Settlement reached in the “Malignant” Plagiarism Lawsuit

A copyright and breach of contract lawsuit filed by filmmaker Adam Cosco against Malignant director James Wan and Ingrid Bisu was settled recently. The settlement terms remain undisclosed. The lawsuit claimed that Malignant plagiarized Cosco’s screenplay titled “Little Brother.”

Key Takeaways:

– Filmmaker Adam Cosco had sued Malignant director James Wan and his wife Ingrid Bisu, alleging plagiarism of his screenplay, Little Brother.
– Cosco argued that there were striking similarities between Malignant and his script.
– A judge ruled in favor of Wan’s company, affirming that the lawsuit was an attempt to undermine their free speech rights.
– Cosco has now asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed after reaching an agreement, the terms of which are undisclosed.

Similarities Pointed out in the Lawsuit

Adam Cosco, a short filmmaker, argued that similarities were observed between the two works. Key elements included the protagonist having her twin adhered inside her in the form of a malignant tumor, a main female character who becomes a victim of violence enabling the twin to control her body, and hypnotherapy scenes where the protagonist recalls repressed childhood memories. These similarities led Cosco to seek a minimum of $150,000, along with punitive damages.

However, James Wan maintained that he neither received nor read the “Little Brother” script.

Role of Ryan Turek and Blumhouse

Cosco purported that Ryan Turek from Blumhouse had access to his script for “Little Brother.” He alleges that Turek passed the script to Wan, who used it as the foundation for his movie, “Malignant.”

Wan’s Company Defense: Argument on Free Speech

Wan’s company, Atomic Monster, refuted Cosco’s allegations by claiming that the lawsuit was an attempt to infringe upon their free speech rights. The company cited a California statute allowing for the early dismissal of suits intended to suppress First Amendment rights. Further, they stressed that the creation of “Malignant” was related to public discourse on feminism and female autonomy.

The Judge’s Ruling

The judge backed Wan’s company’s defense. Cosco failed to substantiate that the defendants ever had access to his script, “Little Brother.” The court, therefore, sided with Atomic Monster’s argument that the lawsuit was primarily aimed at stifling their freedom of speech.

Outcome of the Lawsuit

With both parties reaching a settlement, Cosco has moved to have the case dismissed entirely. The details of the agreement remain undisclosed. This development comes as a relief for fans of the movie “Malignant,” who enjoyed Wan’s unique take on the popular ’80s storytelling trope of a victim being able to see through the vision of a killer.

Despite the allegations, Wan maintained that “Malignant” was his rendition of the storytelling approach that was popular during the ’80s. He attributed his inspiration to movies such as “The Eyes of Laura Mars,” as well as directors like Brian De Palma, Dario Argento, and Mario Bava.

Concluding Thoughts

This incident sheds light on the complex issues surrounding copyright infringement and artistic inspiration in the film industry. The resolution of the lawsuit brings closure to a critical dispute in the world of horror films, underscoring the importance of creative integrity and respect for intellectual property in the craft of filmmaking.

Please share your thoughts on the outcome of the Malignant lawsuit in the comments section below.

This blog post will continue to provide timely updates and relevant news on similar media-related lawsuits, reflecting our commitment to stay abreast with issues that matter to our readers.