DVD Talk Forum - 'Nemo' Plagiarized?

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)

- Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)

- - 'Nemo' Plagiarized? (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/338213-nemo-plagiarized.html)

'Nemo' Plagiarized?

From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m/film_nemo_dc

Quote:

French Author Claims 'Finding Nemo' Plagiarism

Hollywood Reporter
Tue Dec 30,12:21 AM ET

By Shiraz Sidhva

PARIS (Hollywood Reporter) - A French children's author has sued Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios, claiming the cartoon fish they catapulted to fame in the worldwide blockbuster "Finding Nemo" was plagiarized from his 1995 creation Pierrot Le Poisson Clown.

AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: Movies: 'Finding Nemo'

Pascal Kamina, a copyrights lawyer representing the author, Franck Le Calvez, confirmed in a telephone interview Monday that the case -- claiming damages for breach of copyright and trademark and demanding that they withdraw "Nemo" books and merchandise from French shops -- will come up for hearing in a French court Feb. 17.

Disney denied the claims.

"We consider the case filed in France to be totally without merit because 'Finding Nemo,' which is owned by Pixar and Disney, was independently developed and does not infringe anyone's copyrights or trademarks," according to a statement that Disney released Monday.

Le Calvez, a 33-year-old aquarium buff, said in an interview Monday that he registered Pierrot as a trademark with France's industrial protection and copyrights body in 1995. An aspiring filmmaker, Le Calvez said he then did the rounds of French production companies and animation studios, hoping they would fall for the lovable tropical fish with white stripes and large orange bulging eyes. But he was turned down, and the little fish languished in a folder until 2000, when Le Calvez decided to make Pierrot the hero of an illustrated children's book.

Registering the screenplay with the French Society of Authors in June 2002, Le Calvez paid nearly $71,000 to publish 2,000 copies of the book in November 2002. Illustrated by Robin Delpuech and Thierry Jagodzinski, "Pierrot Le Poisson Clown" was published by France's Editions Flaven Scene, and the entire print run was sold in a month.

Agreeing that the uncanny resemblance between Pierrot and Nemo could be coincidental (clown fish, Amphiprion ocellaris, do look alike in nature), Le Calvez said he realized something was fishy only after French bookstore chain FNAC removed copies of his book from their shelves, claiming that it was too similar to Disney's version.

"What's really upsetting is that quite a few bookstores won't sell my book because they think that I have plagiarized 'Nemo,"' the author said in an interview Monday. "The two fish look very similar, but it doesn't end there."

Like Nemo, Pierrot lives in a pink sea anemone and starts life half-orphaned because one parent was swallowed up by Liona, the scorpion fish. "The beginning of the story is the same, even if the scenarios then become different," Le Calvez said.

Kamina, who admitted that the film was finished by the time Le Calvez's first book came out (a second has been written since), said he is worried that his client's success will be swallowed up by the American fish. He said the "Nemo" idea probably found its way to the United States through one of the French studios that Le Calvez approached in 1995.

"That would be the only explanation," he said. "It's not just the resemblance of the clown fish, smiling with a raised fin. We have also found the same supporting characters in the film -- such as a surgeon fish and cleaner shrimp -- and gentle fish folk who help the little troubled hero. The similarities are sufficiently troubling for us to ask for an explanation from Disney."

The lawyer said his client is still waiting for an answer from Disney and that if they don't hear from the company, Le Calvez will press ahead with his lawsuit in France.

"I want my fish to live," Le Calvez said.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

You be the judge:
Pierrot: http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...8.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Nemo:
http://frames.free.fr/Images/nemo2.jpg

I can't vouch for the storyline, but the designs ARE very similar.

Could it be because they are both based on a real fish?

Bear in mind that Nemo has been around at Pixar for years. He even has a cameo in Monsters Inc..

Quote:

Originally posted by Groucho
Bear in mind that Nemo has been around at Pixar for years. He even has a cameo in Monsters Inc..

Monsters. Inc. is a 2001 film, most likely produced in late 1999 and 2000 but the Nemo reference could've been added at the last minute. This guy had the Pierrot registered as a trademark with France's industrial protection and copyrights body in 1995. It's pretty apparent that Pixar derived some part if not all of their Finding Nemo story from this source. Most importantly, Pierrot trademark has been compromised and I think Franck Le Calvez deserves some sort of renumuration.

Quote:

Originally posted by neiname
It's pretty apparent that Pixar derived some part if not all of their Finding Nemo story from this source.

Why? Because both stories have to do with the same kind of fish? Come on! You'd have to prove that Pixar somehow saw this guy's material and decided to plagiarize.

