Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 12

1 Marc Toberoff (CA State Bar No. 188547)

[email protected]
2 TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363
3 Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (310) 246-3333
4 Facsimile: (310) 246-3101

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

6
JAMES E. THOMAS and JOHN C. THOMAS

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CASE NO.: ______________
11 JAMES E. THOMAS, an individual; and
JOHN C. THOMAS, an individual, COMPLAINT FOR:
12
Plaintiff,
13 vs. [1] DECLARATORY RELIEF
14 RE: TERMINATION,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)
15 CORPORATION, a corporation; TFCF
CORPORATION, a corporation; TFCF DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, a
17 limited liability company; 20TH
CENTURY STUDIOS, INC., a
18
corporation; THE WALT DISNEY
19 COMPANY, a corporation; and DOES
1-10, inclusive,
20

21 Defendants.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 12

1 Plaintiffs JAMES E. THOMAS and JOHN C. THOMAS, by and through

2 their attorneys of record, hereby allege as follows:

3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4 1. This is a civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under
5 the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., (hereinafter the

6 “Copyright Act”), and under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

7 and 2202.

8 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in
9 this Complaint pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., 28 U.S.C.
10 §§ 1331, 1332 and 1338(a) and (b), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

11 §2201.

12 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in that

13 Defendants are regularly doing business in the State of California and in this

14 district and maintain contacts within the State of California and this district.

15 4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern
16 District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c) and 1400(a),

17 because Defendants are conducting business in this district and are subject to

18 personal jurisdiction in this district.

19 NATURE OF THE ACTION

20 5. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §203(a), provides authors with the
21 inalienable right to recapture the copyright to their creative work, after a lengthy

22 waiting period, by statutorily terminating without cause prior transfer(s) of

23 copyright, provided advance notice of termination is given and accepted for

24 recordation by the U.S. Copyright Office.

25 6. The termination right was specifically enacted by Congress in

26 recognition of the unequal bargaining position of authors and to enable them to

27 finally secure the financial benefits of their work, sold inevitably before its value

28 could be fairly tested in the marketplace. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 124

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
2
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 12

1 (1976) (emphasizing that the termination right was enacted to give authors a

2 chance to obtain a more equitable portion of their creation’s value when it is no

3 longer conjectural.)

4 7. In or about 1984, brothers James E. Thomas and John C. Thomas

5 conceived and authored the original “spec” screenplay “Hunters” (hereinafter, the

6 “Screenplay”). Their Screenplay was acquired in 1986 by Twentieth Century Fox

7 Film Corporation and was the basis for the iconic hit film Predator (1987),

8 starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, launching the Predator film franchise.

9 8. In 2016, the Thomas brothers properly availed themselves of their

10 right under Section 203(a) of the Copyright Act to recover the copyright to their

11 literary material by serving and recording with the U.S. Copyright Office within

12 the prescribed statutory window, a notice of termination with an effective

13 termination date of April 17, 2021. This is a civil action seeking declaratory relief

14 that the Thomases’ termination is valid and effective under the Copyright Act.

15 PARTIES
16 9. Plaintiff JAMES E. THOMAS is an individual and a citizen of and
17 resides in the State of California, in the County of Santa Barbara, and is and at all

18 times has been a citizen of the United States.

19 10. Plaintiff JOHN C. THOMAS (hereinafter, collectively with Plaintiff

20 JAMES E. THOMAS, the “Plaintiffs”) is an individual and a citizen of and resides

21 in the State of California, in the County of Santa Barbara, and is and at all times

22 has been a citizen of the United States.

23 11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that
24 Defendant TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION (“TCFFC”)

25 is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal place of business in Los

26 Angeles County, California, and that TCFFC regularly conducts significant

27 business in this district.

28 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
3
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 12

1 Defendant 20TH CENTURY STUDIOS, INC. is a California corporation

2 maintaining its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California, and

3 that 20TH CENTURY STUDIOS, INC. regularly conducts significant business in

4 this district.

5 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that
6 Defendant TFCF ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC is a Delaware limited

7 liability company maintaining its principal place of business in in New York, New

8 York, and that TFCF ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC regularly conducts

9 significant business in the State of California and in this district.

