Point Reyes Light - April 4, 2002

Porno maker sues Lucas for $140 million

By Gregory Foley

The producer of an erotic animated film that parodies Star Wars, as well as other films and celebrities, last week filed a $140 million libel and slander lawsuit against filmmaker George Lucas and Nicasio-based Lucasfilm.

The lawsuit, which prolongs a bizarre and bitter dispute, was filed in a New York Supreme Court by Media Market Group, the Internet-based producer and distributor of the satire Starballz.

Among seven allegations for which MMG demands compensatory and punitive damages from Lucas, the lawsuit’s primary complaint is that a spokeswoman for Lucasfilm in January made "defamatory statements" accusing MMG of marketing the erotic cartoon to children.

Starballz features a scantily clad hero who travels in outerspace looking for sexual interludes, and includes numerous characters reminiscent of those from Lucas’ Star Wars.

"Lucasfilm’s ‘child-porn’ accusation is the latest in a series of unethical and malicious acts they have directed at MMG," MMG attorney Evan Feinberg said. "MMG has never directed pornography to children and Lucasfilm knows it."

Gordon Radley, president of Lucasfilm, told The Light Tuesday that he believes the MMG lawsuit has no foundation. "It’s absurd," he said, noting that company officials believe several of the MMG assertions against Lucasfilm came from negotiations between MMG and Lucasfilm employees that are typically privileged and private communications.

The MMG lawsuit follows an unsuccessful suit filed by Lucasfilm last fall in Oakland federal court seeking a preliminary injunction against MMG to stop distribution of Starballz. Lucasfilm alleged that MMG had unlawfully used Lucasfilm’s intellectual property and in doing so violated federal copyright and trademark laws.

US District Court Judge Claudia Wilken on Dec. 19 in Oakland granted a temporary restraining order against MMG in favor of the Lucasfilm legal motions. However, the judge on Jan. 8, 2002 handed down a final ruling that denied the injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order that had kept the animated film (which is patterned after the Japanese erotic-film genre hentai) out of distribution for three weeks.

The MMG suit filed last week asserts that a comment made by Lucasfilm spokeswoman Lynne Hale to an Associated Press reporter after Judge Wilken’s final ruling "libeled and slandered [MMG] by accusing [MMG] of directing pornography to children."

The 33-page lawsuit quotes Hale’s comments to the AP on the Starballz ruling as: "This is a pornographic cartoon utilizing Star Wars intellectual property. We feel strongly that the law does not allow for parody to be a defense to a pornographic use of someone else’s intellectual property, especially when that use is directed to children."

Feinberg said that because the comment was distributed widely through the national and international news media, it had a profound negative effect on MMG’s image and sales. "This defamatory statement was publicized internationally and has severely damaged MMG’s reputation," he said.

A ‘pattern’ of torts

The lawsuit also alleges that Lucas and his employees "have engaged in a pattern of tortious activity for approximately 25 years, threatening and intimidating thousands of companies, individuals, and other entities who attempt to lawfully compete with or criticize the defendants."

It specifically charges that Lucasfilm associate director of business affairs David Anderman during negotiations last year tried to intimidate MMG attorney Feinberg. "He threatened to ‘hunt down’ MMG like Lucasfilm hunts down [film distribution] pirates in Asia," the lawsuit claims.

In the MMG complaint, the company states it has "never directed pornography to children: the cover of Starballz states ‘Adults Only’ in three places."

Lucasfilm uncowed

Spokeswoman Hale on Tuesday told The Light that she stands by her characterization of the animated parody as a pornographic film that illegally uses Lucasfilm intellectual property. "I think most people will understand Lucasfilm protecting its intellectual property from pornographic uses," she said.

Hale added that despite the "Adults Only" labels, she believed the Starballz video could easily be viewed or obtained by children because it is made available on the Internet. "Any child can go to that site," she said.

Lucas president responds

Lucasfilm president Radley added Tuesday that despite the ruling against Lucasfilm last January, federal Judge Wilken made several determinations that favored Lucasfilm’s arguments against MMG. "In the original lawsuit the judge termed that Starballz was pornography and tarnished the Star Wars market," he said.

Radley said that Lucasfilm officials disagreed with Judge Wilken’s "determination that [Starballz] is not commercial speech" and therefore did not adequately infringe on Lucasfilm’s rights to be censored. "We accepted the decision," he said, "but she did determine that it was infringing and it was porn... She did not throw us out of court."

Radley declined to comment on whether Lucasfilm employees had attempted to threaten or intimidate MMG employees or attorneys. He said that the details of the case will be will be discussed in court when Lucasfilm presents its defense.

$140 million sought

Lucas Licensing – which licenses rights to use Lucasfilm-copyrighted property and is also based at Nicasio’s Skywalker Ranch – is also named as a defendant in the MMG suit. The suit demands $10 million for compensatory damages and an additional $10 million for punitive damages for each of seven legal complaints against Lucas and his companies, which include libel and slander, making false statements to the press, and "tortious interference with contracts."

The suit notes that each of the $10-million awards are "reasonable" because they would represent only 0.2 percent of an estimated $5 billion net worth of Lucas, Lucasfilm, and Lucas Licensing.

While MMG is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and Lucasfilm and Lucas Licensing are based in West Marin, the lawsuit claims that the matter should be settled in New York state because both companies routinely do business there.

Point Reyes Light Cover | News | Coastal Traveler