M. Night Shyamalan Faces $81 Million Copyright Trial Over Apple TV+ Show ‘Servant’

by

On Tuesday, Director M. Night Shyamalan faced a court hearing due to claims that elements from an independent movie were used in creating the Apple TV+ series “Servant.

Italian filmmaker Francesca Gregorini is filing a lawsuit against M. Night Shyamalan and tech giant Apple, claiming they copied significant aspects from her 2013 film “The Truth About Emanuel” for their television series, seeking $81 million in damages.

During his opening argument in a federal court in Riverside, California on Tuesday, attorney Patrick Arenz displayed footage of two different projects to the jury. He contended that these depictions illustrate a mother suffering from delusions, who treats a doll as if it were an actual baby, and a nanny who is involved in this delusion.

Or:

In his opening statement at the federal court in Riverside, California on Tuesday, attorney Patrick Arenz played videos of two distinct projects to the jury. He maintained that these presentations portray a mother afflicted by delusions, who treats a doll as though it’s a real baby, and a nanny who is part of this delusional situation.

“This is a simple case,” Arenz told the jury. “There would be no ‘Servant’ without ‘Emanuel.’”

In this setting, M. Night Shyamalan took a seat among the defense attorneys, alongside Taylor Latham (the producer) and Matt Cherniss (Apple TV+’s head of programming). Tony Basgallop, the British writer who developed the series, found his place at the defense counsel table, while Gregorini sat with her legal team at the plaintiffs’ table.

During the defense’s opportunity to speak, attorney Brittany Amadi contended that Basgallop had been working on the show for many years prior to the release of “The Truth About Emanuel,” and that those associated with it did not utilize the film as a reference point.

According to Amadi, Ms. Gregorini is attempting to receive an unexpected large sum of money. Specifically, she’s asking for $81 million for tasks that she didn’t perform. However, it’s important to note that the creators of ‘Servant’ do not owe any money to Ms. Gregorini.

Gregorini filed a lawsuit in January 2020, soon after the series “Servant” premiered on the platform. A federal judge dismissed the case a few months later, but the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated it in 2022, determining that there was a genuine disagreement over whether the two works were significantly alike. Judge Sunshine Sykes denied Apple’s request for a summary judgment in November, ruling that the case would need to be decided by a jury.

Shyamalan and other creators of the show are anticipated to provide testimony. The jury is set to kick off the trial by viewing the full length of “The Truth About Emanuel” and the initial three episodes of “Servant” in their entirety.

As a cinephile, I had the chance to watch “The Truth About Emanuel,” featuring Jessica Biel and Kaya Scodelario. This movie graced the screens at the Sundance Film Festival. Unfortunately, it didn’t exactly break the bank, with box office earnings of just $226 in Los Angeles and a meager $9 from one viewer in Philadelphia.

Arenz observed that many indie films fail financially, yet their primary purpose was to boost Gregorini’s directorial career by gaining exposure. Consequently, she took on the role of director for various television episodes, such as those for “Killing Eve” and “Electric Dreams.

In order to establish copyright infringement, the accuser needs to demonstrate two key points: significant resemblance between the original and the alleged copy, and that the defendant had exposure to the copyrighted material. Arenz argued that “Emanuel” was extensively accessible on platforms like iTunes, and further stated that Max Aronson, an Apple TV executive, was familiar with Gregorini’s work and even had a link to “Emanuel” in his email inbox.

Additionally, he contended that Basgallop’s initial works contained crude and offensive elements, such as rape, incest, and graphic violence, which he suggested were reasons they did not gain traction. However, it wasn’t until the publication of “Emanuel” that Basgallop supposedly introduced the storyline about a delusional mother and a doll.

He stated that the defendants could not have earned a single penny if it wasn’t for the distinctive and innovative aspects of ‘Emanuel’,” he contended.

Amadi countered that the two projects have numerous differences, starting with their genres.

She stated that ‘Servant’ is a chilling supernatural tale, while ‘Emanuel’ is a deeply moving story about personal growth and maturity.

She additionally pointed out that “reborn dolls” serve as therapeutic tools to assist individuals in coping with grief, and that the creators of the show have the liberty to incorporate genuine experiences from reality.

Ms. Gregorini didn’t come up with the concept of a reborn doll; it’s not something that can be owned or claimed as personal property, whether we’re talking about facts or ideas.

1) Both lawyers aimed to highlight their clients’ modest backgrounds, contrasting it with the opposing side’s influence. Amadi pointed out Shyamalan was born in India and grew up in Philadelphia, having no ties to the entertainment industry. Additionally, she mentioned Gregorini’s father as an Italian count, her mother as a Bond girl, her stepfather being Ringo Starr, and that “Emanuel” received funding from “a German princess,” Tatiana von Fürstenberg.

According to Arenz, Gregorini had an atypical childhood since her parents struggled with substance abuse issues. She managed to overcome these challenges by telling stories. Notably, she opted to take legal action against some of the most prominent figures in Hollywood. Arenz further predicted that Apple’s defense lawyers would be skilled and polished during the proceedings.

“We’re talking about Hollywood elite here,” he said.

Amadi claimed that the plaintiff’s attorney was resorting to character attacks when he brought up the “distasteful and unsettling” aspects of Basgallop’s initial scripts. Once the jury had left, she requested the judge to prohibit him from bringing up those factors, arguing it could influence the jurors. Arenz countered, stating that the scripts were admitted as exhibits without any opposition. Sykes indicated she would handle any objections as they come up.

The trial is expected to last about two weeks.

Read More

2025-01-15 00:47