M. Night Shyamalan, Apple Evade Copyright Lawsuit By Filmmaker For The Most Obvious Of Reasons

So it appears we haven’t covered this up to the present, but back in 2020 Francesca Gregorini sued Apple and M. Night Shyamalan for copyright infringement. At issue was a series for Apple TV called Servant and, according to Gregorini, the manner in which the first three episodes of the show copied from Gregorini’s movie, The Truth About Emanuel.

As is often the case in these disputes, the “brazen copying” that Gregorini references in his suit can be more properly categorized as broad themes and ideas that, absent any other similiarities, are not afforded copyright protection in and of themselves.

“Servant” and “The Truth About Emanuel” both tell the story of a mother who, grieving the death of her baby, forms an attachment to a realistic doll. In both, a teenage nanny goes along with the mother and cares for the doll as if it were alive.

The court dismissed that case in the summary judgment phase, and even awarded Apple and Shyamalan attorneys’ fees. The Ninth Circuit, however, revived the suit, claiming that a reasonable jury might reach a conclusion different than that of the judge.

But there was another argument made by Apple and Shyamalan in the first trial: none of them had ever seen Gregorini’s film. When the Ninth Circuit sent this back to a jury trial, that was once again the argument the defendants made. In copyright law, to have a claim, you must establish that the defendants had access to the plaintiff’s work, either because of events that brought the work to the defendants directly, or due to the work being so widely available that it is reasonable to assume access generally.

Given that The Truth About Emanuel was a film that included the likes of Jessica Biel and Alfred Molina, how likely is it that Apple and Shyamalan’s claim that no access could be established is accurate? Well, Gregorini certainly didn’t establish and sequence of events that would have led the work to the defendants directly, such as a spec script being sent to them years ago or the like. As for the circulation of the film itself, which came out in 2013, the film appears to have grossed just $4,404 across 11 theaters… total.

That certainly must be what led the jury to flatly claim that none of the defendants had any access to the work in question and, since there was no substantial actual copying of expression being done, found for the defendants.

So while I can’t say I know what The Truth About Emanuel actually is, having never seen it, I do know that the truth about The Truth About Emanuel is that it wasn’t copied for Servant.