10 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that
11 Defendant TFCF CORPORATION is a Delaware corporation maintaining its

12 principal place of business in New York, New York, and that TFCF

13 CORPORATION regularly conducts significant business in the State of

14 California and in this district.

15 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that
16 Defendant THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY (“DISNEY”) is a Delaware

17 corporation maintaining its principal place of business in Los Angeles County,

18 California, and that DISNEY regularly conducts significant business in this

19 district. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and based thereon allege that

20 Disney is the parent company and owner of TCFFC.

21 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the
22 fictitiously named Defendants captioned hereinabove as Does 1 through 10,

23 inclusive and each of them, were in some manner responsible or legally liable for

24 the actions, damages, events, transactions, and circumstances alleged herein. The

25 true names and capacities of such fictitiously named defendants, whether

26 individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are presently unknown to Plaintiffs,

27 and Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to assert the true names and capacities

28 of such fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained. For

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
4
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 12

1 convenience, each reference herein to a named Defendant shall also refer to the

2 Doe Defendants and each of them.

3 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that
4 Defendants TCFFC, TFCF CORPORATION, TFCF ENTERTAINMENT

5 GROUP, LLC, 20TH CENTURY STUDIOS, INC., and DISNEY (hereinafter,

6 collectively, “Defendants”) are the alter-egos of each other and there exists a unity

7 of interest and ownership among the Defendants such that any separateness has

8 ceased to exist with respect to the Screenplay co-authored by Plaintiffs that is the

9 subject hereof.
10 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that each
11 of the Defendants was the agent, partner, servant, employee, or employer of each

12 of the other Defendants herein, and that at all times herein mentioned, each of the

13 Defendants was acting within the course and scope of such employment,

14 partnership, and/or agency and that each of the Defendants is jointly and severally

15 responsible for the damages hereinafter alleged.

16 STATUTORY BACKGROUND
17 19. The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (the
18 “Copyright Act”), provides an author with the inalienable right to recapture the

19 copyright to the author’s creative material, after a lengthy waiting period, by

20 statutorily terminating without cause prior transfer(s) of such copyright.

21 Termination is carried out by simply serving advance notice of termination on the

22 original grantee or its successors and filing the notice with the U.S. Copyright

23 Office, within delineated time windows. 17 U.S.C. § 203(a).

24 20. Section 203(a) provides for the termination of post-1977 transfers of

25 rights under copyright by the author during a five (5) year period commencing

26 thirty-five (35) years after the date the rights were transferred. Id. § 203(a)(3).

27 The requisite notice of termination sets forth the “effective date” of termination,

28 within the five-year termination “window,” when the previously transferred rights

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
5
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 12

1 under copyright will be recaptured by the author. Notice of termination may be

2 served by the author at any time between ten (10) and two (2) years before the

3 effective termination date. Id. § 203(a)(4)(A).

4 21. “Works for hire” are the sole exemption from the Copyrights Act’s
5 termination provisions. Id. § 203(a).

6 22. The termination right is the most important authorial right provided
7 by the Copyright Act, short of copyright itself. Congress was therefore very

8 protective of the termination right and, to that end, enacted a number of provisions

9 to prevent any waiver or encumbrance of the termination interest. For instance,

10 “[t]ermination of the [prior copyright] grant may be effected notwithstanding any

11 agreement to the contrary [.]” Id. § 203(a)(5).

12 23. Furthermore, “[h]armless errors in a [termination] notice that do not

13 materially affect the adequacy of the information required to serve the purposes

14 of . . . section [203(a)] of title 17, U.S.C. . . . shall not render the notice invalid.”

15 37 CFR § 201.10 (e)(1).

16 24. Congress anticipated that an author’s exercise of his/her termination

17 right would usually result in a new license by the author to the terminated grantee

18 (such as TCFFC). To that end, Congress provided “the original grantee” with the

19 exclusive opportunity to re-license an author’s recaptured copyright “after the

20 notice or termination has been served,” but before “the effective date of the

21 termination.” Id. § 203(b)(4). The termination provisions thus reflect a deliberate

22 balance of competing interests.

