Daily Dicta: You Don’t Need a Crime-Solving Dog to Figure Out This Movie Isn’t Like Disney’s Zootopia
News flash—the concept of anthropomorphic, crime-solving animals is not exactly original.
August 21, 2019 at 12:33 PM
6 minute read
Being a litigator means acquiring expertise in random subjects—ball bearings. Medicare billing codes. Gas-powered refrigerators. Fusion proteins.
But if you’re Daniel Petrocelli, the list also includes the animated Disney movie “Zootopia.”
Which is why I suspect it was child’s play for Petrocelli and his O’Melveny & Myers colleagues Craig Bloom, Drew Breuder and Anton Metlitsky to get yet another suit by an unhappy screenwriter claiming Disney stole their idea for the film quickly dismissed.
Because—news flash—the concept of anthropomorphic, crime-solving animals is not exactly original.
Think Scooby Doo, Tom and Jerry, McGruff the Crime Dog, the Great Mouse Detective and Duckman—and none of those are what you’d call fresh offerings.
Nonetheless, author and screenwriter Brian Hoff and his company, Furrywood Studios, sued Disney in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California earlier this year (the case was removed from Riverside County Superior Court) for copyright infringement. Represented by the Encore Law Group and Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, Hoff claimed Disney ripped off his idea for a movie called Secret Agent 00K9.
“In June 2007, plaintiff pitched the idea of the Animal Metropolis concept with a K-9 lead character in an animal-human fantasy world where the lead character teams up with other 3 animals to solve crimes,” Hoff wrote in his complaint.
Hoff said he had “numerous contacts with defendants regarding the screenplay and characters,” even allowing Disney access to his secure website to review all materials.
Disney declined to make his movie, and in 2016 released Zootopia—which grossed more than $1 billion worldwide.
Hoff includes a long list of supposed plot similarities between his movie and Zootopia—which also sound like plot similarities to roughly a zillion other films.
As in: “Both films feature science specialist characters with lab coats and clipboards in high tech fortresses.” Also, both films have mysterious islands, dangerous chemicals, news anchors doing interviews, large police officers, cars with tinted windows, women with guns and main characters who are betrayed by people they trust.
In other words, every spy or crime thriller ever.
But if anything, Hoff’s own complaint undermined his allegations of copying.
The complaint describes Zootopia’s plot as revolving “around the investigation by anthropomorphic animals (a rabbit and a fox) of a missing animal predator. The film’s plot leads to a poisonous neurotoxin that is used by the villain to make predators appear to go ‘savage’, with the intended result of causing the prey animals to revolt and gain control over the predator animals, threatening the livelihoods of many animals.”
“Similarly,” he continues, “the plot and themes of Secret Agent 00K9 also revolve around the investigation by anthropomorphic animals (a dog) of a missing jewel. The Secret Agent 00K9 story leads to a deadly gas that could wipe out all animals, threatening the lives of many.”
So … that’s not at all alike. It’s actually quite different.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford seemed to have little trouble dismissing the suit with prejudice, ruling that Hoff failed to show substantial similarity between the works.
“[T]he overarching storylines involved in 00K9 and Zootopia are very different. Sure, both plots rely entirely on crime-fighting anthropomorphic animals to portray the underlying stories. But the concept of anthropomorphic animals—even anthropomorphic animals who fight crime—is a high-level, basic plot idea not subject to copyright protection,” Guilford wrote. “Ruling otherwise would have the peculiar result of giving plaintiff a monopoly over all animated films involving crime-fighting, talking animals.”
The judge was also unpersuaded that the main characters were similar.
“Plaintiff compares Agent 00K9 to Zootopia’s Nick Wilde. Plaintiff says the two characters are substantially similar because both are canines that ‘walk upright’, ‘speak with human ease,’ ‘wear human clothes,’ ‘confront human issues,’ ‘have human jobs,’ ‘solve crime with their human features,’ and have similar appearances, stances, attitudes, and mannerisms,” Guilford wrote.
“But most of these alleged similarities describe anthropomorphic animals in general,” he concluded. Not to mention “Agent 00K9 is a dog and Nick Wilde is a fox, and their appearances very obviously reflect this reality.”
Hoff’s lawyer, Justin Karczag of the Encore Law Group, said in an email that “Mr. Hoff is reviewing his appellate options.”
Good luck. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected another Zootopia copyright suit which appears to have much stronger claims.
Petrocelli defended Disney in that case as well, which was brought by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Jeffrey McFarland on behalf of well-known Hollywood writer, director, and producer Gary L. Goldman, whose credits include Total Recall, Minority Report and Big Trouble in Little China.
Goldman came up with the name “Zootopia”—which he envisioned as a franchise “based on an animated cartoon world that metaphorically explores life in America through the fictional setting of a diverse, modern, and civilized society of anthropomorphic animals.”
He wrote a synopsis and treatment of the first segment of the prospective franchise, a live-action film called Looney, and pitched Disney, sharing his character illustrations and ideas.
Some of the visual mock-ups of the characters are similar, especially the sloth (My hands-down favorite Zootopia scene is when the main characters visit the DMV, which is staffed entirely by sloths.)
A snippet of dialog was also virtually identical. “You want to be an elephant when you grow up, you be an elephant,” a Zootopia character said, versus a line from Looney: “If you want to be an elephant, you can be an elephant.”
The stories are quite different though—Looney is about the rise and fall of Zeke, an eccentric animator. In 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald in the Central District of California found that the “Neither the plots nor the sequences of events in Disney’s Zootopia and Goldman’s contemplated Looney / ‘Zootopia’ franchise are similar.”
He also determined the characters weren’t similar enough-looking either. “[W]hereas the Disney characters are typically cute and appealing, the Looney characters evoke a darker, seedier aesthetic.”
As for the copycat title? Too bad.
“The titles are identical,” the Ninth Circuit ruled in April, “but a title is unprotected as a matter of federal law.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250