVA from DD3 and from a former Rearden employee, that Disney benefited financially from DD3’s infringement of the MOVA copyright and that Disney failed to exercise its rights to control DD3 activity to ensure there was no infringement.
Follow @nhanson_reportsSubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.