yet again.....a BS lawsuit

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
NJ diving dentist says 'Nemo' film was his idea

The Associated Press
Posted February 16, 2005, 7:36 AM EST



NEWARK, N.J. -- A scuba-diving dentist says Disney and Pixar Animation Studios stole the idea for the hit film "Finding Nemo" from him.

In a lawsuit filed this week in U.S. District Court in Newark, Dennis G. Sternberg, 56, of Allenhurst, said he used experiences as a diver to create an underwater adventure story for children in 1991. He called his story "Peanut Butter the Jelly Fish."

He claims he submitted an illustrated manuscript to Disney and talked on the phone about his story with a writer from Pixar. (The two companies have a distribution partnership.)

A Disney vice president told Sternberg in 1996 that although the story had "great potential," it did not fit into the studio's "development slate" at that time, according to the suit.

Seven years later, Sternberg was in a movie theater and saw a preview for the upcoming release of "Finding Nemo."

"I thought, 'Hey, I'm the scuba-diving dentist. Those are my characters, that's my story,"' he told The Star-Ledger of Newark for Wednesday's editions. "It made me sick to my stomach."

One big similarity: Sternberg story has a character named "Nimo."

The suit claims a violation of federal copyright laws, in addition to fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. It claims the companies "have intentionally, knowingly, illicitly and slavishly copied plaintiff's protected works in whole or in substantial part."

Before Sternberg submitted his manuscript, Disney had him sign a two-page waiver that said he would be entitled to only $500 if he were to claim that the company used his material without permission or authorization. The lawsuit asks the court to void that waiver.

Neither Disney nor Pixar would comment when reached by the newspaper Tuesday.

Developed by Pixar and distributed by Disney, "Finding Nemo" grossed nearly $340 million, making it the 12th highest grossing movie of all time and the second highest among animated films.

It tells the story of a young clown fish named Nemo who is caught by a scuba diver and ends up in a fish tank in a dentist's office. Nemo's father searches the vast ocean for him with the help of a blue tang. Nemo eventually gets free of the dentist's tank, returns to the sea and is reunited with his father.

Sternberg's "Peanut Butter the Jelly Fish" tells the story of "two worlds coming together _ above and below the sea, with unusual sea creatures such as hatchet fish, creatures with large eyes and other exaggerated features, undersea turtles and their travels on the undersea Gulf Stream currents," according to the lawsuit.

Sternberg had a long-standing personal acquaintance with a woman who worked as an executive secretary at ABC Capitol Cities, a Disney company, the lawsuit states. He sent her a copy of his manuscript, and she encouraged him to send another copy to Disney, the suit asserted.

According to the suit, the Disney copy ended up in the hands of Barry Blumberg, an executive vice president of television animation. Blumberg called Sternberg at his home in November 1996 to talk about the story.

The lawsuit quotes Blumberg as saying during that phone call, "We all love 'Peanut Butter the Jelly Fish' and the entire concept."

The suit says Blumberg's office put Sternberg in touch with a Pixar employee, Andrew Stanton. Sternberg told Stanton he imagined "Peanut Butter the Jelly Fish" surfacing during his adventure and using the Statue of Liberty to get his bearings.

In "Finding Nemo," Nemo surfaces and gets his bearings when he sees the Sydney Opera House.

Stanton was the director and story writer of "Nemo." He was also one of the three screenwriters who were nominated for an Academy Award for best original screenplay.

"The thing that makes this so different from other similar situations is the amount of contact between Dr. Sternberg and the studios," said Sternberg's attorney, William T. Hill. "There was a vice president from Disney on the phone with this guy. Vice presidents from Disney don't contact just any old Joe Schmoe off the street."
 

no2apprentice

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
Before Sternberg submitted his manuscript, Disney had him sign a two-page waiver that said he would be entitled to only $500 if he were to claim that the company used his material without permission or authorization. The lawsuit asks the court to void that waiver.
There's the kicker. Depending on how solid the waiver was in it's wording, the suit may get dropped long before it picks up steam. This will be an interesting one to follow.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
se8472 said:
Yeah, I am going to wait for the legal process to work this one out before I say its BS or not.

It wont be long before Disney just flat out rejects unsolicited manuscripts because of crapola like this....
 

TTATraveler

Active Member
This new lawsuit seems to have more weight than the one regarding POTC, but I have a feeling that this one too will end up being thrown out.
 