23 25. Under the termination provisions, prior “derivative works” “can

24 continue to be” distributed as before. 17 U.S.C. § 203(b)(1). Plaintiffs’ recovery

25 of the U.S. copyright to their Screenplay therefore does not prevent Defendants or

26 their licensees from continuing to exploit prior derivative works, including the

27 original Predator film and TCFFC’s five sequel films.

28

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
6
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 7 of 12

1 26. In addition, because the Copyright Act has no extra-territorial

2 application, the foreign rights to Plaintiffs’ Screenplay remains with TCFFC. As

3 a result, after the effective date of Plaintiffs’ termination, new derivative Predator

4 works would simply require a license from Plaintiffs, thereby enabling the authors

5 to fairly participate with others at a level reflective of their work’s market value.

6 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ exercise of their copyright termination right does not

7 prevent the exploitation of the Predator franchise; it simply allows its original

8 creators to, at long last, participate in the financial rewards of their creation, just

9 as Congress intended. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 124 (1976).

10 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
11 27. Plaintiffs JAMES E. THOMAS and JOHN C. THOMAS are brothers
12 who co-authored the original motion picture Screenplay entitled “Hunters” in

13 1984. Plaintiffs created the Screenplay “on spec,” on their own volition, with no

14 guarantee of compensation, and, as such, the Screenplay does not qualify as a

15 “work made-for-hire” under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101.

16 28. On April 16, 1986, Plaintiffs transferred their rights under copyright
17 in the Screenplay to Defendant TCFFC (the “1986 Grant”), pursuant to an Option

18 Agreement for Literary Material between Plaintiffs and TCFFC dated January 22,

19 1985.

20 29. Thereafter, TCFFC produced a derivative feature-length motion

21 picture based upon the Screenplay, entitled Predator, which was released in

22 theaters on June 12, 1987.

23 30. Pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 203(a), Plaintiffs, as the

24 authors of the original Screenplay, have the full power and authority to recover

25 the copyright in their Screenplay by serving on TCFFC, within the statutorily

26 defined time window (April 16, 2014 to April 16, 2024), a notice of termination

27 regarding the 1986 Grant, and filing that notice with the U.S. Copyright Office

28 prior to the notice’s effective termination date.

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
7
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 8 of 12

1 31. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiffs availed themselves of their federal

2 termination right by serving a notice of termination, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §

3 203(a) (hereinafter, the “Termination Notice”) on Defendants TCFFC, TFCF

4 Corporation (formerly known and served as Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.), and

5 TFCF Entertainment Group, LLC (formerly known and served as Fox

6 Entertainment Group, LLC), statutorily terminating the 1986 Grant of rights under

7 copyright in their Screenplay.

8 32. The Termination Notice bore an effective termination date of April

9 17, 2021, when Plaintiffs will recapture pursuant to § 203(a), all rights under
10 copyright in and to their Screenplay.

11 33. The June 9, 2016 Termination Notice was served on TCFFC (and
12 related Defendants) well in advance of the April 17, 2021 termination date. The

13 Termination Notice was drafted, served, and accepted for recordation by the U.S.

14 Copyright Office on June 28, 2016—all in full compliance with the Copyright

15 Act, 17 U.S.C. § 203(a), and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the

16 Register of Copyrights, 37 C.F.R. § 201.10.

17 34. For four and one-half (4½) years after the Termination Notice was
18 served, Defendants did not object to it in any respect. Then, in early January 2021,

19 Defendants’ counsel unexpectedly contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel, contesting the

20 Termination Notice as supposedly untimely, based on a theory that the 1986 Grant

21 of the Screenplay underlying their Predator films allegedly qualified for the

22 special, delayed termination time “window” in 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3), intended

23 for “book publication” grants. See M. Nimmer and D. Nimmer, 3 Nimmer on

24 Copyright, § 11.05[A][2] (“Nimmer”). On January 13, 2021, Defendants served

25 a “counter-notice” on Plaintiffs, reciting their arguments, which squarely

26 contradicted both Nimmer and the legislative history of the statutory provision (§

27 203(a)(3)) they purported to rely on. Copyright Reg. Supp. Rep., pp. 74-75.

