Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 730 · by **Raymond T.** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:36 am

A woman by the name of Alia Madden has sued the DreamWorks production team of the Transformers Blockbuster hit movie of 2007, as reported by the New York Post. According to her lawyer, Daniel Abraham, the papers filed against the movie state that Madden designed and copyrighted the design, from which for movie purposes, the copyrights of the freshener were removed.

The air freshener was hanging from Bumblebee's rear view mirror during scenes of the movie. People think that Madden copied the design from the movie, while she licenced the design back in 2002. According to Madden, DreamWorks bought several air fresheners from her, but never asked permission to sell their own version of it and didn't tell her the item was to be used in the movie. The movie is being sued for $850,000.

News Credits: 1 · by **Sherade** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:43 am

People will sue for anything, won't they?
It's an air freshener for goodness sakes.

News Credits: 8 · by **Liege Evilmus** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:44 am

I can see her suit, but she'll never get that much, and granted she could have made that much off the design without the movie's bump...

but, that's pretty much like me saying I could walk across the country. Possible, but it just aint gonna happen

by **-Barricade-** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:47 am

I can see why she would sue if it was her idea, but I bet it will just settle out of court.

News Credits: 730 · by **Raymond T.** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:50 am

Sherade wrote:People will sue for anything, won't they?
It's an air freshener for goodness sakes.

Well, it is her design... But what strikes me is that sales of her air freshener prob. only went up after it was prominently featured in the movie. And it is not like the movie has undermined her business.

Not to mention, that there is no better time to sue someone than during the christmas season... :roll:

News Credits: 1014 · by **First Gen** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:01 am

She'll sue and if what she claims is true IS in fact true, then she'll win easy.

Of all companies, Dreamworks should know about copyright laws. If the bought an item from her, altered it without her permission, and did not give any credit to her, than she has a case.

Sales of her air freshener may have went up, but imagine the number if she was getting credit for it and she could sell them as authentics.

News Credits: 9 · by **Zeds** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:04 am

News Credits: 3572 · by **Seibertron** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:34 am

Sherade wrote:People will sue for anything, won't they?
It's an air freshener for goodness sakes.

I hope that you would sue as well if your idea was stolen and prominently featured in a major blockbuster movie and sold as an official product without getting any credit or funds for an idea that you created. If her story is true, then by all means she deserves something for it.

News Credits: 1 · by **T-Macksimus** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:44 am

So does this mean that it is only a matter of time before the company that manufactured the mini-disco ball hanging below the air freshener jumps in and starts a lawsuit too?! What a load of Crap! I had seen that air freshener long before the movie. That lady should have kept her mouth shut and enjoyed the increased profits. If anyone gave her a hard time about stealing the design, all she needed to do was show them the airfreshener which should have a copyright stamp and date on the bottom edge and that would shut them up.
If Dreamworks was, in fact, dumb enough to sell this as an official TF related product(which I have not seen one sold as such) then they deserve to get bent over for more than $850K!
Honestly, stupidity SHOULD be painful, and everything about this whole suit stinks of stupid choices on the parts of everyone involved.

by **Nemesis_Apoc** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:06 pm

bitch

News Credits: 38 · by **Sunstar** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:11 pm

She sounds a bit like a bee-otch

News Credits: 730 · by **Raymond T.** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:11 pm

Nemesis_Apoc wrote:bitch

No,... It's "Bee-otch"... :-B

News Credits: 3 · by **muswp1** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:24 pm

If she licensed and copyrighted the design five years ago, then Dreamworks deserves to get sued. Especially if they are selling their own version of her copyrighted product. A corporation like that should have known better.

News Credits: 2 · by **Bombus distinguendus** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:32 pm

this will settel out of court with prob a written apology. 850k isnt alot for dreamworks...thats like pocket change, i feel bad for her cuz if this is true her reputation has since suffered cuz ppl think she copyed from the movie and no one belives her that she didnt. that would irritate me enough to sue oh well. the story gave me a good laugh.

by **Uniprimus** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:33 pm

Lol, give me a break.

News Credits: 2 · by **PrimulArchangel** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:41 pm

She's just trying to cash in.. If the movie was a flop she would have never done this , Typical .. Got to love america we can sue for anything we want ,, WTF she think dreamworks was going to use them for ?? Got to be a dumb ass to have a movie studio buy stuff from you and not know it will be used in a movie.. What did she think they woud be handed out to actors to keep there trailers smelling nice ? LOL .. She knew exactly what was up and then someone probably put the idea into her head that " hey ya know , you can sue them and say you didnt give permission cause nothing was in writing !!!"
You got to be completely stupid to be upset about being part of a movie like this, she's making a nice chunk of change because of this .

by **DesalationReborn** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:53 pm

If what she says is true, than it's a done deal. If I were her, though, I'd ask for 50% of the profit from each freshener sold by Dreamworks and related businesses. Sounds a bit more legitimate, and recognizes the part Dreamworks played in their production, advertising, and sale.

by **ZarakZone** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:00 pm

While they shouldn't have done what they did it's completely ridiculous to do this!

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:23 pm

I don't think there was any malice intended on either side. I think this is an unfortunate result of miscommunication (we'll find out somewhere down the line) and if she's telling the truth (which is possible)...she deserves to be compensated.

How do we know that the 850K isn't 50% of the sales? It's not like everyone went out and bought one of these after the movie came out, if that were the case, I'd have one hanging from my rearview mirror as we speak.

If she truly does have a legal claim to it since 2002 and now she's being called a fraud, then yes....she deserves to be compensated for it.

This is why they make contracts and both parties should sign them.

$850,000.00 won't kill them. She could've asked for loss of income (or however it's put), pain and anguish, etc, etc, etc. (Numbering in the millions...)

News Credits: 1 · by **Creature SH** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:27 pm

I don't get why some people seem to be spewing hate at that woman right away here.

She had an idea, she made a product.
Dreamworks took that idea and sold it as their own.

It's her goddamn right to take back the money they made with HER idea. It would be stupid not to do so.

News Credits: 8 · by **Megatron Wolf** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:37 pm

They'll settle out of court. She'll get a few grand and the movie studio will add her name on the credits on the next DVD release of the movie. I agree and disagree with the person. They should have told her and gave her credit but then again movies do this all the time and most people are just happy to see their crap on the big screen. I just find it stupid that this was an article in a major newspaper.

by **BlackOut2K8** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:01 pm

It took her this long to notice something this small? People today are always looking for something to sue over, it ain't like Dreamworks is making replicas of the freaken air freshener and selling them under their own name. The case mat be thrown out due to lack of evidence towards damages or she may get way less because Dreamworks aren't claiming its their design. In any case it's something stupid and how the legal system is having all these loopholes people are suing for all types of stupid $h!t for @$$ loads of money and in the end they don't even get 1/3 of the so called damages. Someone please swat this b!tch upside her fat head. :HEADHURTS:

News Credits: 8 · by **NuclearConvoy** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:39 pm

Interesting, but will it stand up in court?
At least she's not sueing over being offended by the air freshener, I was worried it'd be about that when I read the headline!

by **real_Angel** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:07 pm

What is it with you Americans and sueing?
When somebody smells money, the are going to sue... no matter what reason they have to come up with. And the amounts of money that are concerned are even way more out there...
I love your country and the way people think big is better but that sueing is one thing I can do without...
Sometimes they are right, but most of the time it is just bogus!
:grin: