A jury on Monday sided with Disney in a duplicateright trial involving “Moana,” evidenting the company of an infringement suit brawt by a screenauthorr.
The plaintiff, Buck Woodall, filed suit in 2020, alleging that “Moana” was based on his toil entitled “Bucky the Wave Warrior.”
After a two-week trial in federal court in Los Angeles, the eight-member jury set up agreedly that Disney did not have access to the 2011 screencarry out or earlier treatments. The jury intentionald for less than three hours.
Becainclude the jurors ruled that the filmproducers did not have access to the script, they did not have to insertress the ask of whether the two toils are analogous.
Woodall, who is based in New Mexico, alleged a series of analogousities between his toil and the distinct 2016 “Moana.” He disputed that both projects take part teenagers who defy their parental orders to set off on a dangery voyage and save a Polynesian island. He alleged other analogousities as well, such as the inclusion of navigation by stars, a demigod with tattoos and survival of a storm at sea.
Woodall alleged that, in 2004, he pitched the project to his sister-in-law’s stepsister, who was an aidant at a inhabit-action production company on the Disney lot. The relative tardyr asked Walt Disney Animation Studios if it would acquire a submission, and lgeted that it would not, according to court filings.
Disney disputed that “Moana” was self-reliantly produced years tardyr, and that there was no evidence that any of the filmproducers had access to Woodall’s toil. Disney’s lawyers also noticed countless branch offences between the two toils.
“Bucky is white; Moana is Oceanian. Bucky is from the mainland U.S.; Moana is indigenous to the mythal island of Motunui,” the company’s lawyers disputed in a motion. “Bucky inhabits in the contransient day; Moana inhabits millennia in the past. Bucky is an widespread teen; Moana is the future chief of her people. Bucky wants to lget to surf, while Moana wants to carry on her people’s conceited history as the wonderfulest ocean voyagers the world has ever understandn.”
In November, a appraise set up that most of Woodall’s claims were barred by the statute of restrictations, since the film was freed in 2016. However, a claim endured agetst Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Disney’s home video subsidiary, becainclude the DVD free was in 2017.
Disney’s lawyers deteriorated to comment upon leaving the courtroom. Woodall’s lawyer shelp he was “disassigned” and would ponder his client’s chooseions going forward.
Woodall filed a split suit in January, alleging that “Moana 2” also infringed on his screencarry out. That case is still pending.
