Seth MacFarlane sued for stealing idea for Ted
Producer-director Seth MacFarlane has been sued by a California production company for allegedly stealing the idea for a foul-mouthed talking bear with a penchant for drinking, drugs and womanising for his 2012 hit movie Ted.
In a complaint filed on Tuesday in the US District Court in Los Angeles, Bengal Mangle Productions LLC said Ted is “strikingly similar” to its own teddy bear Charlie, who was created in 2008 for the screenplay Acting School Academy and has appeared on websites such as YouTube and FunnyorDie.
Bengal Mangle said the bears physically resemble each other, have similar personas and verbal deliveries, have human friends, spend much time on the living room couch with a beer or cigarette in hand, and have active social media presences on Facebook and Twitter with similar, often profane postings. It also said Acting School Academy got about 1.2 million online views between July 2009 and June 2012. “Defendants never sought nor obtained plaintiff’s permission to use the Charlie character and continue to infringe the Charlie character,” the complaint said.
Bengal Mangle is seeking to recoup profit stemming from the alleged copyright infringement, and halt further infringement.
Among the other defendants are MacFarlane’s Fuzzy Door Productions Inc and Comcast Corp’s Universal Studios, which released the movie.
MacFarlane’s agent could not immediately be reached on Wednesday for comment. Universal did not immediately respond to requests for comment. MacFarlane directed, co-wrote and co-produced Ted, and provided the bear’s voice. The movie starred Mark Wahlberg.
Released in June 2012, Ted grossed about $550 million worldwide, making it the highest grossing R-rated comedy. A sequel is planned for next year.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 18th, 2014.
Like Life & Style on Facebook, follow @ETLifeandStyle on Twitter for the latest in fashion, gossip and entertainment.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732762837-0/Taylor-(3)1732762837-0-405x300.webp "article")
Why are they suing two years after the release of the movie?