Torrance j.colvin

 1 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Torrance J. Colvin 7600 Georgia Avenue, NW Suite 100N Washington, DC 20012 Telephone: (202) 688-1300

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

\OSCAR COLVIN, JR., an individual, and TORRANCE J. COLVIN, an individual, Plaintiffs v. QUENTIN TARANTINO, an individual, and THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and COLUMBIA PICTURES, a California Corporation and UNNAMED DOES 1-50. Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-2250 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1.! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, ET SEQ.

2.! ACCOUNTING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Judge: Hon. Date Action filed: Date set for trial:

PROLOGUE

Quentin Tarentino’s Django Unchained is derived from the copyrighted screenplay

Freedom. We wrote and circulated Freedom. The uniquely original concept of a slave attempting

to rescue his family from a brutal plantation owner was first visualized on a late December evening

in 2001. Jackson Freeman was the protagonist of the plaintiffs’ screenplay Freedom. No Jackson

Freeman, no Django Freeman. Tarantino’s supposedly original screenplay, Django Unchained

was derived from Freedom. The uniquely original premise of Freedom was transformed into a

vehicle that yielded two Academy awards and monstrous profits. Django Unchained has

worldwide revenues approaching half a billion dollars ($500,000,000).

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 1 of 19

- 2 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

There are a number of indicators asserted below that link Django Unchained to the

plaintiffs’ Freedom. Jackson Freeman became Django Freeman. Tarantino’s derivation is in

violation of the United States Copyright Act which reserves the right of derivation to the

originators of a copyrightable work. This suit raises the question whether Hollywood insiders can

willfully profit from derivative material. Django Freeman is a derivation of Jackson Freeman.

Django Unchained is a derivation of Freedom. Tarantino, The Weinstein Company and Columbia

Pictures benefited from the copyright infringement of Freedom.

Plaintiffs Oscar Colvin, Jr., and Torrance J. Colvin hereby allege the following:

INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS

1.! Django Unchained has earned revenues exceeding well over four hundred million

dollars ($400,000,000). The movie earned two Academy Awards – one for best supporting actor

and ironically one for best original screenwriting. Before Django Freeman, there was an escaped

slave named Jackson Freeman who desired to purchase his family’s freedom from a malevolent

plantation owner. Before Dr. Schultz, there was Samson, another white man, who would assist

Mr. Freeman in his efforts to rescue his loved one(s) from slavery. Before Django Unchained,

there was Freedom. May Hollywood insiders willfully infringe uniquely original material with

impunity? Quentin Tarantino recognized the promise of Freedom and turned it into a property

that will probably generate over half a billion dollars. But the property was not his.

2.! The underlying idea and its expressions of Freedom were unique. Immediately

after voicing the idea, the plaintiffs embarked on the quixotic journey of writing a screenplay

despite having little to no experience whatsoever. The idea and its expression were so powerful

and unique that plaintiffs were certain there must be a way for Freedom to hit the big screen.

Django Unchained was proof positive that plaintiffs’ certainty was not misplaced. In plaintiffs’

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 2 of 19

- 3 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

screenplay Freedom, plaintiff provided the heart, bones and muscles to develop the unique idea

that eventually would be transformed into Django Unchained. Plaintiffs’ Jackson Freeman

became Django Freeman. Simply stated, Quentin Tarantino is an infringer who performed plastic

surgery on Freedom.

3.! Under 17 U.S.C., Section 106 of the Copyright Act, Plaintiffs (and/or

their parents, subsidiaries or affiliates) own the exclusive rights, among others, to reproduce

copies of their copyrighted works, to distribute copies to the public of their copyrighted works, to

publicly perform their copyrighted works, to publicly display their copyrighted works, and to

make derivative works based upon their copyrighted works.

4.! Under 17 U.S.C., Section 106 of the Copyright Act, Plaintiffs (and/or

their parents, subsidiaries or affiliates) also own the exclusive rights to authorize others to

exercise the rights set forth in the preceding paragraph 3.

5.! Neither Plaintiffs nor any other person authorized by Plaintiffs have granted any

license, permission or authorization to Defendants to exercise any of the rights set forth in

paragraphs 3 and 4 or to authorize others to exercise such rights.