The guy's case probably boils down to whether or not he can make any real connections between the people he shopped this to in 1995 (at which point I doubt Pixar had begun work on Monsters Inc., let alone Nemo) and Disney or Pixar. Either way, this won't affect anyone but France.

According to this interview, Andrew Stanton first got the idea for Finding Nemo in 1992:

http://www.unreel.co.uk/features/fea...odirectors.cfm

Quote:

I wanted to do something under water with computer graphics - I got the setting before I got the story, in 1992 while we were still developing Toy Story.

This is retarded.. here's a picture of a REAL clownfish:

http://nature-discovery.com/shop/images/724.jpg

So I guess people can trademark animals now?

Quote:

Originally posted by Groucho
According to this interview, Andrew Stanton first got the idea for Finding Nemo in 1992:

http://www.unreel.co.uk/features/fea...odirectors.cfm

That doesn't mean much, it seems to be from the quick skim-read I did of that article that Stanton only came up with the idea to do something underwater because he though it would show off CG.

You can't base the case on the character since it is a real fish, if the story is as similar as is implied in the story then they have a case. And hopefully they will win it if in fact it is proven to have been stolen.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't take it from this guy.

Read the article.. the ONLY merit this thing has going for it is who he pimped his story to in 1995. He even admits that after the beginning the stories become different.

His book came out in 2000, Nemo had already begun production years ago. Nemo probably start production 1998-1999.

I just don't see this going anywhere..

I would actually say that the designs are quite dissimilar once the unalienable source material has been eliminated.

Quote:

Originally posted by Groucho
Why? Because both stories have to do with the same kind of fish? Come on! You'd have to prove that Pixar somehow saw this guy's material and decided to plagiarize.

Quote:

"That would be the only explanation," he said. "It's not just the resemblance of the clown fish, smiling with a raised fin. We have also found the same supporting characters in the film -- such as a surgeon fish and cleaner shrimp -- and gentle fish folk who help the little troubled hero. The similarities are sufficiently troubling for us to ask for an explanation from Disney."

Any two underwater stories are going to have a lot of minor similarities. For this guy to have a case at all, I think he would need to show that his 1995 treatment featured at least half of the key plot elements of Nemo:

1. One fish searching the ocean for another fish.
2. The “Lucky Fin”
3. Sidekick with short-term memory loss.
4. Vegetarian sharks.
5. Surfer Turtles.
6. Escape from a fish tank.
7. Over-protective father (and the accompanying backstory)
8. Navigation through a school of jellyfish.

Quote:

Originally posted by PixyJunket
http://nature-discovery.com/shop/images/724.jpg
[/B]

RIPOFF!!!!!!!

:)

Heres a drawing I did in second grade.

http://bakerbooks.net/images/poetry2002_58_1st.jpg

Disney is so getting sued.

Nemo was in Monsters Inc? Where?

Grrr. I hate Pixar. Not a creative bone in any of the employees.

Quote:

Originally posted by Deftones
Nemo was in Monsters Inc? Where?

In either Boo's bedroom or in one of the bedrooms that she and Sully "visit" during the climax. It was a doll/pillow type thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Deftones
Nemo was in Monsters Inc? Where?

Well.. I HAD screencaps I made but they're on my old PC.

One time is when Sully is throwing Randall in the door to the trailer park, you see a Nemo fish on a plaque in the door. The other is when Boo finally gets home and starts picking up all her toys for Sully, one of them is a squeaky Nemo. The first one is hard to spot, the second is easy.

Indeed, this lawsuit will not get anywhere.

Based on the story there are way to few similarities. "Friendly folk that help him out" Come on, so this guy owns a patent on sturgeon fish and friendly folk?

Should God sue for originally creating the fish?

If he wants his story to succeed than do it on your own not through generated hype with a frivilous lawsuit.

Re: 'Nemo' Plagiarized?

What I think is the most telling quote is this:

Quote:

"What's really upsetting is that quite a few bookstores won't sell my book because they think that I have plagiarized 'Nemo,"' the author said in an interview Monday.

This guy isn't suing because he thinks he got ripped off, he's suing so that he can get his book back on the shelves. It's part pre-emptive strike, part name clearing. If the judge finally rules that there's no connection between the two properties, well that works both ways. It would prove that his work is not a rip-off of Pixar's.

Silly indeed...

But... people are always claiming that Disney has stolen ideas from elsewhere.

Both Toy Story and Monsters Inc were targets.
Bugs Like is another example.

Lion King is probobly the only one that "might" have been stolen, but thats still arguable.

But in all the other cases, I think its just a case that Disney has alot of money, and corrupt lawyers think that if they can get Disney to settle to prevent bad press, then its easy money.

