Animator Buck Woodall is suing Disney for copyright infringement, alleging that their hit film *Moana* and its sequel heavily plagiarize his screenplay *Bucky*, submitted to a Disney executive in 2003. The lawsuit claims numerous similarities between the two works, including plot points, characters, and specific imagery. While a previous lawsuit was dismissed due to timing, the release of *Moana 2* has allowed Woodall to refile, seeking $10 billion in damages. Disney previously denied any knowledge of Woodall’s work.
Read the original article here
Disney is being sued for a staggering $10 billion over alleged copyright infringement related to *Moana 2*. The lawsuit claims that the film significantly mirrors the plot and core elements of a screenplay submitted years prior by Buck Woodall. This massive sum represents 2.5% of the alleged gross revenue generated by the *Moana* franchise, a figure that seems wildly inflated considering the actual box office takings of the films. The discrepancy highlights a potential error in the reporting, with the $10 billion likely representing the total revenue across all *Moana* related ventures, including merchandise and streaming, rather than solely the box office earnings.
The core of the lawsuit hinges on similarities between Woodall’s screenplay and *Moana 2*. Both stories involve a rebellious teenager from a Polynesian village embarking on a perilous sea voyage to save their land, encountering animal spirit guides along the way. The plaintiff also points to the use of a whirlpool-like portal as a significant plot device found in both narratives. While these elements are undeniably present in both works, the question of originality and originality’s legal threshold in storytelling remain at the heart of this dispute. Many commentators questioned whether these fairly common tropes in Polynesian mythology and adventure storytelling constitute unique and protectable elements. The argument that these elements are inherently common to the genre raises significant doubts about the strength of Woodall’s claim.
Adding another layer of complexity is the alleged involvement of Jenny Marchick, a former development director at Mandeville Films (a company contracted by Disney at the time). Now head of development at DreamWorks Animation, a Universal subsidiary, Marchick allegedly received Woodall’s materials. This raises questions about the chain of events leading to the creation of *Moana 2* and whether a direct link can be established between Woodall’s screenplay and Disney’s production. The lack of a clear and direct connection between Woodall, Marchick, and Disney adds significant weight to the skepticism surrounding the lawsuit’s merits. The fact that Marchick currently works for a Disney competitor further weakens the narrative of a direct theft of intellectual property.
The lawsuit also alleges a “fraudulent enterprise,” implying a deliberate theft and exploitation of Woodall’s copyrighted materials. However, the specifics of this alleged fraud are not clearly articulated, leaving the claim vulnerable to scrutiny. The lack of transparency and the significant leap between a shared thematic element and a deliberate copyright infringement significantly hinder the credibility of this portion of the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s own actions and communications, especially any evidence of interaction with Disney prior to the release of the movie or any written agreement, could be critical to the case’s outcome.
The astronomical $10 billion figure demanded by Woodall has drawn widespread criticism, with many suspecting it’s primarily a tactic to leverage a potentially hefty settlement. The comments suggest that the plaintiff might simply be pursuing a settlement rather than a full-blown legal battle. Given Disney’s formidable legal team and the questionable strength of the claim itself, it seems unlikely that Woodall will succeed in his efforts to obtain such a substantial payout. The case might settle for a much smaller amount, simply to avoid the drawn-out and expensive process of a full legal fight.
Ultimately, the success of this lawsuit rests heavily on Woodall’s ability to definitively prove a direct causal link between his submitted materials, Marchick’s actions, and the creative process behind *Moana 2*. The inherent vagueness of the similarities cited, the indirect connections, and the absence of concrete evidence of a direct theft casts considerable doubt on the likelihood of Woodall prevailing in this legal battle. The burden of proof lies squarely with him, and overcoming Disney’s vast resources and legal expertise will be an exceptionally challenging task.