Inside 'The Batman' Lawsuit
A former DC Comics artist sued Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc. last month for copyright infringement, alleging that the 2022 film stole a storyline he pitched to DC.
A few months ago, I wrote an article detailing allegations of plagiarism concerning the film The Batman (2022) dir. Matt Reeves. Written by Reeves and Peter Craig (with Mattson Tomlin contributing to the screenplay), the story itself involves a detective, noir version of Batman (Robert Pattinson) investigating a series of brutal murders perpetrated by the Riddler (Paul Dano). A former artist for DC Comics, Chris Wozniak, alleged that the story copied a pitch he sent to DC several times. The Bat, the Cat, and the Fox quickly debunked that claim.
On October 20, 2022, Mr. Wozniak sued Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. for copyright infringement.
Some Questions
Before the publication of this article, The Bat, the Cat, and the Fox sent a list of questions to Mr. Wozniak’s attorney, R. Terry Parker of Rath Young Pignatelli. Mr. Parker told the New York Post, “There are so many original expressions from my client’s story found in the defendant’s movie that we believe this is a clear case of copyright infringement. The similarities are just too uncanny to be accidental.”
Parker is an attorney based in Concord, New Hampshire who specializes in “resolving commercial and intellectual property disputes,” according to Rath Young Pignatelli’s website. In the past, Mr. Parker has litigated “matters concerning trade secrets, unfair and deceptive trade practices, patent, trademark and copyright infringement, licensing disputes, as well as contract and employment disputes.”
Mr. Parker did not respond to our request for comment. The questions we asked are detailed below:
What is your familiarity with Batman and Detective Comics’ history? Are you aware of any storylines outside of The Batman that may coincide with Mr. Wozniak’s original pitch?
Is it true that your client has reported his allegations to the FBI, even though the FBI only deals with intellectual property theft relating to US trade secrets?
In the past, your client has alleged that Warner Bros. also pitched his storyline to Christopher Nolan for The Dark Knight Trilogy. Is this true?
Author’s note: at the time of our media inquiry, the filing was not public. In the filing, which is now public, Mr. Parker alludes to this particular allegation. He writes:
Four months after submitted the Copyrighted Work to Michael Uslan, Plaintiff noticed multiple articles in film industry websites and magazines claiming producers at Warner Brothers were pushing Director Christopher Nolan and Screenwriter David Goyle [sic] to do a Batman where the Riddler was a serial killer.
Upon information and belief, after having access to the Copyrighted Work, Defendant pressed very hard for its Batman directors to use the Copyrighted Work in a Batman movie, or substantial portions of the Copyrighted Work, in a Batman movie.
First of all, David “Goyle” is David S. Goyer, the screenwriter of The Dark Knight Trilogy; this is not the only basic spelling error in the filing.
In an Empire Magazine article promoting The Dark Knight Rises at the time, Goyer does recall an anecdote similar to this. The piece reads:
The easier option would have been to have gone with a Joker-like antagonist; Goyer recalls studio suits at The Dark Knight premiere saying of the next villain that “obviously it’s gonna be the Riddler, and we want it to be Leonardo DiCaprio…”
Nonetheless, this does not match the timeline Mr. Parker provided; although Mr. Wozniak alleges that stories about Warner Brothers wanting Nolan to feature the Riddler were published a few months after Mr. Wozniak pitched his idea to producer Michael Uslan in 2008, the Empire Magazine piece was published in 2012 — before the release of The Dark Knight Rises. Mr. Parker provides no sources or articles to support his client’s claim.
The Batman director, screenwriter, and producer Matt Reeves has talked about the process of writing the story numerous times, particularly in this detailed podcast interview. Is it your client’s opinion that Mr. Reeves is lying about how the story was created?
As an attorney specializing in copyright infringement, I am sure you are aware of how ideas themselves, even borrowed ideas, are not protected under copyright law. What made you want to take on Mr. Wozniak’s case, given the difficulty in pursuing copyright infringement relating to story ideas?
If producer Michael Uslan is a central figure in Mr. Wozniak’s allegations, why is he not a defendant? Why are Mr. Reeves or Batman co-writers Peter Craig and Mattson Tomlin not defendants?
The Lawsuit Itself
The filing accuses defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. of “willful copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), and 501.”
