In affirming the district court’s grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the validity of a General Release signed by a dancer allowing Paramount to use her life story as the basis for the film Flashdance. Marder v. Lopez, Case No. 04-55615 (June 12, 2006) (Pregerson, J.).

The movie Flashdance was released in 1983 by Paramount Pictures. The movie told the story of a "woman construction worker from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who performs at night as an exotic dancer." Flashdance grossed over $150 million in box office receipts. The plaintiff-appellant, Maureen Marder, alleged that the movie was "modeled after her life story and career as a nightclub dancer." Prior to the release of the film, Marder executed a General Release, purporting to "discharge Paramount, its subsidiaries, and its executives from claims arising out of the creation of the film." As consideration, Marder received $2300.

In early 2003, Sony released a music video for the Jennifer Lopez song, "I’m Glad." According to Marder, the video re-created several well-known scenes from Flashdance. Marder filed suit in November 2003, asserting a "claim against Paramount for a declaration of her rights as co-author of Flashdance and a co-owner of the copyright" and claims against Sony and Lopez under the Lanham Act, the Copyright Act and the state law right of publicity and unfair competition. Defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted defendants’ motions. Marder appealed.

On appeal, Marder claimed "that she contributed to the creation of Flashdance by providing Paramount with details of her life story with the understanding that Paramount would use this information to create an original screenplay." She further claimed that "she conferred with writer Joe Eszterhas in creating the screenplay." The Court rejected Marder’s appeal. Central to the Ninth Circuit’s decision was the Release signed by Marder. The Ninth Circuit held that the Release’s language "[was] exceptionally broad and … fatal to each of Marder's claims against Paramount." Although the Court noted that the agreement appears unfair to Marder since she received a mere $2300 for the release of all claims, "there [was] simply no evidence that her consent was obtained by fraud, deception, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence."

The Court considered Marder’s argument that her claims, particularly her copyright claim, were not barred by the breadth of the Release because she retained co-ownership and co-authorship rights even after execution of the Release. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, stating "this argument contravenes the plain language of the Release which states that Marder released Paramount from "each and every claim...of any kind or character." The Court further reasoned that it was "reasonable to infer that when Marder signed the agreement, she knew or should have known that copyright claims ‘would fall within the scope of the broad language.’" In addition, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Marder’s claims against Sony and Lopez. Without any evidence of copyright ownership, it was impossible for Marder to establish a prime facie case of copyright infringement.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.