Philadelphia Lawyer Representing SF Tattoo Artist Suing Pixar for Copyright Infringement
The copyright suit says the company rented San Francisco tattooist Sweet Cicely Daniher's unicorn-adorned van for a corporate party, then gave it a starring role in the upcoming film "Onward" without her permission.
January 29, 2020 at 02:19 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
San Francisco tattooist Sweet Cicely Daniher likes unicorns. She's authored a book about unicorn imagery. She's painted a unicorn mural on her '72 Chevy van that's been featured in San Francisco Magazine. "At the risk of belaboring the point," her attorneys wrote in a complaint filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, "the Plaintiff has had a real thing for unicorns, for a very long time, and they have been a central theme and subject matter of her artistic work, throughout the entirety of her career."
Now, Daniher alleges, Pixar Animation Studios and Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group have tricked her into letting them use her "Vanicorn" in the upcoming film "Onward." Her suit accuses the companies of copyright infringement and violations of state and federal laws protecting artwork.
Daniher v. Rae alleges that in September 2018, Pixar Production Office Manager Jane Clausen contacted Daniher and told her that the company "just stumbled upon a badass photo of you and your amazing van in San Francisco Mag and shrieked with joy." Would Daniher be willing to rent the Vanicorn to Pixar for a "one day music festival/activity day for Pixar employees and families" later that month? "Your van would just be a show piece and not used in any way other than a visual prop," Clausen wrote.
Daniher agreed and signed a contract stating that all rights of every kind "arising out of the use of the Vehicle in connection with the Production shall be solely owned in perpetuity, throughout the universe, by any means, devices, or methods, now known and unknown and in any media, now known and unknown," by Pixar and anyone to whom it assigned the rights.
Daniher's lawyers, Jared Weinstock of Los Angeles and J. Conor Corcoran of Philadelphia, contend that phrase "in connection with the Production" limits those rights to the Pixar employee event held Sept. 14, 2018.
Eight months later Daniher learned that Pixar was producing a 3D computer-animated motion picture titled "Onward." The movie features a character named Guinevere, a dark blue 1972 Chevrolet G10 van with "a big mural of a unicorn on its side" that is "clearly a direct copy and/or visual duplication and/or doppelganger of the Plaintiff's Vanicorn, down to the very same year, make and model," the complaint alleges.
According to a Pixar fan blog attached to the complaint, Pixar Creative Director Jay Ward took the lead on getting the van built. "This meant finding the right donor vehicle, overseeing the shop crew who was doing the work and granting creative approvals along the way," according to blogger Dan the Pixar Fan.
Daniher says she gave no such approval. She alleges that, after registering her disapproval on Instagram, "Onward" producer Kori Rae called her and apologized, allegedly explaining that Pixar had to rely on the employee event subterfuge "because at that time, the movie had no title, and the Defendants believed they couldn't have the Plaintiff sign a non-disclosure agreement without a title."
Daniher is now seeking to enjoin Pixar and Disney from distributing "Onward" and any Guinevere merchandise that infringes Daniher's copyright.
"To be absolutely clear, the Plaintiff is not claiming that she possesses a general copyright prohibiting, or in any way forbidding, the rightful ability of any person (or any company, for that matter) to paint a unicorn on the [side] of their van," Weinstock and Corcoran write. But, they say, "Defendants have unquestionably used the Plaintiff's copyrighted Vanicorn to be the Guinevere character in 'Onward.'"
Intellectual property litigator Lawrence Townsend of Owen, Wickersham & Erickson, who's not involved in the case, said that if the allegations are true, Daniher would have a strong case that Pixar had access to her work. That would mean she'd only have to prove substantial similarity, rather than precise copying, for a finding of infringement.
But Townsend said he doubts the Vanicorn would meet even that relaxed standard. The animal on the Pixar van has wings and no horn, making it a Pegasus, not a unicorn, he says, and they're depicted in different postures. While the similarity between the two vans could be evidence of Pixar's access to Daniher's work, the van itself is "a useful article" that would be irrelevant to the similarity analysis.
"You can't point to, 'We both used the same medium,'" Townsend says.
He also said it would not be copyright infringement if Pixar had simply wanted to study her van up close to see how certain technical features were accomplished in scaling and fitting them properly.
Daniher also accuses Pixar and Disney of violating the federal Visual Artists Right Act and the California Artists Protection Act. The companies have taken distorted, modified or mutilated "a highly personal and public transubstantiation of [Daniher's] personality," the complaint alleges, by using it "a commercial and corporate conduit for the aspirations of a pair of blue boy elves looking for their father in a mass marketed Disney film."
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 AllOzempic Defendants Seek to Shave 'Tacked On' Claims From MDL Complaint
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bar Groups Say IOLA Settlement Protects Civil Litigants' Fund From Future 'Raids'
- 2'Every MAGA Will Buy It:' Elon Musk Featured in Miami Crypto Lawsuit
- 3Pennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
- 4Meta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
- 5State Court Rejects Uber's Attempt to Move IP Suit to Latin America
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