The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that “personal jurisdiction and venue over Defendant are proper,” despite Warner Brothers’ headquarters being located in Burbank, California. “Defendant is conducting business in this judicial district and is committing torts in this state, including without limitation the copyright infringement at issue here, which causes harm in this state and judicial district,” Mr. Parker writes.
Throughout the filing, two recurring themes emerge: one, the use of common Batman tropes infringes on Mr. Wozniak’s copyright, according to Mr. Parker, Secondly, the filing has a habit of comparing “apples to oranges.” The filing routinely accuses Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. of copying one scene from Mr. Wozniak’s work, albeit the corresponding scene from The Batman differs significantly.
According to the lawsuit, typical portrayals of the Riddler include the villain wearing “loud clothing, usually a domino mask and green unitard decorated with question mark prints or a green suit and bowler hat.” The filing also describes generic Riddler portrayals as being “theatrical and ostentatious” — two adjectives that perfectly describe Paul Dano’s Riddler in The Batman.
The filing also describes Wozniak’s rendition of Batman as a “vulnerable, poisoned man, whose arduous years of crime fighting have taken their toll on his aging frame. He is much more armored, a small man in a big suit, like Ironman [sic], with more attachments.”
This interpretation is not unique; the dark knight has been famously poisoned by Scarecrow in several iterations of Batman. In comparison to Wozniak’s Batman, Robert Pattinson’s iteration of the character is a young, muscular crime fighter who is only in his second year of being Batman and has little armor to work with, unlike Wozniak’s version of the caped crusader.
The misspelling of David S. Goyer’s name is not the only error; Commissioner Jim Gordon and the Riddler’s names are frequently spelled as Jim “Gordan” and the “Riddle” respectively.
The lawsuit describes Wozniak’s Gordon as being “the last honest cop in Gotham,” a familiar trope outside of The Batman. “Batman and Commissioner Gordan [sic] work together and are as close as they have ever been. Batman appears less as the brawns of the pair as in the DC Universe and more as a fellow detective. The two of them have little trust in the police force or government and team up together to solve the Riddler’s crimes.
Batman has often been portrayed as having both the traits of a brawny superhero and a fellow detective, including in The Batman. Unlike Batman, Jeffrey Wright’s iteration of Gordon has an optimistic trust in the police force and city government, albeit that trust comes crashing down when Carmine Falcone (John Turturro) is revealed to be the rata alada.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Wozniak’s plot “opens at the scene of a grisly killing, where Batman finds a taunting note promising more killings to come”; in The Batman, the Riddler does leave a taunting note for Batman, albeit hinting at Mayor Don Mitchell’s checkered past instead.
Mr. Wozniak’s iteration of the Riddler is described as “a lonely Riddler who has not been heard of in 20 years” — Paul Dano’s Riddler makes his first appearance in Gotham right after Mayor Mitchell’s murder when he also murders Commissioner Pete Savage. The lawsuit details Mr. Wozniak’s Riddler as “a morbid loser, shunned by society, who is now a serial killer and mass murderer.” The filing states that this Riddler “found solace in a group home or commune as a younger man.” For Paul Dano’s Riddler, the Gotham Orphanage was anything but a solace.
While the lawsuit implies that Dano’s Riddler knows Batman is Bruce Wayne (just like Wozniak’s version of the villain), Dano’s Riddler is unaware of the correlation in the film. While the Riddler expresses his frustrations at Bruce Wayne, Batman grows paranoid, thinking that the Riddler knows his true identity. This is not the only inaccurate statement about the motives of Dano’s Riddler. Mr. Parker claims that both iterations of the Riddler unleash a flood to “bring out Armageddon or total destruction with a Biblical plague,” but the Riddler’s flooding in The Batman does not have any religious motives.
The lawsuit highlights two alleged similarities between the climaxes of Wozniak’s plot and The Batman, although both plotlines are significantly different. Wozniak’s climax involves Batman being “incapacitated” as the Riddler is “winning the fight.” It goes on to say, “While Batman escapes the Riddler by gaining access to the Batmobile, he lies helpless and in need of the antidote, which he obtains in the end from Alfred.” In contrast, The Batman’s climax involves Batman being incapacitated while fighting several copycat Riddlers (Dano’s Riddler is in a holding cell during the climax), but Batman uses a tube of adrenaline to recover. — the adrenaline is not supplied by Alfred (Andy Serkis), who is in the hospital recovering from the Riddler’s bomb.
