Firooz Zahedi v. Miramax LLC, et al.
Published: Sep. 23, 2022 | Result Date: Aug. 19, 2022 | Filing Date: May 19, 2020 |Case number: 2:20-cv-04512-MCS-E Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Justin M. Gomes
(Doniger Burroughs APC)
Stephen M. Doniger
(Doniger Burroughs APC)
Scott Alan Burroughs
(Doniger Burroughs APC)
Defendant
John M. Gatti
(Loeb & Loeb)
Lauren J. Fried
(Loeb & Loeb)
Jeffrey D. Goldman
(Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell LLP)
Austin D. Padgett
(Troutman, Pepper, Hamilton & Sanders LLP)
Facts
In 1994, photographer Firooz Zahedi took several photographs of Uma Thurman as her character Mia Wallace in Quentin Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction. Miramax, which was the studio that produced Pulp Fiction, paid Zahedi $10,000 at the time of the photo shoot, and it later used one of the photographs with some changes for the poster for the film. The poster derived from the photo was used for promotion at the Cannes Film Festival in 1994 and the film's theatrical release. In 2003, Miramax registered a copyright for the poster; in 2019, Zahedi obtained a copyright registration for the photograph.
Since 1994, Miramax has used the poster for various purposes, including the sleeves of VHS and LaserDisc copies of the movie. The image has also been used on apparel and other merchandise, including the packaging for a Mia Wallace action figure that Zahedi received as a gift in 2015. On May 19, 2020, Zahedi filed suit against Miramax for copyright infringement.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that he was approached by Miramax for the photo shoot; that Plaintiff took a low fee to work on an interesting photo shoot for an anticipated indie film; that the parties did not execute a work-for-hire or buyout agreement because Miramax did not do contracts; that he orally licensed to Miramax the right to use the photograph on a physical poster to promote the movie; that he did not grant a license to Miramax to use the photo for other purposes; and that he retained the ownership of the photo's copyright.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it owned the copyright to the photograph because it was the result of work for hire; that plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of estoppel; that plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of laches; and that plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Result
The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390