6.! This case is about the infringement of the body, structure, theme, and soul of a

unique, original, copyrighted screenplay from a production company and its owners by an

admitted thief. Defendant Quentin Tarantino (“Tarantino”) once stated:

“I steal from every single movie ever made. I love it - if my work has anything it’s that I’m taking this from this and that from that and mixing them together. If people don’t like that, then tough titty, don’t go and see it, alright? I steal from everything. Great artists steal; they don’t do homages.”

If Tarantino is correct, he is truly one of the “greatest” of artists as his theft of Plaintiff’s

screenplay Freedom did not even require much mixing of other works to produce what is

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 3 of 19

- 4 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

arguably the highest grossing Afrocentric movie of all time. Yet, when questioned about

having plagiarized his film Reservoir Dogs in an LA Times interview, Tarantino denied

that he plagiarized Reservoir Dogs and instead stated that he never plagiarized, he only

“did homages.” Tarantino cannot keep track whether he steals from other artists or

honors them with his rendition. The bottom line is that with Tarantino you usually get

someone else’s material. The two most iconic scenes in Pulp Fiction (Samuel Jackson’s

biblical pronouncements and Travolta’s needle plunge) were derivative. Freedom’s

heart, bones and muscles permeate Django Unchained. The Plaintiffs’ copyrighted

screenplay led to the greatest revenue producing Afro-centric movie of all time. A movie

with a strong undercurrent about slavery was produced that excluded the originating

authors from any monetary considerations. So far, the defendants have exercised

unfettered control over the Plaintiffs’ work.

7.! Oscar Colvin is a father who responded to a son’s request for movie ideas. His

first suggestion was vetoed as too dark. The second suggestion was a fantasy about an escaped

slave rescuing his family from slavery. This seed grew into Freedom. The gestation of Django

Unchained occurred in a New Hampshire kitchen on a wintry night in 2001. Quentin Tarantino

was not there.

8.! From December 2001 through approximately August 2002, Plaintiffs Oscar

Colvin (hereinafter “O. Colvin”) and T. Colvin developed Freedom to be produced and

distributed about a slave unlike any previous depiction of a slave during the slavery period of the

United States. The underlying premises of Freedom were uniquely original and ultimately

proved Academy Award worthy. An Oscar based on purloined material is now in Tarantino’s

possession.

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 4 of 19

- 5 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9.! Jackson Freeman was born free and then stolen into slavery. Being born free

gave him an edge and hardness which the shackles of slavery could not completely eliminate.

Though he was a slave, he also knew what freedom tasted like. It was a taste that he promised

his wife they would taste together; he would do anything in order to escape from the brutal

clutches of his slave owner and free his family. In this, he had his wife’s blessing. The

protagonist slave was eventually forced to serve the Confederate Army. In camp one evening,

Jackson was brutally beaten by his owner. A fellow Confederate officer was scornful over

Jackson’s owner’s brutality. In the midst of a battle, he was able to escape, but not before

attempting to kill his owner. He immediately fled to the North where he attempted to obtain

employment in order to earn enough to purchase his family out of slavery. He quickly realized

that he would have to work for decades to purchase his family’s freedom. Eventually, he

captured the attention of a white benefactor, who promised to assist the slave in obtaining

freedom for his family, in reward for the slave’s help. The odd couple, consisting of a white man

who treats his black escaped-slave counterpart as an equal, return to the plantation housing the

slave’s family. Upon arriving to the plantation, there is a vicious shootout that occurs when the

slave tries to sneak his family off of the plantation with the benefactor’s help. The soldier kills

the plantation owner in order to save the slave’s life. The slave and his family escape under the

cover of darkness. The screenplay described above is Freedom, written by Plaintiffs O. Colvin

and T. Colvin. The infringement of that screenplay is the derivative Django Unchained, which

was released by defendants The Weinstein Company and Columbia Pictures on December 25,

2012. A mesmerizing beat proved Blurred Lines link to copyright infringement. A slave

returning to the hellish realm of the South to purchase the freedom of his loved one(s) with the

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 5 of 19

- 6 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

assistance of a Caucasian in the South is the uniquely original beat that links Django Unchained

to Freedom.

