Now, Disney finds itself at the centre of attention once again—this time with both a financial triumph and a legal challenge. The highly successful Moana franchise has hit a major milestone, with the release of its second instalment crossing over US$1 billion at the global box office. Yet, this commercial success has been marred by a fresh lawsuit filed by writer Buck G. Woodall (the Plaintiff), accusing The Walt Disney Company and its related Disney entities (the Defendants) of copyright infringement.[1] The Plaintiff alleges that the Moana franchise was developed off the back of his copyrighted materials and also attempts to draw attention to the alter ego nature of Disney entities in his complaint.
Where the conflict started:
The lawsuit centres on materials the Plaintiff allegedly delivered to Jenny Marchick, who was employed at Mandeville Films Inc., nearly 20 years ago. These materials, which the Plaintiff describes as “extremely large quantities of intellectual property and trade secrets,” included a completed screenplay, character illustrations, storyboards, budgets, and a fully animated concept trailer for his projects titled Bucky and Bucky the Wave Warrior.
The Plaintiff asserts that his work is protected under U.S. copyright law and that he updated the copyright on these materials in 2014. He claims that Marchick passed on his confidential materials to Disney, ultimately leading to the creation of Moana and its sequel.
Previous case – claims regarding the 2016 theatrical distribution of Moana dismissed:
In its November 2024 decision, the Court upheld the Plaintiff’s copyright in the Bucky works but dismissed the copyright infringement, the trade secrets misappropriation, and the fraud conspiracy claims on the grounds that they were time-barred.[2]
As to the merger doctrine defense, the Court ruled that the Defendants could not invoke this defense at trial as the Defendants did not “identify any evidence demonstrating ‘the idea’ in the work ‘can be expressed in only one way’ or ‘an idea and its expression’ that are ‘indistinguishable’ in support of their merger defense.”
Interestingly, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the scènes à faire defense, allowing the Defendants to take said defense at trial. Under the scènes à faire doctrine, a copyrighted work will not be protected from infringement if the expression embodied in the work necessarily flows from a commonplace idea. For instance, the report submitted by the Defendants highlighted that the themes of a dangerous ocean, the calls of nature toward man, and animals guiding humans were stock elements in Polynesian storytelling; the idea of a protagonist battling a storm at sea was a stock element in seagoing stories, and the characterisation of teenage protagonists as rebellious and of parents as overprotective were stereotypical representations in coming-of-age stories.
Additionally, the Court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment on the issue of access, holding that there existed a triable issue of material fact as to whether the Defendants had access to the Plaintiff’s work.
Alleged similarities between Moana and Bucky:
According to the lawsuit, both Bucky and Moana stories feature a teenage protagonist who defies parental warnings and embarks on a perilous voyage across Polynesian waters to save an endangered island. In both tales, ancient spirits manifest as animals and play a central role in guiding and protecting the protagonist. Both stories also feature a symbolic necklace as a key element in the plot and a demigod character who possesses a giant hook and tattoos.
The Plaintiff further claims that many of the characters, settings, and storylines in Moana closely resemble elements from Bucky, which he claims was pitched to Marchick in 2003. He believes these materials were subsequently transferred to Disney, leading to the creation of the Moana films.
Reliefs sought:
The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff include:
- A declaration as to infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials;
- A temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent further reproduction, distribution, or creation of derivative works based on the Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials, as well as any direct or indirect infringement;
- An award of compensatory damages exceeding 2.5% of the gross revenues pertaining to Moana, in the sum of at least $5 Billion;
- An award of damages of at least $10 Billion, including profits attributable to infringement through and following the release of Moana 2;
- Statutory damages for willful infringement, including enhanced compensatory damages for the defendant’s willful conduct, in a sum exceeding $10 Billion;
- An accounting of all revenues generated by the Defendants from each portion of the Moana franchise following the theatrical release of Moana 1, or for an accounting of all profits generated from, after or by reason of the theatrical release of Moana 2;
- Pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of litigation, and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
What the case could lead to:
This case brings Disney’s intellectual property policies under fresh scrutiny, especially with regard to the production and management of creative content. The implications could be significant not only for Disney but also for other studios that have traditionally depended on adaptation and borrowing elements from independent or lesser-known creators if the Court rules in favour of Woodall.
As the case unfolds, it is likely to raise important questions about the ownership of creative ideas in the film industry, the boundaries of copyright law, and the ethics of adapting stories.
With both legal and cultural implications, this case could become one of the most landmark copyright disputes in the entertainment world. As the legal proceedings unfold, the question remains: who truly owns a story—and how far can creative studios go in adapting, borrowing, and building upon the work of others?