Disney, CAA Beat Copyright Infringement Lawsuit From Production Exec Over ‘Ad Astra’

Winston Cho
·5 min read
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Disney, 20th Century Studios and CAA won’t have to face a copyright lawsuit brought by production executive Madison Jones, who accused them of conspiring together to steal ideas from a screenplay he pitched for Ad Astra.

U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter found that the makers of the 2019 sci-fi film couldn’t have ripped off Jones’ work since they didn’t have access to his screenplay, which was completed after Ad Astra was already written. And even if they did read the script, the movies aren’t similar enough to prove copyright infringement, according to a summary judge order issued on Tuesday.

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Peter Ticktin, a lawyer for Jones, said his client plans to appeal a decision by the judge barring a forensic search of the hard drive of writers James Gray and Ethan Gross. He argued that it could’ve shown that they engaged in fraud to back up arguments that they completed their screenplay before Jones pitched his work.

“Justice was not done, here, and we plan to appeal the decision to not require the Defendants to produce an image of the Defendants’ hard drive which would have proved whether there was independent creation, or not,” Ticktin said.

The lawsuit from Jones revolves around a screenplay titled “Cosmic Force,” which follows a soldier who’s recruited to lead a mission across space to find his missing astronaut father and discovers an alien energy source that threatens the universe. The head of de Passe Entertainment alleged ideas from his work were stolen after he shared it with CAA agents, who then allegedly schemed with Gray and Gross to use it as the foundation for Ad Astra.

To prove copyright infringement, there typically must be proof that there was copying facilitated by access to the work at issue. Merely showing that an agency received a screenplay, for example, isn’t enough. Instead, evidence of submission to an intermediary who’s in a position to share the work with the creators alleged to have engaged in infringement is necessary.

In this case, the court concluded that wasn’t possible under the timeline in which the screenplays were completed. According to court filings, Jones said he created “Cosmic Force” toward the end of 2014, but Gray and Gross finished the first draft of Ad Astra in 2013.

“It is undisputed that Defendants Gray and Gross submitted the Ad Astra November 29, 2013, Script to a CAA agent in November 2013, and submitted the May 22, 2015, Script to additional CAA agents on May 22, 2015,” stated the order, which noted that Jones’ work was never uploaded to CAA’s repository of screenplays. “By contrast, Plaintiff first submitted a copy of Cosmic Force to Defendant CAA on November 10, 2015, and then again on September 23, 2016.”

Central to the finding was Jones’ failure to respond in time to CAA’s request for admissions, which is a set of statements sent between litigants for the purpose of having a party admit or deny the allegations. By neglecting to answer, the court took as truth statements supporting CAA’s position that it first received his screenplay in November 2015 and that only one of its agents ever received his work, among other things.

Jones also pointed to several contacts with people from CAA, Davis Entertainment Company and Fox 21 Television Studios as further evidence that the makers of Ad Astra had access to his screenplay. But Slaughter said there’s no evidence of communication between the CAA agent Jones met with — who didn’t express interest in developing “Cosmic Force,” per court filings — and the agents who represented Gray.

And while Jones submitted a made-for-TV version of his screenplay in 2016 to Gloria Fan, an executive to 20th Century sister company Fox 21 Television Studios, she didn’t share the work with anyone and had no involvement with Ad Astra, according to the order. Regardless, Fan said in a declaration to the court that she was never interested in developing “Cosmic Force” and merely thanked Jones for sharing his script because she “felt it was appropriate to say something polite.”

Slaughter also reasoned that the works aren’t similar enough to show copyright infringement. He pointed to “significant differences” in plot, themes, characters and mood, among other things.

“In this case, although Cosmic Force and Ad Astra both involve protagonists journeying to outer space to search for lost missions helmed by their respective fathers, the court concludes that the similarities between the two works ends there,” the judge wrote.

While “Cosmic Force” is a thriller replete with action scenes involving characters wielding weapons, car chases with limousine and romantic entanglements (a character at one point yells “[E]at some heat!” while shooting a blaster, with the script noting by way of explanation “BOOSH! BOOSH! BOOSH! BOOSH! His body smokes with holes but they REPAIR instantly”), Ad Astra is a melancholic drama grounded more in reality, according to the order.

“Moreover, the general plotline of a protagonist searching for a lost mission that was helmed by their father is not protectable,” Slaughter wrote.

Claims for direct, contributory and vicarious infringement, as well as breach of implied contract were dismissed.

CAA and Disney declined to comment.

In recent years, there’s been a push by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to curb the early dismissal of copyright infringement suits. The federal appeals court last year revived a case over M. Night Shyamalan allegedly ripping off a 2013 independent movie for his Apple TV+ series Servant, though it wasn’t at the summary judgment stage like in Jones’ suit. The order was issued in a series of other reversals in copyright actions overturning dismissals.

Best of The Hollywood Reporter