Last Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal to decide a copyright dispute arising from the 1980 film Raging Bull.
The lawsuit was lodged by Paula Petrella in 2009, daughter of Jake LaMotta?s biographer Frank ?Peter? Petrella. Despite renewing the copyright to her father?s 1963 screenplay ?Raging Bull? upon which the Scorsese film is based, the respondents Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer continue to market the film.
After the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court?s decision to grant summary judgment for the respondents, holding that the non-statutory equitable defense of laches (unreasonable delay) barred Ms. Petrella?s suit, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal and decide whether she may sue movie studios profiting from the sales of Raging Bull.
Ms. Petrella?s lawyers are going to town on the argument that the dismissal violates the separation of powers doctrine. They submit that under this doctrine the courts may not use non-statutory time limits to restrict express limitations periods enacted by Congress.
With what appears to be a division within the appeals court over this federal copyright law issue, it might be high time the Supreme Court sets a precedent defining the precise scope of the defense of laches.
As for Ms. Petrella?s chance to have the dispute decided by the highest court in the country, the gloves are off and we are reminded of the famous line from the film, ?You never got me down Ray?you never got me down.?
