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
© 2024 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 AllPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readHigh Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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