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
Why are there so many law suits targeted at nemo? First there was that one guy who said they stole his name "Mr. Ray" and used it in the movie for Mr. Ray the sting ray. Then there was another man, he was french I believe, wrote a story about a clown fish too ( and by the look of the cover, that is one disfigured fish :lol: )

But I think this is BS. Total BS. First pirates, and now this.
 

Testtrack321

Well-Known Member
TTATraveler said:
This new lawsuit seems to have more weight than the one regarding POTC, but I have a feeling that this one too will end up being thrown out.

Why? POTC suit had A FILM, a PRODUCT that was ripped off, the exact essence of COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT. This is nothing.
 

Indy95

New Member
As I posted on the other thread dedicated to this subject:

One big similarity: Sternberg story has a character named "Nimo."

Oh, so I guess somebody should sue Disney for ripping-off Shakespeare when they named the parrot in Aladdin "Iago?" And hey, while we're at it, let's sue Pixar for ripping-off the name of a Jules Verne character! And then let's sue Jules Verne for ripping-off the Latin language! And Ursula Andress should sue Disney for using her name in the "Little Mermaid!"

Before Sternberg submitted his manuscript, Disney had him sign a two-page waiver that said he would be entitled to only $500 if he were to claim that the company used his material without permission or authorization.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man this is classic! Disney finally covers their a**es! Hey buddy, YOU...YES YOU were the one that signed the contract! Signed, sealed, and delivered. Next case?

Somebody PLEASE make these idiots go away.
 

TTATraveler

Active Member
Testtrack321 said:
Why? POTC suit had A FILM, a PRODUCT that was ripped off, the exact essence of COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT. This is nothing.

I still think it is a bs lawsuit. However according to the article "Before Sternberg submitted his manuscript, Disney had him sign a two-page waiver that said he would be entitled to only $500 if he were to claim that the company used his material without permission or authorization. The lawsuit asks the court to void that waiver." I think the courts will not void the waiver, so in all in all, this guy at most will get $500, if even that.
 

FrumiousBoojum

New Member
The reason for the contract is to protect against accidental infringement. Things such as Nemo already well into production by the time he brought this to them or, sometime long after the refusal and this was forgotten about by the few who had known about it, elements subconciously creep back up and get thrown into a future script.

That's also why the fee is so low: it's insurance on accidental elements, not something as big as the PotC suit.

If it's as small as a few similar elements and they can prove that it was unintentional, it'll probably be thrown out.
 

TRITON4ME

Account Suspended
:lol: !!!

Another classic lawsuite!!! This is unbelievable!!!

This lawsuite is nothing compared to my favorite one!!!: About 5 years ago a family from Michigan (go figure:lol: ) sued Disney for the injuries their child suffered @ WDW. What was the injury........ well...... as the family was enjoying a ride on Big Thunder Mountain the child thought the ride was over when the train came to a stop outside of the load/unload dock...... he stuck his foot outside the train and his foot was cut off! Now..... is that really Disney's fault? NO!!! It is the kids own stupidity!! Personally, I am glad that the lawsuite was not held up in court!!! I mean..... I feel sorry for the kid and his family but...... how could you sue someone base on your own stupidity!!!! Well.... I guess all there is left to say is: God Bless America!!

Note to self: don't get off of BTM until the trian has come to a complete stop INSIDE OF THE LOADING/UNLOADING STATION!!!:lol: !!!
 

crazycalf

New Member
I thought this article was kinda weird when I saw it in the paper today.
First he says he's the dentist in the movie. It's not like the dentist is a main character or anything. Also, he never mentioned the fish, just that he is a scuba diving dentist. Plus he's from NJ the dentist in the movie is from australia.

And isn't he suing the wrong people, pixar created the movie. Shouldn't he be suing them. Also, i thought disney doesn't accept unsolicited ideas, wouldn't his story just have been thrown away?
 

DisneyJill

Well-Known Member
TRITON4ME said:
:lol: !!!

Another classic lawsuite!!! This is unbelievable!!!

This lawsuite is nothing compared to my favorite one!!!: About 5 years ago a family from Michigan (go figure:lol: ) sued Disney for the injuries their child suffered @ WDW. What was the injury........ well...... as the family was enjoying a ride on Big Thunder Mountain the child thought the ride was over when the train came to a stop outside of the load/unload dock...... he stuck his foot outside the train and his foot was cut off! Now..... is that really Disney's fault? NO!!! It is the kids own stupidity!! Personally, I am glad that the lawsuite was not held up in court!!! I mean..... I feel sorry for the kid and his family but...... how could you sue someone base on your own stupidity!!!! Well.... I guess all there is left to say is: God Bless America!!

