Daniels v. The Walt Disney Company

958 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020)

Free access to 20,000 Casebriefs

Issues

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Nature Of The Case

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Facts

P is an expert on children's emotional intelligence and development. She designed and promoted initiatives that help children cope with strong emotions like loss and trauma. The Moodsters were devised as a commercial application of this work. P hired a team to produce and develop her idea under the umbrella of her new company, The Moodsters Company. The initial product was The Moodsters Bible (Bible), a pitchbook released in 2005. It provided a concise way to convey Daniels's idea to media executives and other potential collaborators, and included a brief description of the characters, themes, and setting that P envisioned for her Moodsters universe. The Moodsters are five characters that are color-coded anthropomorphic emotions, each representing a different emotion: pink (love); yellow (happiness); blue (sadness); red (anger); and green (fear). P initially named The Moodsters Oolvia, Zip, Sniff, Roary, and Shake, although these names changed in each iteration of the characters. P released a 30-minute pilot episode for a television series featuring The Moodsters. P pitched The Moodsters to numerous media and entertainment companies, including D and Pixar, between 2005 and 2009. P also spoke by phone with Pete Docter, a director and screenwriter for D, and they discussed The Moodsters, although no year or context for this conversation is alleged. D began development of its movie Inside Out in 2010. The movie was released in 2015 and centers on five anthropomorphized emotions that live inside the mind of an 11-year-old girl named Riley. Those emotions are joy, fear, sadness, disgust, and anger. Docter, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay, stated that his inspiration for the film was the manner in which his 11-year-old daughter dealt with new emotions as she matured. P sued D in 2017 for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, arising from D's failure to compensate P for the allegedly disclosed material used to develop Inside Out. D eventually moved to dismiss, which the district court granted on the ground that The Moodsters are not protectable by copyright. P appealed.

Holding & Decision

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal Analysis

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner

© 2025 Casebriefsco.com. All Rights Reserved.