plagiarism Tagged Articles at Cinematical

As a massive fan of the Looney Tunes, I called foul the moment I saw the very first (and woefully wretched) trailer for Little Man. The flick's about a pint-sized criminal who poses as a baby in order to get some valuables back from an unwitting new guardian -- which means it has the exact same plot as the classic 1954 Looney Tunes short called Baby Buggy Bunny.

OK, I thought, fine. The witless Wayanses are stealing from old Bugs Bunny cartoons now. Wonderful. But now comes word from Cartoon Brew that there's a lot more thievery going on than previously assumed. (Having not seen Little Man myself, mainly because I choose not to drop $10.50 on voluntary retina torture, I cannot comment on these scenes -- but if I HAD been in the movie theater as the rip-offs unfolded, I'd have been screeching like a howler monkey.)

Stuff stolen from the 52-year-old cartoon includes: 1) A scene in which the new guardians discover a tattoo on their new baby friend; 2) A clueless grown-up giving the man-baby the "upsy-daisy" treatment ... into the ceiling; 3) The most blatant theft: A gag involving the flicking of lights and the smackdown that occurs when someone says "click" instead of flipping the lights off. (It makes more sense if you've seen the Bugs cartoon recently, which I have.)

Little Man is a Sony product. Bugs' copyrights are held by Warner Bros. Where's the freaking lawsuit? If we can't punish the Wayanses for making such absymal comedies, surely they can get their knuckles rapped for outright plagiarism.

(Thanks to film ick for the pointer towards Cartoon Brew, and thanks to CB for the pic of "Finster Baby.")

A British judge this morning announced his decision in the month-long plagiarism case that pitted The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown and his publishing company, Random House, against the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, who claimed Brown had dishonestly used their book as much more than a simple source. According to the statement by Judge Peter Smith, however, they were mistaken: "The plaintiffs' case has failed...Dan Brown has not infringed copyright. None of this amounts to copying The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail."

And, as they say, there was much rejoicing, both at Random House, which can continue to print copies of the book and make money hand-over-fist, and at Sony Pictures, which will be able to release the film as scheduled. Whew.

The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a non-fiction book from 1984 that suggests "Jesus may not have died on the cross, but lived to marry and father children whose bloodline continues today," have hit Dan Brown with a plagiarism suit over The Da Vinci Code code. Needless to say, the suit, brought by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh to the tune of nearly $20 million, could potentially have a broader impact than simply costing Brown some money. According to copyright lawyers, if the suit is successful, Baigent and Leigh could "seek an order blocking further infringement of their copyright," thus threatening both future sales of Brown's book and the release of Ron Howard's film, a possibility that must have the suits at Sony shaking in their collective boots. Because Brown freely lists Holy Blood as one of the major sources for novel, however, its authors may face an uphill battle in proving plagiarism.

The case is in a London court as we speak, and a decision is expected before the movie's release date.

[via Film Rotation]