Flashdance Lawsuit

Marder v. Lopez (9th Cir. June 12, 2006)

The plaintiff, Maureen Marder, sought to appeal the dismissal of her claims against Jennifer Lopez, Paramount Pictures Co., and Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. Marder alleged that the 1980s blockbuster film Flashdance was based on a story “modeled after her life story and career as a nightclub dancer.” She further 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. In addition, Marder claimed “that she conferred with writer Joe Eszterhas in creating the screenplay.”

Just in case you are a bit hazy in remembering such a cinematic gem of the early 1980s, the court provided its succinct synopsis of the film:

The movie Flashdance, released in 1983, tells the story of a woman construction worker from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who performs at night as an exotic dancer. She performs an innovative form of dancing that includes a “chair dance,” during which she douses herself with water. Her goal is to obtain formal dance training at a university.

Film commentary aside, the court of appeals rejected Marder’s appeal. Central to the appeals court's decision was a “General Release” signed by Marder waiving her rights for $2300 in consideration:

The Release, executed on December 6, 1982, provides that Marder “releases and discharges Paramount Pictures Corporation ··· of and from each and every claim, demand, debt, liability, cost and expense of any kind or character which have arisen or are based in whole or in part on any matters occurring at any time prior to the date of this Release.” The Release also states that “[w]ithout limiting the generality of the foregoing Release,” Marder also releases Paramount from claims “arising out of or in any way connected with, either directly or indirectly, any and all arrangements ··· in connection with the preparation of screenplay material and the production, filming and exploitation of ··· Flashdance.”

The Ninth Circuit construed this agreement as waiving all of Marder’s claims “against Paramount arising out of her contributions to the film Flashdance.” Further, not only were her claims against Paramount barred by the release, but she could not bring an infringement action against Sony or Lopez where the release prohibits here from asserting a valid copyright interest in Flashdance. Sony and Lopez were defendants due to a music video, "I'm Glad," that allegedly "contains re-creations of many well-known scenes from Flashdance. The complaint alleged that Paramount received money 'or other consideration from the licensing or other exploitation of the copyrights in the motion picture, Flashdance.'"

Holding: District Court Holding Was Affirmed.

Comments

[Maureen Marder]

Since there will be no trial now, if the facts in this case are ever to be known, people will simply have to refer to my book which will be available by the end of this year--hopefully.

As Dale Cendali noted in her argument during the appeal hearing, that deals and projects frequently are arrived at by studio execs and others in the film industry in a very casual way--by scribblings on bar napkins, etc.--this was precisely the manner too in which Flashdance was conceived.

My participation in this climate of back-slapping, kissing and hugging friendliness will be detailed in my book, and the reader can determine for herself whether or not there was misrepresentation, etc. The justices weren't there; I was. AND, the statute of limitations is clear on fraud, etc. The time for suing on that item passed long ago.

I am happy to get on with my writing now though, regardless of the outcome of the court case, but I do regret having been the first and only appeal that Robert Helfing has ever lost in his long and excellent law career.