Zahedi v. Miramax, LLC. is an interesting case from the Central District of California. The decision came out of dueling motions for summary judgment: Miramax trying to dismiss the underlying complaint based on the statute of limitations; and photographer Firooz Zahedi seeking affirmation of his copyright ownership as well as the dismissal of the statute of limitations motion.
Firooz Zahedi commenced the action, alleging copyright infringement of a photograph he had taken — the iconic photograph of Uma Thurman as Mia Wallace from Pulp Fiction, lying on a bed with a book and a gun next to her. It’s undisputed that Zahedi took the photograph, and it’s undisputed that Miramax continued using it as a prominent poster for the movie and other merchandising.
Zahedi emphasized the creative choices he made to show that he was the author of a work, not just a photographer who was carrying out the directions of the movie producer — including the selection and arrangement of the props, such as the shoes that Uma Thurmond wore. In contrast, Miramax claimed that its art directors had sketched what they wanted, and they contacted Zahedi because it was understood that he could and would carry out other people’s visions.
Miramax further claimed that a work-made-for-hire agreement had been executed with Zahedi, but it had been destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Miramax also failed to provide any confirmation as to its alleged copyright ownership, which would have been rather helpful to defend against the plaintiff’s claims.
An event that would later prove important to this case occurred in 2015, five years before Zahedi initiated the lawsuit. His stepson posted on Instagram a photo of a “Mia Wallace” action figure he had found, and commented that it did not credit Zahedi on the packaging. Zahedi responded to that post, also on Instagram. Though he didn’t know it, the clock had just started ticking. Miramax’s argument, which turned out to be the winning argument, was that the packaging of the toy was a constructive notification that Miramax had repudiated Zahedi’s copyright claims. The date he and his poor, well-meaning stepson commented on Instagram was the day the statute of limitations for copyright started tolling.
Copyright infringement claims are bound by a three-year statute of limitations. That means a plaintiff can look back three years before the date of the complaint and claim damages for that time period. However, when the claim is not about infringement, but ownership, the statute of limitations starts tolling from the date of creation, transfer of ownership, or the date on which a party is first put on notice that there is a repudiation of its rights of ownership.
At the time of the Instagram exchange, Zahedi seemed to have a Zen quality to his life, replying to his stepson’s post: “Sometimes it’s best to settle for the little things in life.” Apparently, he could not walk away from the success of that photograph turned iconic poster. As Mia Wallace once said, “Trying to forget anything as intriguing as this would be an exercise in futility.” Remembering his rights a bit earlier might have achieved a better result.”