10.! The Colvins developed a rich, vibrant screenplay, articulating unique plotlines,

themes, characters, relationships, settings, scenes, sequences, dialogue, mood, pacing and

fictional inventions for Freedom. Approximately one year later, happy with the final version, T.

Colvin registered it with the Writers Guild of America and then submitted it to various agencies.

It was sent to Creative Artists Agency, care of agent Michael Nilon, where it received positive

coverage. Torrance Colvin eventually went to Los Angeles and met with Mr. Nilon, regarding

the screenplay, with hopes that it would make a starring vehicle for his client, Morris Chestnut.

11.! In addition, through a couple of contacts from law school, trainee Robin Samms

and agent Charles King, T. Colvin submitted Freedom to the William Morris Agency. It also

received coverage there, on or about October 22, 2002. The coverage there indicated several

areas of improvement that were required.

12.! While in town to meet with Michael Nilon in the spring of 2004, T. Colvin met

with Robin Samms and Charles King at WMA. Robin showed T. Colvin around the offices and

while speaking about directors/producers that might be appropriate for Freedom, Robin indicated

that Michael Simpson, an agent at William Morris Agency, represented Quentin Tarantino.

Upon information and belief, the coverage for Freedom may have been requested from Mr.

Simpson’s desk. Plaintiffs surmise that defendant Tarantino had access to one of the agencies’

coverage Freedom. In a block for location, the reviewer marked “Southern”. Is it a coincidence

that during the build up to the release of Django Unchained that Tarantino was advancing the

inanity that he was calling the projected movie a “Southern”?

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 6 of 19

- 7 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13.! Sometime in mid-2004, having received no options or offers regarding the

screenplay, the Colvins placed it on Triggerstreet.com. Over the course of the next year,

it was downloaded dozens of times and received 10 written reviews. The reviews placed

it in the upper echelon of scripts on Triggerstreet.com, as it received a total of 4 out of 5

stars. The comments were extremely constructive and many of the suggested changes are

ones that seem to be embodied in the final version of Django Unchained.

14.! The Colvins’ heart, bones and muscles are the foundation for Django Unchained,

which steals the very story noted above from Freedom, including aspects from notes by coverage

from William and Morris readers and various reviews by readers on Triggerstreet.com. One way

that an infringer will attempt to evade sanctions is by creating differences from the copyrighted

work. Plaintiffs believe that Tarantino recognized the enormous potential of the uniquely

original Freedom and developed the derivative product that debuted almost three years ago.

15.! An original work is the property of its owner. To steal it is a crime of law and

ethics. This industry and, in particular, our system of jurisprudence, has made it very difficult for

owners of truly unique ideas to protect their property rights from Hollywood theft. Tarantino’s

“homages” in this case should not be tolerated. If a jury finds him culpable for his plastic

surgery, he and those that benefited from his theft should be held accountable. This case is a

clarion call for Hollywood to stop making jokes about “stealing” the works of others and to call

out bad actors in this industry the same way the world of sports is starting to do. Cheating is

cheating, in any walk of life and in any manner, and just because one works behind the curtain of

Tinsel Town does not make cheating acceptable or proper, especially for those who have such

great influence over our society.

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 7 of 19

- 8 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16.! The Defendants are high profile players within Hollywood. They have greatly

profited, monetarily and favorable industry recognition, through their derivation of Freedom.

The derivation is a theft of Plaintiffs’ copyrightable material. The theft is exploitative and

unconscionable. The thief and his fellow profiteers should face a jury.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17.! This is a civil action for violations of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§

101, et seq. and violations of various related state laws.

18.! This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these federal questions pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 1964 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

19.! Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. §§

1391(b) and (c) and 1400(a). As herein alleged, this action arises out of willful, intentional, and

unlawful conduct of each of the Defendants, their agents, and/or their employees. They either

conducted or expressly targeted in various judicial districts within the United States and its

territories, including this one, and knew or should have known their actions would lead to the

infliction of substantial harm in this locale and in this judicial district. A substantial part of the

transactions, occurrences, and events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred within this judicial

district. Each of the Defendants named herein have minimum contacts with the United States,

this locale, and are therefore subject to nationwide service of process under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d).

