The creators of two similar teddy bear characters are engaged in an intellectual property dispute.

‘Ted’ movie creators sued for copyright infringement

July 17, 2014 8:07 pm Published by Leave your thoughts

There are many types of works that can be protected by copyright, and characters in creative works like movies are no exception. It was recently alleged by a production company called Bengal Mangle Productions that the creators of the movie "Ted" stole the idea for the teddy bear main character.

According to the lawsuit, Bengal Mangle Productions claims that the character "Ted" was stolen. The company had created a web series featuring a similar character named Charlie who was featured in the web series "Charlie the Abusive Teddy." Both characters are teddy bears that use foul language. 

If a character has been created that bears enough similarity to a previously created character, there could be grounds for a copyright infringement lawsuit. Both Ted and Charlie are abusive teddy bears, and according to a BBC article, the creators of Ted could have viewed the web series that Charlie was featured on before the creation of the film Ted. 

According to the article, the claim is that Ted's creators "copied Charlie to create the Ted character without plaintiff's authorization, which constitutes infringement of plaintiff's copyright in the Charlie character."

The Boston Herald reports that the movie Ted and the web series featuring Charlie also share similar scenes. Since major motion pictures have the potential to generate considerable profit, when a character or some other element that comprises a high-grossing film is suspected to have been stolen, it could result in significant losses for the original creator. 

Original ideas and inventions are valuable property, and as such, deserve the necessary legal protections to ensure that the property owners are able to recover damages in the event that infringement occurs. Contact a Phoenix, AZ small business attorney to learn more about how to protect your intellectual property

Categorised in:

This post was written by