Relativity Hit With Second 'Catfish' Suit as Legal Fight Gets To Be More Bizarre (Exclusive)

Rogue Relativity Media, presently protecting an amazing copyright suit against its 2010 documentary Catfish, continues to be prosecuted again within the film. And that we've found that the Ryan Kavanaugh company might be ready to launch a counterattack from the lawyer representing among the litigants. First, some background about this remarkable situation. In The month of january, Spin Move Records prosecuted the manufacturers of Catfish since the questionable film allegedly used a copyrighted song fromsinger-songwriterAmy Kuneywithout permission. The film purports to become a documentary a good incredible hoax, however, many have pointed to circumstantial evidence the filmmakers had staged a few of the moments and were thus playing a hoax about the audience. Within the legal context, the main difference from a real documentary along with a faux documentary could mean the main difference between "fair use" from the song and copyright violation. The filmmakers maintain that Catfish is 100% authentic, opening questions regarding the character of creative license within the documentary filmmaking genre in particular. For additional particulars concerning the accusations, take a look at our prior article. Now, according toCatfishdistributor Relativity, the filmhas an unrecouped balance in excess of $8.5 million and won't likely ever become lucrative. Further, the organization highlights that since the copyright about the song was registered late, Spin Move are only able to seek actual damages -- the need for an acceptable certification fee for that song -- so it thinks would add up to a maximum of $35,000. So do not know copyright suit being went after for this type of modest reward? According toRelativity's lawyer,Shaun Sanders, it's because Spin Move's lawyer Neville Manley includes a legal technique to extract greater than actual damages within this dispute. One might say it's an alleged two-part plan. First, in federal court papers, Sanders highlights a provision of federal copyright law that enables effective parties to recuperate attorney costs. Quite simply, even when Spin Move's potential pay-out is modest, Manley could possibly win compensation from Relativity for his billable hrs. Second, a suit continues to be filed now within the United kingdom against Catfish through the copyright holder of the song which made an appearance within the film. Based on Sanders, Manley arrived at to other songwriters and allegedly interfered using the producer's capability to close a certification deal. He states that Manley is attempting to make the legal defense so troublesome and costly that Relativity will have to pay a higher settlement add up to place it to mattress. Manley calls the allegation "absolutely false," the United kingdom complaintant approached him, which any disputes within the United kingdom on the movie that allegedly removed no privileges before its release is going to be potentially harmful for Relativity because there's no "fair use" doctrine there. To the problem of attorney costs. Inside a highly improbable move, Sanders is demanding use of Spin Move's attorney engagement contract(s) with Manley, such as the fee arrangement. "Because the fee application is clearly the tail wagging your dog, discovery of Litigants fee arrangement is extremely relevant, because the potential fee application may be the finest quantity of value in dispute within this situation," writesSandersin an ex-parte application towards the court on Tuesday. Not remarkably, Manley is intensely fighting the demand.He takes exception towards the untimely and procedurally defective way it had been made, and states it's premature to create such documents before any motion for costs has been manufactured.In the opposition, Manley states similarly info it "remains safe and secure through the attorney-client privilege and it is entirely irrelevant for this copyright action." Manley informs THR that he's "befuddled through the motion." Approached for explanation, Sanders states the info has been asked for prior to challenging any award of legal costs to Manley. "Should you challenge a fee award with evidence, you best have it in discovery," he states. Meanwhile, Relativity might be about the verge of filing its suit against Manley's firm. Sanders points our focus on the firm's reposting of THR's original suit story on its website. The content there's embellished with a copy of theCatfish poster image, which Sanders states signifies an violation of copyrighted material. Manley responds this allegation is simply too absurd to merit an answer, asking, "Haven't they heard about fair use like a defense?" E-mail: eriqgardner@yahoo.com Twitter: @eriqgardner Relativity Media