Mr. Wozniak’s storyline also claims a common Batman trope: Batman being a symbol of hope. Mr. Parker claims in the lawsuit that both Jokers in Wozniak’s plot and The Batman have “secretly masterminded the Riddler’s entire scheme by anonymously befriending and radicalizing the Riddler[s].” Contrary to the lawsuit’s claim, The Batman’s Riddler does not meet the Joker (Barry Keoghan) until after the events in the movie. Keoghan’s Joker plays no role in the events before his scene.
The filing provides a copy of the certificate for registration Mr. Wozniak obtained from the United States Copyright Office. There is a glaring detail to this exhibit: Mr. Wozniak’s copyright was not registered until August 2022, many months after The Batman’s theatrical release and two months before Mr. Wozniak filed his lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites typical Batman tropes (“Gotham City’s government and police force as controlled by a single entity, totally corrupt, unreliable, and dangerous”; “Batman doubting his dedication to crime fighting, and contemplating quitting his crusade on crime”; “Batman as a human detective and less of a superhero with uncanny physical prowess,” etc.) as being “original expressions of the ideas.” Among its many allegations, the lawsuit falsely claims that Dano’s Riddler “kills by poisoning.”
Mr. Wozniak asks for damages “in an amount to be proven at trial” and for “permanently enjoining Defendant, their employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and assigns, and all those in active concert and participation with Defendant, from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff’s copyrights or continuing to market, offer, sell, dispose of, license, lease, transfer, public display, advertise, reproduce, develop or manufacture any works derived or copied from the Plaintiffs’ or to participate or assist in any such activity.” In other words, the latter judgment would prevent Warner Bros. from promoting the movie altogether; it would force the studio to remove the film from HBO Max, prohibit Reeves from promoting his film, and cease the production of merchandise from the film — as though the film itself never happened.
Now What?
The judge presiding over the case, Paul A. Engelmayer, is an Obama-era appointee best known for being the judge in the Trial of the Nine Trey Gangsters. This case charged eleven gang members with racketeering. Notably, one of the defendants was rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine. After pleading guilty, Judge Engelmayer sentenced 6ix9ine to 24 months in prison. After 15 months, he was released and served his remaining sentence in home confinement due to COVID-19 concerns.
Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc. has (sort of) responded to the lawsuit. In a letter to Judge Engelmayer, counsel James D. Weinberger requested an extension up to December 15 “to allow counsel to further investigate the claim and to give the parties time to attempt to resolve the dispute short of Warner Bros. filing a responsive pleading.” Parker consented to Weinberger’s request, and Judge Engelmayer granted the defendant’s request, giving Warner Bros. until December 15 to respond to the lawsuit.
James D. Weinberger of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. is an attorney who specializes in copyright infringement and trademark disputes, according to the law firm’s website. He also advises clients “on unfair competition, false advertising, trademark dilution, right of publicity, First Amendment, and internet-related matters.” Mr. Weinberger’s past clients have included fashion brands Banana Republic, Louis Vuitton, and Chanel; Robert Kirkman, LLC (owner of ‘The Walking Dead’ trademark), and notably, DC Comics.
In a 2015 lawsuit against car mechanic Mark Towle, DC Comics accused the defendant of copyright infringement relating to the Batmobile. Mr. Towle built and sold replicas of the dark knight’s famous vehicle. Mr. Weinberger represented DC Comics in DC Comics v. Mark Towle, which resulted in a win for DC Comics after the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ruled that the Batmobile is the property of DC Comics and thus entitled to copyright protection. The Court created the three-part test, a test often used to determine copyright protection, to render its decision:
“The character must generally have physical as well as conceptual qualities.”
“The character must be sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears. It must display consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes, although the character need not have a consistent appearance.”
“The character must be especially distinctive and contain some unique elements of expression. It cannot be a stock character like a magician in standard magician garb.”
Until Warner Bros. formally responds to the lawsuit, it is difficult to say how this lawsuit will proceed. One thing is certain, however: for the plaintiff to successfully argue his case, his legal team will need to do their homework on the dark knight’s history. If not, dismissal of the lawsuit is a very likely outcome.