As reported by Reuters, the lawsuit was filed by Dan Ackerman against Apple, screenwriter Noah Pink, Marv Studios, the Tetris Company, and others. The lawsuit alleges that “Tetris” is “substantially similar in almost all material respects” to his book published in 2016 entitled “The Tetris Effect.”
The lawsuit says:
The movie entitled “Tetris” demonstrated the confiscation of Dan Ackerman’s original work and creation of his book “The Tetris Effect.” Plaintiff Ackerman’s book took a unique approach to writing about the real history of Tetris, as it not only applied the historical record, but also layered his own original research and ingenuity to create a compelling narrative non-fiction book in the style of a Cold War spy thriller. Mr. Ackerman’s literary masterpiece, unlike other articles and writings, dispelled of the emphasis on the actual gameplay and fans, and instead concentrated on the surrounding narrative, action sequences, and adversarial relationship between the players. This was the identical approach Defendants adopted for the Tetris Film, without notable material distinction, but often resonating the exact same feel, tone, approach, and scenes as the book introduced several years prior. As demonstrated herein, it becomes readily apparent that the Tetris film is substantially similar in almost all material respects including specific chapters and pages of said book that were simply adopted from the book to the film, without Plaintiff’s knowledge, authorization, or consent.
Ackerman says that he sent a pre-release copy of “The Tetris Effect” to the Tetris Company in July 2016. CEO Maya Rogers, however, allegedly instructed the company not to “license any of the Tetris intellectual property, such as its name and image, for any motion picture or television project.” (...)
It seemed like they copied Gaming Historian's The Story of Tetris, I didn't know there was a book
That's how I learned of the history. I doubt they copied that video though. I watched the movie expecting it to be like the video and it really isn't.
Gizmodo hasn’t been relevant since they leaked the iPhone 4 and Apple marked them ex-communicado
It's a shame, the site layout is a mess and it's full of stories that fit better on AV Club or Kotaku. And so many stories about sales and things to buy, basically ads.
So his claim is just that they copied the “spy thriller” tone of his book? I did a single PowerPoint slide on Tetris last year and got a pretty similar vibe from the Wikipedia page, so I don’t think it’s impossible they came up with that independently. Ultimately I think it’ll be difficult to prove unless there are fictional scenes in both that are fairly similar. Anything that actually happened that’s similar he couldn’t prove they got from his book. All this to say it’s definitely not impossible they were inspired by his book, I imagine stuff like that happens all the time. I’m just not sure he will be able to prove that enough to win.
The fact that he sent them his book and they rejected a film project and barred him from moving forward with it only to make one with someone else is highly relevant. If it goes to trial, discovery may find employees referencing the book showing they ripped off his idea. Likely they will settle out of court.
He submitted the book to the Tetris Company, but Apple is who he’s suing. Also, it’s fairly common for large companies to receive unsolicited materials and reject them without reviewing them in order to protect themselves from lawsuits like this.
But yeah, if any evidence comes up in discovery, that would change things.
I am sure he can prove what in the film came from his book and what didn't. The article specifies much of the book was written from his own sourcing.
If there is even 1 thing in the film that cant be sourced to a 2nd published article, than that proves his book was in part adapted.
They had multiple people that experienced these things first hand helping develop the script. So even if there isn’t a published article, they easily could’ve just been told by a first hand source.
That is always possible, but in this case I suspect that isn't so.
This author has independent research and can likely prove that nobody before them ever presented the story in the structure of a spy thriller.
The author can also prove the Tetris company had the galleys before publishing. A professional studio would have likely never allowed one of their screenwriters to ever read the book. I think this case.is going to get settled.
What makes you suspect the people they hired to provide first-hand accounts wouldn’t have done so? They wouldn’t even need to prove that they did, just the fact they had a source they could’ve gotten the information from would be sufficient, as long as the sources don’t testify that they explicitly didn’t give them that information.
And like I said, the story reads like that without much fluff. He may have been the first one to sell a book written like that but it’s not a huge leap at all. I got the same vibe just from reading facts on Wikipedia.
I’m not sure what your last paragraph means. The author can prove he sent the book to the Tetris Company but I find it unlikely he currently has any evidence that Apple read the book and used it in the screenplay. Tetris could’ve easily immediately rejected the book without reading it because they already planned to sell the rights to someone, in fact that’s very common with large companies, specifically to protect themselves from lawsuits like this.
It might get settled, but that would only be because Apple wouldn’t want the press or there’s evidence that hasn’t been revealed yet.
If people are being interviewed specifically because they previously participated as a source in a book and they are provoked to give the same specific anecdotes they gave to the original author, just to get around paying a fee, then the original author's work is still being adapted.
I think what probably happened is Apple refused to greenlight production with the author's involvement. He might be the specific editor of gizmodo that Apple had swatted about 10 years ago, accusing gizmodo of espionage.
It’s not like the strategically interviewed people they think could give them the anecdotes that were already in the book, the two people that are central to the story (including the person Taron Egerton plays) helped in the screenwriting process. The movie (and I assume the book) are literally about them. They are fully allowed to give out anecdotes for a multiple projects. It’s their life, they can tell as many people as they want.
Sure it’s possible Apple did that, but it’s not about what’s possible, it’s about what you have evidence to prove. It’s also possible this is someone looking to get 15 minutes of fame or hoping they’ll not care much and just settle (which is possible). Or maybe they’re just bitter that they had a good idea but someone else had the same good idea and made way more money off of it. All of those possibilities have equal amounts of evidence supporting them.
Except this isnt a random person looking to get famous. This is a well respected journalist and editor represented by established publishing houses and a respected law firm.
I hate saying it because its an obvious statement, but he literally wrote the book on the subject.