Note to self: don't get off of BTM until the trian has come to a complete stop INSIDE OF THE LOADING/UNLOADING STATION!!!:lol: !!!

I'm choosing to ignore the fact that you think this is funny, when it was probably an excited kid who was simply over anxious to get to his next ride....and I'm sure none of us, yourself included, have ever done anything stupid out of excitement, but anyways...Disney seemed to take this lawsuit seriously, as there are now panels on BTMRR to protect your feet from this exact thing happening again.
 

TRITON4ME

Account Suspended
DisneyJill said:
I'm choosing to ignore the fact that you think this is funny, when it was probably an excited kid who was simply over anxious to get to his next ride....and I'm sure none of us, yourself included, have ever done anything stupid out of excitement, but anyways...Disney seemed to take this lawsuit seriously, as there are now panels on BTMRR to protect your feet from this exact thing happening again.

At no point did I say that the actual incident was funny!! I just thought it was funny that the family would go so far as to try and sue the Disney Company!! I mean if that were my kid I would obviously feel devistaed by the incident but I wouldn't blame it on Disney, and try to get a large settlement out of it!!!

Trust me, yes I have done some pretty stupid things in my life!!! But that one would take the cake! I feel really bad for the kid, but I just think this is yet another case where someone is trying to sue Disney over something that is just rediculous!!!

I mean honestly... how could you think the ride is over at that point? I have been going on BTMRR since I was 8 and never once did that enter my mind!!
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Ok...so who is full of crap?

French Author Seeks Damages From Walt Disney Over 'Nemo'


DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
February 23, 2005 3:26 p.m.

PARIS (AP)--A French children's book author, who claims the Walt Disney Co. (DIS) blockbuster animated film "Finding Nemo" copied a fish of his creation, launched a new court battle Wednesday seeking damages from the corporate giant.

Franck Le Calvez lost an initial bid last year to ban the sale of Nemo products in France, arguing that the lovable title character in "Finding Nemo" was based on his smiling orange-and-white clown fish named Pierrot.

In March, a court ruled that though the two fish resemble each other - both have big smiles and sport three stripes down the side - their similarities weren't enough to confuse people.

Maintaining the argument that The Walt Disney Co. copied his character, Le Calvez is now seeking damages of $1.32 million in a separate court case that opened Monday.

The author argues that he registered his story, "Pierrot the Clown Fish," with French trademark officials in 1995. After pitching his idea to film animation studios with no success, Le Calvez turned Pierrot into an idea for a book that he published in 2002.

The book, which sold a mere 3,000 copies in France, is about a young fish separated from his family - a plot similar to "Finding Nemo."

Disney lawyer Magali Thorne had argued that her client's clown fish was already drawn up by 2000, before Le Calvez published his book.

On Wednesday, she reiterated that Disney "had no knowledge" of the French book.


Next thing you know....the French guy will seek damages from the NJ Dentist.
 

tigsmom

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
French Author Seeks Damages From Walt Disney Over 'Nemo'


DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
February 23, 2005 3:26 p.m.

PARIS (AP)--A French children's book author, who claims the Walt Disney Co. (DIS) blockbuster animated film "Finding Nemo" copied a fish of his creation, launched a new court battle Wednesday seeking damages from the corporate giant.

Franck Le Calvez lost an initial bid last year to ban the sale of Nemo products in France, arguing that the lovable title character in "Finding Nemo" was based on his smiling orange-and-white clown fish named Pierrot.

In March, a court ruled that though the two fish resemble each other - both have big smiles and sport three stripes down the side - their similarities weren't enough to confuse people.

Maintaining the argument that The Walt Disney Co. copied his character, Le Calvez is now seeking damages of $1.32 million in a separate court case that opened Monday.

The author argues that he registered his story, "Pierrot the Clown Fish," with French trademark officials in 1995. After pitching his idea to film animation studios with no success, Le Calvez turned Pierrot into an idea for a book that he published in 2002.

The book, which sold a mere 3,000 copies in France, is about a young fish separated from his family - a plot similar to "Finding Nemo."

Disney lawyer Magali Thorne had argued that her client's clown fish was already drawn up by 2000, before Le Calvez published his book.

On Wednesday, she reiterated that Disney "had no knowledge" of the French book.


Next thing you know....the French guy will seek damages from the NJ Dentist.

Damn those French Guys! :lookaroun
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom