Written at 20 Aug 2008 on 14:41
Original new NYTimes
LOS ANGELES — The dark and damaged superheroes of Warner Brothers’ “Watchmen,” set for release next March, have a new problem on their hands: a federal judge here ruled last week that they may belong to 20th Century Fox.
The judge, Gary A. Feess of United States District Court for the Central District of California, denied a request by Warner last Wednesday to dismiss Fox’s infringement claims.
In the suit, Fox said Warner had infringed its copyrights and interfered with contracts by filming the movie in spite of earlier agreements under which Fox acquired rights to the graphic novel on which it is based.
Fox lawyers have said they plan to seek an injunction blocking release of the film — one of next year’s most anticipated — pending a trial over its rights. In a statement, Scott Rowe, a Warner spokesman, said the judge’s ruling, while allowing the litigation to proceed, did not reflect on the merits of the case. “We respectfully disagree with Fox’s position,” Mr. Rowe’s statement said.
Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Gibbons, “Watchmen” tells the story of superheroes who have fallen into a netherworld of disgrace and personal torment. Long considered too difficult for a Hollywood film, it became a hot property after Zack Snyder, the director of Warner’s hit “300,” took it as his next project, with a budget that published reports have put at about $120 million.
According to Fox’s lawsuit, however, Warner, in acquiring rights through the producer Lawrence Gordon, failed to acquire certain rights already owned by Fox, including the right to distribute any picture made by Mr. Gordon’s company.
The case, originally filed in February, echoes an earlier court fight that was resolved in 2005 when Warner agreed to pay the producer Robert B. Clark at least $17.5 million to settle claims that it had infringed his rights by making the “The Dukes of Hazzard” film with Johnny Knoxville.
The settlement came after Judge Feess, who presided in that case as well, issued a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the film’s release.
LOS ANGELES — The dark and damaged superheroes of Warner Brothers’ “Watchmen,” set for release next March, have a new problem on their hands: a federal judge here ruled last week that they may belong to 20th Century Fox.
The judge, Gary A. Feess of United States District Court for the Central District of California, denied a request by Warner last Wednesday to dismiss Fox’s infringement claims.
In the suit, Fox said Warner had infringed its copyrights and interfered with contracts by filming the movie in spite of earlier agreements under which Fox acquired rights to the graphic novel on which it is based.
Fox lawyers have said they plan to seek an injunction blocking release of the film — one of next year’s most anticipated — pending a trial over its rights. In a statement, Scott Rowe, a Warner spokesman, said the judge’s ruling, while allowing the litigation to proceed, did not reflect on the merits of the case. “We respectfully disagree with Fox’s position,” Mr. Rowe’s statement said.
Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Gibbons, “Watchmen” tells the story of superheroes who have fallen into a netherworld of disgrace and personal torment. Long considered too difficult for a Hollywood film, it became a hot property after Zack Snyder, the director of Warner’s hit “300,” took it as his next project, with a budget that published reports have put at about $120 million.
According to Fox’s lawsuit, however, Warner, in acquiring rights through the producer Lawrence Gordon, failed to acquire certain rights already owned by Fox, including the right to distribute any picture made by Mr. Gordon’s company.
The case, originally filed in February, echoes an earlier court fight that was resolved in 2005 when Warner agreed to pay the producer Robert B. Clark at least $17.5 million to settle claims that it had infringed his rights by making the “The Dukes of Hazzard” film with Johnny Knoxville.
The settlement came after Judge Feess, who presided in that case as well, issued a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the film’s release.
