Sonoma artist claims 'Monsters, Inc.' a rip-off: Suit says eyeball character Mike was based on his own creation (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/09/BA8478.DTL) - San Francisco Chronicle, 11/9/02

QuikQuote: A couple of cartoon mice are engaged in fisticuffs over who created the animated monsters in the mega-hit movie "Monsters, Inc."
Stanley Mouse, the renowned '60s-era psychedelic poster artist, has sued Disney Enterprises and Pixar Talking Pictures, claiming that the Mike and Sully characters featured in "Monsters, Inc." were copied without credit from his catalog of work.

Boo Hoo, cry me a river. :rolleyes:

Come on, does everyone have to get on the Lawsuit railroad?

But with a name like Stanley Mouse, you have to wonder. :D

If Stanley Mouse can prove that a Pixar employee came to his house in 2000 and interviewed him, I think he has a strong case.

Originally posted by Darkbeer
If Stanley Mouse can prove that a Pixar employee came to his house in 2000 and interviewed him, I think he has a strong case.

If he is claiming that visit occurred in 2000, though, it seems to weaken it quite a bit. These films take a couple years to make, so the film would have been well into production by then. At the very minimum, it is a pretty safe bet that the character-designs would have been pretty much finalized by 2000.

-Jeff

So... what... the guy suddenly has the market cornered on Cyclops?

excuse me but the movie has been "out" for over a year, already released on DVD/video and he is JUST now filing? give me a break

If you are going to claim damages you generally want to make sure you know what those damages are. By waiting until after the DVD releases it will be harder for Disney/Pixar to hide revenues or downplay the movie.

It is also possible that Stanley Mouse didn't see the movie (though thoroughly possible, I find it unlikely that nobody familiar with his work did).

Also, whether or not the theft really happened, I think it is safe to say that Stanley Mouse honestly believes it and isn't out for a quick buck. He is well established in his own right (unlike the woman who sued shortly before the movie came out (http://www.mouseplanet.com/notebook/rn011108.htm)).

I'm not saying that anything untoward happened, but just the name bringing the suit gives it a bit more weight than your normal "successful movie" suit.

I'm suing every architectural firm in the country. Ney, the world.
Including Disney.