28 35. On January 12, 2021, in response and in an abundance of caution,

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
8
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 9 of 12

1 Plaintiffs served two alternate notices of termination on TCFFC and related

2 Defendants, addressing their theory: one with an effective termination date of

3 June 14, 2022 (hereinafter, the “Second Termination Notice”), and the other with

4 an effective termination date of January 13, 2023 (hereinafter, the “Third

5 Termination Notice”) (collectively, the “Alternate Notices”). On March 12, 2021,

6 the Alternate Notices were mailed to the U.S. Copyright Office for recordation.

7 Although Plaintiffs considered Defendants’ last minute objections to be without

8 merit, the Alternate Notices were served as a “belt and suspenders” precaution.

9 36. On March 25, 2021, different counsel for Defendants served a

10 second “counter-notice” on Plaintiffs, repeating Defendants’ supposed objection

11 regarding the Termination Notice, and adding an assortment of additional

12 purported arguments regarding the Alternate Notices, in an effort to evade the

13 Copyright Act’s authorial termination right.

14 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15 (Declaratory Relief: Termination Notice Is Effective Under 17 U.S.C. § 203(a))

16 37. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1

17 through 36 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

18 38. By reason of the foregoing facts, an actual and justiciable

19 controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants

20 concerning the validity of Plaintiffs’ Termination Notice (and Alternate Notices),

21 and the parties’ respective rights to the Screenplay, for which Plaintiffs desire a

22 declaration of rights.

23 39. Plaintiffs contend, and Defendants deny, that their Termination

24 Notice is valid and effective under the Copyright Act.

25 40. Plaintiffs thus seek a declaration from this Court that:

26 a. The Termination Notice is valid and effective under 17 U.S.C.
27 § 203(a) and terminates on April 17, 2021, Plaintiffs’ 1986 Grant of their

28 Screenplay to TCFFC and that, as of said date, Plaintiffs recovered the U.S.

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
9
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 10 of 12

1 copyright to their Screenplay.

2 b. In the unlikely event the Court finds the Termination Notice is

3 invalid, Plaintiffs’ Second Termination Notice or Third Termination Notice is

4 valid, with effective termination dates of June 14, 2022 or January 13, 2023,

5 respectively.

6 41. A declaration of the Court is necessary pursuant to the Declaratory

7 Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., so that the parties may know their

8 respective rights and obligations as to the Termination Notices and when the

9 copyright to the Screenplay was recovered by Plaintiffs.

10 42. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, during the
11 pendency of this action, and thereafter to a permanent injunction, pursuant to 28

12 U.S.C. § 2202, enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents and employees, and all

13 persons acting in concert with them, from exploiting after April 17, 2021 (the

14 effective termination date), new derivative works based on the Screenplay and

15 derivative Predator film franchise, without first obtaining at arms’ length a new

16 copyright license from Plaintiffs.

17 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Counterclaim-
19 Defendants as follows:

20 1. For a declaration that:

21 a. Plaintiffs’ Termination Notice is valid and effective under the
22 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 203 (a), as alleged hereinabove;
23 b. As of April 17, 2021, the effective termination date. Plaintiffs
24 will own exclusively the U.S. copyright in their original Screenplay; and
25 c. As of April 17, 2021, Defendants their licensees, assigns or
26 successors, may not continue to exploit the U.S. copyright to the
27 Screenplay, in whole or in part, without a new copyright license from
28 Plaintiffs;

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
10
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 11 of 12

1 2. For an order, preliminarily during the pendency of this action and

2 thereafter permanently, enjoining Defendants, and all persons acting in concert

3 with them, from exploiting after April 17, 2021 new derivative works based on

4 the Screenplay and derivative Predator franchise, without first obtaining a new

5 copyright license from Plaintiffs;

6 3. For costs of suit;

7 4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
8 5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
9 proper.
10
DATED: April 15, 2021 TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
11

12
By /s/ Marc Toberoff
13 Marc Toberoff
14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs JAMES E. THOMAS
15 and JOHN C. THOMAS
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
11
 Case 3:21-cv-02720 Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 12 of 12

1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2 Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on each claim for relief alleged in
3 the Complaint that is triable by a jury.

5
DATED: April 15, 2021 TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

7 By /s/ Marc Toberoff

Marc Toberoff
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs JAMES E. THOMAS
9
and JOHN C. THOMAS
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
12