The Conjuring producers face $900m lawsuit

The Conjuring movie franchise has scored several haunted houses worth of cash for Warner Brothers Studios, but one man said that the spooky work belongs to him.

Brittle claimed that he had an agreement with the Warrens that would prohibit any derivate work on the subject of “The Demonologist“, specifically their lives and experiences as paranormal investigators without his assent and also claimed exclusive rights to use Warren case files. According to the lawsuit, The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2 and Annabelle are based on the Warren case files and The Demonologist.

He further claimed that despite being aware of the deal, Warner Bros. engaged into deals with the Warrens beginning in the 1990s to produce films based on his life and the book. Neither has exclusive rights to story. “Lorraine Warren had nothing to convey”.

Considering the nature of the claim (the fact that Brittle can not technically hold the rights to someone’s life), as well as the ridiculous claim of $900 million in damages, it’s probably safe to assume that Warner Bros will find a way to safeguard the future of it’s exciting horror franchise.

While director James Wan, screenwriters Chad Hayes and Carey Hayes, and RatPac-Dune Productions are being removed, Warner and New Line may lose millions in the trial.

The Conjuring franchise has been lucrative for Warner Brothers.

Now set to see the matter argued in public, WB likely is not pleased about the hundreds of millions of dollars potentially at stake in this case as it inches forward.

Warner Bros. has replied to the lawsuit by stating that no one has a monopoly to tell stories about true-life figures and events, and raised other issues like statute of limitations. However, a Virginia judge largely rejected the studio’s motion to dismiss and has tentatively scheduled a trial for April 16.

U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney Jr. isn’t swayed. “This type of analysis, which bears on evidence presented and factual determinations, is better suited for summary judgment or trial”.

“Brittle seeks disgorgement of all of Defendants’ profits derived from said infringement and an injunction to insure the pattern of infringement is stopped”, said the 355-page filing that attorneys Bradley Marrs and Patrick Henry II put before the court for their client in late March- – so you do the math.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *