Andrew Leicester vs. Warner Brothers Studios

On June 16, 1995, Gregory B. Wood of the Los Angeles law firm Merchant, Gould, Smith, Edell, Welter, & Schmidt filed a Complaint for Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition, Dilution, Violation of Cultural Affairs Laws, and Interference with Prospective Business Relations in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The 14-page Demand for Jury Trial suggests that Andrew Leicester and his attorneys believe Warner Brothers Studios infringed Andrew Leicester’s artistic work. Among many things, the document alleges:

• Mr. Leicester is an internationally recognized environmental artist.
• In 1992 he created an original $2 million outdoor artwork titled Zanja Madre.
• Mr. Leicester retained all copyrights for the artwork.
• Zanja Madre is publicly displayed in downtown Los Angeles and has won several awards.

The filing also alleges:

• In mid-1995, Warner Brothers released its Batman Forever feature which takes place in the “newly conceived” futuristic world of “Gotham City.”
• The “newly conceived” Gotham City is a central the [sic] focal point of both the movie itself and the considerable pre-release promotional activities, materials, and literature.
• In order to create the desired new identity for the new “Gotham City,” Warner, without authorization, misappropriated and copied Mr. Leicester’s work including making detailed and virtually identical scale model reproductions of Zanja Madre and used those scale model reproductions in the filming.
• Warner also filmed Zanja Madre for the specific purpose of incorporating Mr. Leicester’s work into Batman Forever and using that work as the defining appearance of and for the purpose of identifying the new “Gotham City.”
• Warner filmed multiple scenes of Batman Forever at the Zanja Madre location, and prominently displayed Mr. Leicester’s work in those scenes as the new Gotham City.

Warner Brothers would presumably resent anyone infringing their copyrights by copying their copyrighted materials such as the Batman Forever video. One need only read the copyright and associated penalty statement the video contains. So, it is somewhat ironic they find themselves in this situation. And, the stakes are very high since the filing alleges:

• Scenes of the new “Gotham City” are actually unauthorized reproductions of Zanja Madre.
• Warner has corrupted Mr. Leicester’s work by deliberately portraying Gotham City, including the copied Zanja Madre work, in a “comic book” fashion.
• The depiction of Mr. Leicester’s work in Batman Forever degrades a work intended as an allegorical landscape exploring the relationship of a city to its water resources to a comic book setting which, from the opening scenes and continuing throughout the film, is the focal point for violent crime.

Meanwhile, the filing contends in part:

• Warner has, furthermore, been unjustly enriched by the copying of Mr. Leicester’s work in an amount which is uncertain, but which shall be proven at trial.
• Mr. Leicester will suffer serious and irreparable damage to his reputation an [sic] the reputation of his artistic creations, if Warner’s copyright infringing activities are not enjoined.

The stakes in this matter are very high since an estimated 3,300 theaters were showing the feature a combined total of 92,000 times a week at the feature’s release. Over time, Batman Forever enjoyed an estimated 1,000,000+ showings and each showing could be argued as a copyright infringement, individually worth $500 to $100,000 in damages. The math is as simple as it is staggering and left as a reader exercise. If Mr. Leicester prevails, he could possibly own Warner Brothers and the legal department that opposed him.

While the trial proceedings have concluded, the judge has not released his complete findings as of this writing. In the final analysis, this may prove very expensive for Warner Brothers. Neal Showman, professor of copyright law at William Mitchell College of Law, is cited as indicating that having permission from building owners adjacent to Zanja Madre is not sufficient grounds to proceed filming the sculpture. Additional information is available at:

• http://www.gag.org/gnews_16.html
• http://www.benedict.com/batman.htm#batman

Finally in February 1998, a federal judge was considering delaying the release of Warner Brothers’ Devil’s Advocate videotape. The footage reportedly contains images of a copyrighted religious statue which “comes to life and writhes erotically.” The sculptor’s attorneys are claiming the film is an unfair use of the sculpture. Warner Brothers is citing its first amendment rights.