A different issue is the store that was pulling this guys book. That DOES seem unfair.
Its no different then when Disney forced film festivals to NOT show the movie that Lion King was ripped from.

Give credit where it is do, then move on

Nick

Hmm, a Disney movie where the mother was killed? Never seen that in a Disney animated film before.

I don't think this case holds water unless God wishes to sue both for using the crown fish / anemone symbiosis arguement. I agree that the guy's book should not be pulled though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nick_Scott

Lion King is probobly the only one that "might" have been stolen, but thats still arguable.
Nick

BTW Lions King is a direct rip off of Hamlet. It's public domian so I do not think it can be called stealing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kdogg
BTW Lions King is a direct rip off of Hamlet. It's public domian so I do not think it can be called stealing.

The plagiarism charges against The Lion King have to do with an old Japanese cartoon called "Kimba the White Lion."

Why wouldn't Disney rip this guy off of his idea? They've never done an original cartoon feature, most are ripped off public domain stories that they then bastardize. Hans Christian Anderson is probably hunting Walt down in the afterlife for a little payback as Iwrite this.

The only thing they did wrong this time was to steal from somebody who was actually still alive.

I think it's important to distinguish Disney from Pixar here.

Oh no.. somebody let the anime fans loose. :(

Quote:

Originally posted by renaldow
Why wouldn't Disney rip this guy off of his idea? They've never done an original cartoon feature, most are ripped off public domain stories that they then bastardize. Hans Christian Anderson is probably hunting Walt down in the afterlife for a little payback as Iwrite this.

The only thing they did wrong this time was to steal from somebody who was actually still alive.

It seems like someone owns Disney stock. ;)

Based on the article the differences are so coincidental and minor even if they were inspired by the story it is no more than painting a starry sky because you saw Van Gogh's painting. Inspiration is different than plagarism.

And if the bookstore is refusing to carry his book because of Nemo than his issue is with the bookstore.

Sounds wfer thin to me...

Quote:

Originally posted by Nick_Scott
Silly indeed...

But... people are always claiming that Disney has stolen ideas from elsewhere.

Both Toy Story and Monsters Inc were targets.
Bugs Like is another example.

Lion King is probobly the only one that "might" have been stolen, but thats still arguable.

But in all the other cases, I think its just a case that Disney has alot of money, and corrupt lawyers think that if they can get Disney to settle to prevent bad press, then its easy money.

A different issue is the store that was pulling this guys book. That DOES seem unfair.
Its no different then when Disney forced film festivals to NOT show the movie that Lion King was ripped from.

Give credit where it is do, then move on

Nick

I didn't hear the cases against Toy Story and Monsters, Inc., but A Bug's Life is a remake of Seven Samurai. I don't think anybody is going to sue over that, since so many Kurosawa films have been remade in other genres, such as The Magnificent Seven, A Fistfull of Dollars, even Battle Beyond The Stars, among many others.

I also didn't hear much about The Lion King, but I can say that their Atlantis movie is incredibly derivative of an anime called Nadja: Secret of Blue Water, where they stole design elements, plot elements, and actual shots.

Of course, Disney may have bought the rights to Nadja so they could do a remake of it without any legal problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyBallz
"Finding Nemo"
http://www.sadderday.com/images/nemo.jpg

Thanks for the pic.

There are references to the Invincibles in Nemo. The kid in the dentist chair has an Incredibles comic book. Also, I believe there is a car from Cars and the pizza truck from Toy Story.

What no one has mentioned and I do find surprising is that Pierrot Le Poisson Clown appears to be a childrens book with illustrations that are computer rendered, thus making the finding nemo connection more evident.

But I tend to take Pixar's side on this. Plagarism suits come up all the time and they're usually gold diggers or idiots who shopped their material without representation (which you should NEVER do)

Its funny to see all the Disney bashing when they have nothing to do with any creativity decisions at Pixar. Pixar does whatever it wants to do and Disney just distributes the movie.
This is so lame, a guy can sue because a movie studio uses a creature found in nature that he happened to use. And (gasp) it is set under water. People are so sue happy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pants
What no one has mentioned and I do find surprising is that Pierrot Le Poisson Clown appears to be a childrens book with illustrations that are computer rendered, thus making the finding nemo connection more evident.

But the book wasn't published until November 2002! Pixar had been working on Nemo for years by then. Heck, the trailer was already out on the Monsters Inc. DVD.

This guy's trying to build a case on supposedly copyrighting a clownfish character back in 1995. The fact that, seven years later, he self-published a book featuring a computer-rendered version of that character looks to me like he's the one doing the plagiarizing. Not Pixar.