Finding Nemo claimant guilty of fraud

[JMcWilliams]

Well, thats the risk you take when you try and push your luck :D

[talos72]

I still smell a rat on Disney's part...

[Ckerr812]

:applause: I remember that too, serves him right.


He's getting a slap on the wrist only having to pay 80 grand, should of been more.

[bobzilla]

Wasn't there a dentist from New Jersey who claimed a similar story? He said he had even sent Disney/Pixar the script and they turned it down...or did they... ;)

And the plot sickens...

[Autarkis]

Thanks for the info Jeremy. Never seen this make the news around the web, but i remember how much news coverage it got back when the claim was made.

[BillSpradlin]

I was wondering what happened to this little story, been a while since I heard anything about it, thanks for the link J.

[rwijaya]

that gotta be hurt, "ouch"

[mark_wilkins]

Despite what the article says, it looks like he simply lost his case and was ordered to reimburse Disney's costs, a common practice in European courts. "Convicted of fraud" is probably a misunderstanding on the part of the article's author.

-- Mark

[Q_B]

Loosing a case in a Court of Law for a heavyweight like Disney doesn't necessarily mean you are guilty. You'd be amazed if you knew how much of the law process is highly subjective.

[yog]

Despite what the article says, it looks like he simply lost his case and was ordered to reimburse Disney's costs, a common practice in European courts. "Convicted of fraud" is probably a misunderstanding on the part of the article's author.

-- Mark
Don't think so.
"The court ruled that Le Calvez "had knowledge" of the Disney character and had fraudulent intentions when he registered his own brand."

The article says that as well as paying Disney's legal costs, he also had to pay $49,600 in damages.
It looks as though it was a civil case, so "Convicted" might be the wrong term, but it certainly looks as though the court found him to be fradulent and so fined him as well as imposing legal costs.

I say GOOD :thumbsup:
I might not be a fan of Corporate Disney, but I dislike people trying to make a quick easy buck off of others hard work even more.

[yog]

You'd be amazed if you knew how much of the law process is highly subjective.
Very true, I was taken aback when I took law at university.
I was prepared for the vaguries of trying to sort out who's version of the truth was more correct, but even in contract law when the facts are agreed upon the outcome is by no means certain.
Mind you, if the quoting in the article is correct, the court's language seems to indicate they were of little doubt.

[Q_B]

Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending any of them! Neither Disney nor the supposed author. Just made a quick note remembering that, just because a court has ruled something, it doesn't necessarily means that the said ruling is universal truth or something. Supposedly, and i say this with some amount of scepticism, it is a good ruling, the best ruling that can reasonably be made. However, more times than we should want or need, those rulings are simply bad due to an inumerable amount of factors. After all, judges are humans.

[krisr]

Isn't there always a disclaimer at the end of the credits that says any persons or events portrayed are fictional and any similarity to actual persons or events is purely coincidental? I would think this would eliminate them from any chance of being sued. Am I wrong?

[Manimator]

No, that would mean Pierrot the clown fish HIMSELF would have to sue, and he's gone into hiding.

[Q_B]

Isn't there always a disclaimer at the end of the credits that says any persons or events portrayed are fictional and any similarity to actual persons or events is purely coincidental? I would think this would eliminate them from any chance of being sued. Am I wrong?

Yep man, you're wrong. It says "actual persons or events", not "already written (by other authors) stories/fictions". That makes a huge difference.

[t-man152]

If he was actually doing it to get Disney and pixar to give him tons of money then it serves him right but if on the other hand he actually thought of a clown fish with teeth and big eyes for a childrens book then I think it really sucks that that happened to him.

[Don Kayote]

An idea comes to mind.

Why not just write as much stories as you can and post it somewhere really public for a lot of people to see. Then when a foreign company makes a film "similar" to yours. Sue them for unintentional theft :)

[NanoGator]

I still smell a rat on Disney's part...

I wouldn't rule out Romulan involvement.

[agreenster]

http://www.canada.com/entertainment/story.html?id=e622f58d-49f5-411d-bb24-c1afb4855aa1

PARIS -- A French children's book author who claimed Disney's blockbuster Finding Nemo copied a fish of his creation, was convicted of fraud Wednesday and ordered to pay about $80,000 US in damages and legal fees. Franck Le Calvez had argued that the lovable title character in Finding Nemo was based on his smiling orange-and-white clown fish named Pierrot.

Justice is served

[Pyke]

I wouldn't rule out Romulan involvement.

2 words man...Obsideon Order.

[kachoudas]

I personally have read Mr Calvez' books, and honestly, I found it very hard to think that Disney had stolen his ideas. Unless you think that using a clown fish can be copyrighted, or that stories about orphans can be copyrighted.
Pierrot is an orphan (lost is father) clown fish; that all for the similitudes IMHO. The stories then goes very differently. In the book we follow Pierrot as he meets differents animals, then back home (I can't remember if he find his father, or if it is dead).

for the design, well they're just clown fishes with cartoon eyes.

I usually don't like Disney and their commercial practices, but reading the book, it seemed to me that the bad faith of Calvez was an evidence.

Jerome

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.