PARTIES

20.! Plaintiff Torrance J. Colvin (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “T. Colvin”) is the founder

and sole owner of Plaintiff 24k Black. Plaintiff T. Colvin is an attorney by trade, having been

licensed for the last 17 years and currently focuses his practice on litigation affecting those who

have been harmed. Plaintiff spent several years as an attorney at the NAACP. In addition,

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 8 of 19

- 9 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff has taught trial advocacy, negotiation and conflict resolution, and communication law

courses at Howard University. Plaintiff is a member of a small group of trial attorneys who have

successfully tried and won multi-million dollar jury verdicts. Plaintiff resides in Washington,

D.C.

21.! Plaintiff Oscar Colvin, Jr. is a retired attorney from the state of New Hampshire

and served as both a Public Defender and a prosecutor.

22.! Defendant Quentin Tarantino is a screenwriter, producer, director and self-

acknowledged intellectual property thief.

23.! Defendant The Weinstein Company LLC (“TWC”) is a Delaware limited liability

company. Upon information and belief, Defendant TWC was involved in the production,

distribution, licensing, sale, publishing, and exploitation through various media outlets, without

Plaintiffs’ consent, of the infringing work entitled Django Unchained, and procured illegally

gained revenues and profits in connection therewith.

24.! Defendant Columbia Pictures (“Columbia”) is a California corporation.

Columbia is a major motion picture studio involved in all facets of production and distribution of

motion pictures. Upon information and belief, Columbia was involved in the production,

distribution, licensing, sale, publishing, and exploitation through various media outlets, without

Plaintiffs’ consent, of the infringing work entitled Djago Unchained, and procured illegally

gained revenues and profits in connection therewith.

25.! Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the

fictitiously named Defendants identified in the caption hereinabove as Does 1 through 50,

inclusive, is in some manner responsible or legally liable for the actions, damages, events,

transactions, and occurrences alleged herein. The true names and capacities of such fictitiously

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 9 of 19

- 10 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

named Defendants, whether individual, corporate, associated or otherwise, are presently

unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will timely amend this Complaint to assert the true names and

capacities of such fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained. For

convenience, each reference herein to the Defendants collectively shall also refer to the Doe

Defendants and each of them.

26.! Finally, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all

times relevant hereto, each of the Defendants was the agent, co-conspirator and/or representative

of each of the other Defendants herein during the events alleged; that at all times relevant hereto

each of the Defendants was acting within the course and scope of such agency, conspiracy or

representation, and that each of the Defendants is jointly and severally responsible and liable for

the damages that are herein alleged to have been sustained, except as otherwise alleged at the

time of trial.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

27.! This case is about the theft of the body, structure, theme, and soul of a unique,

original, copyrighted screenplay from a production company and its owners by Defendants. All

defendants are liable to plaintiffs for copyright infringement and for using plaintiffs’ original

materials.

28.! There is a small but vibrant history of slavery-based movies prior to Freedom

which included, Amistad, Beloved, Drum, Glory, Goodbye Uncle Tom, Gone with the Wind,

Jefferson in Paris, The Legend of Nigger Charley, Roots, Sankofa, Solomon Northup’s Odyssey,

and Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

29.! There was, however, never a movie like Freedom, which was based on a uniquely

original idea – an escaped slave voluntarily returning to the plantation to retrieve his family.

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 10 of 19

- 11 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Freedom was written as an action story and a romance. Ultimately, it is a fantasy. It was not

your typical action story and definitely not your typical romance. Jackson (Django) was a slave

who fought back. He was self-assured and confident, yet recognized that timing was everything.

The romance between Jackson and Linda (Django and Brumhilde) is a love for the ages. His

love for her is so strong that he risks certain death and/or re-enslavement by travelling from the

relative safety of the North to the certain perils of the South, for the mere opportunity to attempt

to obtain her freedom.

