[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ theme_builder_area=”post_content” _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” width=”100%” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][et_pb_column _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default” type=”4_4″ theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]U.S. District Judge George H. Wu, of the Central District of California, has brought a definitive end to the lawsuit that animator and writer Eric Ryder filed against James Cameron, Lightstorm Entertainment and several Disney entities, alleging that Avatar: The Way of Water and Avatar: Fire and Ash infringed the copyright in his science-fiction story KRZ (Ryder v. Cameron, No. 2:25-cv-11854-GW(KSx)). Ryder had already sued unsuccessfully over the original Avatar (2009): in 2014 the Los Angeles Superior Court, affirmed on appeal in 2016, found no substantial similarity with KRZ, since Cameron had written and circulated the Scriptment in 1995, five years before Ryder shared his project with Lightstorm in 2000.<\/p>\n
Applying the Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic test, the judge filtered out elements already present in the Scriptment or the first Avatar film and limited the analysis to genuinely new material in the sequels. He concluded that the central allegation \u2014 the harvesting of an animal-based substance that extends human life \u2014 is a generic science-fiction trope, and that KRZ’s Kahrs, microorganisms collected from hydrothermal vents, differ materially and narratively from the amrita obtained from the Tulkun in the films. The same lack of substantial similarity extended to the characters (commanders Welles and Scoresby, scientists Deavor and Garvin), the aquatic setting, and the themes of corporate greed and colonization, all of which were already present in Cameron’s earlier material. The court also rejected the theory that internal pre-production notes, running between 800 and 1,500 pages, amounted to a standalone literal-copying claim, since the complaint pointed to the theatrical releases, not the notes, as the infringing act.<\/p>\n
Although the initial ruling gave Ryder the option to amend his complaint to pursue that intermediate-copying theory, he chose to stand on the existing pleading in order to preserve his right to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. That choice led the judge to enter a final dismissal of the copyright claim and, having disposed of the federal basis for jurisdiction, to decline to hear the pendent state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of confidence and unfair competition, which were dismissed without prejudice to being pursued in state court. The special motion to strike those claims was denied as moot. The ruling confirms that copyright protects the original expression of an idea, not the generic concepts that already belong to a shared narrative heritage.[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The judge filtered out elements already present in the Scriptment or the first Avatar film and limited the analysis to genuinely new material in the sequels.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":4431060,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[59,114,116],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4431059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-newsletter-en","category-copyright-law","category-litigation-and-adr"],"yoast_head":"\n