Kenneth C. Oh
Counsel
212-784-6911 koh@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Raging Bull Case Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Author: Kenneth C. Oh
Date: October 17, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added a copyright dispute involving the film Raging Bull to its docket.
The plaintiff, Paula Petrella, alleges that the film infringes a 1963 screenplay written by her late father, Frank Petrella.
The Academy Award winning film starred Robert Di Nero and was directed by Martin Scorsese. It chronicles the life of champion boxer Jake LaMotta, whose personality in and out of the ring earned the nickname “Raging Bull.”
While the movie is high-drama, the copyright lawsuit is fairly technical. The issue is that Patrella did not file suit until 1999, nearly 20 years after the film was first released. The applicable statute of limitations requires copyright owners to initiate a copyright lawsuit within three years of the alleged infringement. In this case, Patrella cites the DVD release of Raging Bull by MGM Holdings Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment as the basis for her claim.
Meanwhile, the entertainment companies contend that Patrella’s suit should be barred under the doctrine of laches. The equitable remedy bars a plaintiff from seeking recovery because of an undue delay in seeking relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that Patrella filed the lawsuit too late. However, federal courts are currently split on the issue, which cleared the way for a Supreme Court appeal.
Patrella’s attorneys argue that “Congress, not the courts, is responsible for weighing competing interests and policy considerations and setting a limitations period.” However, MGM contends that the delay “in bringing this action was egregious and entirely unjustified.”
The case, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., is being closely watched in the intellectual property community, as heirs of songwriters, screenwriters and even inventors are increasingly taking a fresh look at old claims involving new products. We encourage readers to check back to this blog for updates.
If you have any questions this copyright case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Kenneth Oh, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
- Practices: Copyright
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Raging Bull Case Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Author: Kenneth C. Oh
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added a copyright dispute involving the film Raging Bull to its docket.
The plaintiff, Paula Petrella, alleges that the film infringes a 1963 screenplay written by her late father, Frank Petrella.
The Academy Award winning film starred Robert Di Nero and was directed by Martin Scorsese. It chronicles the life of champion boxer Jake LaMotta, whose personality in and out of the ring earned the nickname “Raging Bull.”
While the movie is high-drama, the copyright lawsuit is fairly technical. The issue is that Patrella did not file suit until 1999, nearly 20 years after the film was first released. The applicable statute of limitations requires copyright owners to initiate a copyright lawsuit within three years of the alleged infringement. In this case, Patrella cites the DVD release of Raging Bull by MGM Holdings Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment as the basis for her claim.
Meanwhile, the entertainment companies contend that Patrella’s suit should be barred under the doctrine of laches. The equitable remedy bars a plaintiff from seeking recovery because of an undue delay in seeking relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that Patrella filed the lawsuit too late. However, federal courts are currently split on the issue, which cleared the way for a Supreme Court appeal.
Patrella’s attorneys argue that “Congress, not the courts, is responsible for weighing competing interests and policy considerations and setting a limitations period.” However, MGM contends that the delay “in bringing this action was egregious and entirely unjustified.”
The case, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., is being closely watched in the intellectual property community, as heirs of songwriters, screenwriters and even inventors are increasingly taking a fresh look at old claims involving new products. We encourage readers to check back to this blog for updates.
If you have any questions this copyright case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Kenneth Oh, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.