30.! Defendant Tarantino claims to have based his screenplay on Sergio Corbucci’s

Django, but the truth is that there are far more similarities between Freedom and Django

Unchained than between Django and Django Unchained. Defendant Tarantino took the plot

lines and main story of Freedom and Tarantino-ized them. Basically, he added gratuitous use of

violence and repetitive use of the word “nigger.” While Tarantino has conducted many

interviews on the subject of his inspiration, none of the “inspiring” words rise to the level of

similarity as that of Freedom.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Copyright Infringement 17 U.S.C. §§ 1010 et seq. Against All Defendants)

31.! Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1

through 32, above, as though fully set forth herein.

32.! Plaintiffs own the copyrights to the original screenplay drafts of Freedom, which

include an original, protected expression of a former slave embarking on an action-filled

adventure into a southern state during the period of slavery, for the sole purpose of saving his

family from the clutches of an evil slave master. In 2004, Plaintiffs registered a draft of

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 11 of 19

- 12 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Freedom with the Writers Guild of America West. The same draft of Freedom, created in 2002,

had its copyright certified on February 23, 2014 by the United States Copyright Office.

33.! Nearly every aspect of Django Unchained, from the beginning to the end,

contains plotlines, themes, characters, relationships, settings, scenes, sequences, mood, pacing,

and fictional inventions that were written by the Plaintiffs and incorporated into the Work.

Plaintiffs original literary creations incorporated into the Work are unique, valuable and

copyright protectable. Set forth below is a side by side comparison of some of the plotlines,

themes, characters, relationships, settings, scenes, sequences, mood, pacing, and fictional

inventions embodied in the Work and in Django Unchained that are persuasive evidence that

Defendant Tarantino’s Django Unchained is derivative of the Plaintiffs’ Work.

34.! As Plaintiffs are the sole owners of the copyright of the Work, Defendant

Tarantino did not have the right to pay homage to Plaintiffs and incorporate the Work into

Django Unchained. Plaintiffs have never granted to Defendants (or anyone else) a license to use

and profit from the Work.

35.! Accordingly, by producing and distributing Django Unchained based on the

Work, in addition to producing and distributing all of the advertising material in support of

Django Unchained, the Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and willingly infringed and will

continue to infringe, Plaintiffs copyright in the Work. By distributing the movie outside of the

United States, Columbia Pictures and Does 1-50 infringed, and will continue to infringe

Plaintiffs work.

36.! Django Unchained is derivative of Freedom and all of the related copyrighted,

protected expression intended for use in a motion picture, are owned by Plaintiffs. The

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 12 of 19

- 13 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants copied material and large quantities of Plaintiffs’ protectable expression in producing

Django Unchained.

37.! Defendants exploited, distributed and published the infringing work Django

Unchained, which, in part outright duplicates protected expression from Freedom and the related

protected works, which in part presents a comprehensive literal similarity to Plaintiffs’

aforementioned, protected copyrighted works, and which in part copied portions of these

copyrighted works that are important to the impact and character of the work from which these

copied portions were taken.

38.! Defendant Tarantino had access to Plaintiffs’ protectable expression set forth in

its copyrighted and owned works entitled Freedom, as alleged herein, and this is in part proven

by the striking similarity of the plots of the works at issue.

39.! The Defendants distributed copies of the motion picture Django Unchained for

profit and associated financial and other industry-related advantages.

40.! As a direct and proximate result of Defendants copyright infringement, Plaintiffs

have been damaged in an amount that cannot as yet be fully ascertained, but which Plaintiffs are

informed and allege thereon exceeds over several hundred million dollars according to proof at

the time of trial. These damages include, without limitation, Plaintiffs’ actual damages suffered

by them as a result of Defendants’ infringement (including, without limitation, the loss of future

earnings Plaintiffs would have received had they been properly credited with writing Django

Unchained) and Defendants profits from Django Unchained and any and all derivative works

based on the Work that are not taken into account in computing Plaintiffs’ actual damages.

41.! Unless this Court restrains Defendants from further commission of said acts,

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury and damage, much of which cannot be reasonably or

Case 1:15-cv-02250-TSC Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 13 of 19