• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

Disney sued for use of MOVA technology

DigModiFicaTion

DᴉმWoqᴉԷᴉcɑꓕᴉou
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
8,609
Reaction score
3,509
Trophy Points
168
Mova.jpg

brimstone_facial_capture_a_l.jpg

Looks like Disney may have forgot the own the source rule and used some hot merchandise to make their recent blockbusters.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/a...njunction-bid-three-blockbuster-films-1021841

"Upping the stakes over a technology called "performance motion capture," Rearden LLC is going after The Walt Disney Company in a lawsuit filed Monday. The plaintiff, a firm incubated by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Perlman, is demanding an injunction prohibiting Disney from distributing Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Beauty and the Beast."

"Disney used the stolen MOVA Contour systems and methods, made derivative works, and reproduced, distributed, performed, and displayed at least Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Beauty and the Beast, in knowing or willfully blind violation of Rearden Mova LLC’s intellectual property rights."

http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2...-marvel-blockbusters/?slreturn=20170620044859

"At issue is technology called MOVA Contour, which was used in “Beauty and the Beast” to transfer the facial movements of actor Dan Stevens to the beast’s face. In the two Marvel movies, it was utilized in the portrayal of the alien Thanos."

"Rearden is seeking injunctions to stop Disney from selling or showing these movies until the suit is resolved, and is also seeking orders to destroy all infringing copies, in addition to financial damages."

http://animationdigitaldigest.com/mova-process-suing-disney-marvel/

http://movieweb.com/disney-sued-visual-effects-avengers-guardians-beauty-beast/
 

iridium_ionizer

Well-known member
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
6
I read the first article and an older HR article. It seems that Disney as an entity may not have as much traction with ignorance defense. So with what I gathered, the software and methods are licensed out to a studio for a specific film and the specialized cameras / other hardware (the MOVA system) are lent out to them at the same time. Rearden LLC does not sell them. 

What happened at L.A. based CGI effects house Digital Domain is that they somehow procured the MOVA system through unscrupulous means. The company has merged with Chinese firms and other international entities in recent years, so perhaps some shuttered company never returned its MOVA system. Or maybe someone flat-out stole it. Something similar may have happened with Disney. The bottom line is that these companies should have policies put in place so that no unlicensed hardware or software is used in a film. This should be periodically verified from the artists / IT to the accountants. 

The injunction ruling (if it stands upon appeal) means they cannot sell their movie (right now). But I would be supremely surprised if the movie studios let this interfere (too much) with their Blu-Ray, DVD, etc. marketing plans. The studios have two choices: 1) Redo the special effects using a different type of motion-capture technology (I am sure there are several alternatives). OR 2) Pay a licensing fee to Rearden LLC that is way higher than the standard fee (as a penalty). 

Typically the show-biz lawyers will try to have everything settled out of court and it's just a matter of how much is paid. In this case it seems that the law is falling on Rearden LLC's side, but the studios can still hurry up replacement FX and essentially pay them a lot less (there are still probably some monetary damages that they have to pay). What is going on now is Disney is making it look like they are totally willing to do Option #1 while is trying to negotiate the lowest settlement cost possible for Option #2. They are not going to pay $1 billion to an FX house, but they would rather avoid recalling all the BRs and DVDs from store shelves and re-mocapping actors and re-rendering scenes before reissuing the movie. This is a game of chicken (aka brinkmanship). 

Of course Rearden LLC wants to get the highest settlement possible, but they may settle for less if it seems like Disney is going to redo the effects ($30 million is better than $10 million even if you want $70 million).
 
Top Bottom