A legal brawl is underway over the Road House remake, with MGM Studios bringing counterclaims against the original film’s screenwriter over the rights to the 1986 screenplay that spawned the movie.
In a countersuit filed on Friday in California federal court, the studio and its parent, Amazon, accuse Hill of fraud for lying to the U.S. Copyright Office that he’s the true author of the screenplay and can take advantage of a provision in copyright law that allows him and other similarly-situated writers to reclaim the rights to past works.
Related Stories
Marc Toberoff, a lawyer for Hill, said in a statement that the fraud claim is “baseless deflection.” He added that he “informed the Copyright Office that this matter is in dispute and would be the subject of litigation.”
The allegations center on a lawsuit Hill, who goes by the pseudonym David Lee Henry, brought in February seeking to block the release of the Road House remake. He accused MGM of copyright infringement for refusing to license his screenplay after he clawed back the rights. It was the latest in a series of legal actions mostly initiated by authors against studios, which face the prospect of losing franchise rights to iconic works from the 1980s. Litigation has ensued over Predator, Terminator and Friday the 13th, among several other titles and properties, with the majority of the suits settling.
In his lawsuit, Hill said that he that he wrote the screenplay “on spec,” meaning that he penned the work on his own volition in the hope of finding an interested buyer. United Artists, which was acquired by MGM, bought it, culminating with the release of the film starring Patrick Swayze in 1989.
But when Hill moved to recover the copyright to his screenplay in 2021 by sending a notice of termination, which would’ve allowed him to claw back the rights to his work in two years, the studio objected, he alleged. MGM asserted that the screenplay was written as a work-made-for hire under Hill’s production banner Lady Amos.
To this, Hill countered that he and Lady Amos are “alter egos” of each other and that UA forced him to structure his contract in that manner.
But in Friday’s lawsuit, MGM says that the public record “conclusively refutes this self-serving narrative.” It alleges that Hill represented to UA that Lady Amos is the author of the screenplay and that it constitutes a work-made-for-hire.
“Hill’s lawsuit against Defendants seeks to rewrite this history based on the remarkable premise that, in fact, Hill and Lady Amos lied when attesting to these facts 38 years ago when the 1986 screenplay was actually written,” the countersuit states.
The purchase agreements reads, “Owner [i.e. Lady Amos] hereby grants to UA, exclusively, in perpetuity and throughout the universe, all right, title and interest (including all copyrights, and renewals and extensions thereof) in and to the Property [i.e., the 1986 Screenplay].” It stipulates that the work was “created and written solely by [Hill] as an employee” of Lady Amos and that, accordingly, the company is the author of the screenplay, which is specifically noted as a work-made-for-hire. The court filing includes exhibits showing payments of $200,000 and $150,000 from UA to Lady Amos.
The lawsuit stresses that Hill formed Lady Amos is 1976, long before he had any dealings with UA. “In other words, Lady Amos was anything but a fictitious ‘doing business as’ entity lacking corporate form—a fact further underscored by UA’s payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Lady Amos to acquire the rights to the screenplay,” the countersuit states.
And since the rights to the work was assigned by Lady Amos, Hill doesn’t have the ability to reclaim it, MGM argues.
Toberoff refuted claims that the screenplay was written pursuant to a work-made-for-hire agreement, saying Hill wasn’t a “traditional hierarchical employee of Lady Amos.”
The lawsuit alleges Hill and Toberoff brought a fraudulent claim of ownership to the U.S. Copyright Office. It claims the copyright termination heavyweight acquired a stake in the rights to Hill’s screenplay, a “scheme Toberoff has employed to extract self-serving producer deals and other entitlements in numerous works for which he has served notices of copyright termination.”
Toberoff represents the heirs to the author of a 1983 magazine story that inspired the original Top Gun in a similar case, which was dismissed in April, though he’s said that the summary judgment ruling will be appealed. He also represented the estate of Steve Ditko in a legal battle over the rights to Spider-Man and Doctor Strange that settled last year.
Toberoff responded, “As Amazon/MGM must lose under the law they deflect with immaterial ad hominem attacks, which I would think is beneath a great company like that.”
The complaint seeks a court order invalidating the copyright registration Hill secured this year identifying him as the owner of the 1986 screenplay. In the alternative, the studio brings a claim for breach of contract for allegedly reneging on provisions of the deal Hill struck in 1986 to indemnify UA, for which MGM and Amazon are third party beneficiaries, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint brought by Hill, Amazon used generative artificial intelligence to meet a deadline to complete the remake, which was threatened by the actors strike. He accused the studio of utilizing AI tools to replicate the voices of the movie’s actors in violation of the collective bargaining agreements of SAG-AFTRA and the Director’s Guild of America. Amazon MGM Studios denied the allegations.
