Braddock v. Jolie et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed by James J Braddock; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752-6623890.(Saindon, Kelly)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
JAMES J. BRADDOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual; GK
FILMS, a California corporation;
FILMDISTRICT, an Illinois corporation;
SCOUT FILM, a foreign corporation; and
EDIN SARKIC, an individual
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11:1-cv-8597

Jury Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NOW COMES PLAINTIFF, JAMES J. BRADDOCK a.k.a. Josip J. Knezevic
(hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Belongia, Shapiro & Franklin, LLP, and
pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and the Berne Convention,
brings his Complaint for Copyright Infringement against DEFENDANTS, ANGELINA JOLIE,
GK FILMS, FILMDISTRICT, SCOUT FILM, and EDIN SARKIC (collectively, the
“Defendants”), and in support thereof alleges the following:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1.

This is an action for violation of the copyright laws of, and treaties and/or

conventions signed by, the United States arising from Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s
copyrights in Plaintiff’s original copyrighted book entitled, The Soul Shattering (“Subject
Work”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action and the claims

asserted herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that this is a suit for copyright
infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
3.

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction of the Court because they reside,

have agents, do or transact business, or are otherwise found, and have purposefully availed
themselves of the privilege of doing business, in Illinois and this District.
4.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because

Defendant FilmDistrict has a regular and established place of business in this District and may be
found in this District.

THE PARTIES
5.

At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff JAMES J. BRADDOCK was an individual

residing in Zagreb, Croatia.
6.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant ANGELINA JOLIE

(hereinafter “Defendant Jolie”) was an individual residing in California and a citizen of the
United States of America.
7.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant GK FILMS

(hereinafter “Defendant GK Films”) was a California corporation with its principal place of
business in California.
8.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant FILMDISTRICT

(hereinafter “Defendant FilmDistrict”) was a California corporation with its principal place of
business in California, duly authorized to do and doing business in this District.
9.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant SCOUT FILM

(hereinafter “Defendant Scout Film”) was a Bosnian and Herzegovinian corporation with its
principal place of business in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant EDIN SARKIC

(hereinafter “Defendant Sarkic”) was an individual residing in Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I.

Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Subject Work

11.

Plaintiff is an internationally-known author and journalist, whose career

achievements include: working as a journalist for numerous publications in Sarajevo, Zagreb,
and Ljubljana; working as the lead television director for numerous national news and sport
programs in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia; and working as an international
reporter and commentator during the Serbian attacks (and lengthy siege of Sarajevo, the capital)
during the Bosnian War.
12.

Plaintiff is the author of the Subject Work, a factual account of the tragedies

suffered by Bosnian and Herzegovinian women and children during the Bosnian War. It was
originally published in Croatia in or about December 2007 in the native language of Croatia.
13.

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886

and as revised (the “Berne Convention”) requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of
works of authors from other signatory countries in the same way as it recognizes the copyright of
its own nationals.
14.

In addition to establishing a system of equal treatment regarding copyright

amongst signatories, the agreement also required member states to provide strong minimum
standards for copyright law.

15.

Croatia became a signatory member of the Berne Convention on October 8, 1991.

16.

The United States of America became a signatory member of the Berne

Convention on March 1, 1989.
17.

Plaintiff’s Subject Work is a Berne Convention Work as defined in the Copyright

Act of 1976, Title U.S.C., § 101, as amended, and is subject to the protection of the Copyright
Act of 1976, Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
18.

Prior to commencement of this action, Plaintiff registered the Subject Work in

accordance with the copyright registration laws of Croatia, and at all times has been the sole
proprietor of his respective rights, titles, interest, and copyrights in the Subject Work.
II.

Defendants’ Infringement

19.

On December 23, 2011, Defendants will release in the United States a motion

picture, In the Land of Blood and Honey (hereinafter “Motion Picture”).
20.

The Motion Picture is written and directed by Defendant Jolie, produced by

Defendant GK Films and Defendant Scout Film, and will be distributed in the United States by
Defendant FilmDistrict.
21.

The Motion Picture has been widely publicized by film critics and pop culture

media outlets, particularly since it is Defendant Jolie’s directorial debut and Defendants’
government permits to film in Sarajevo were hotly contested, revoked, and eventually re-granted.
22.

In violation of the Berne Convention and United States copyright laws, the

Defendants have infringed upon the protectable rights in the Subject Work, which are wholly
owned by Plaintiff. Defendants never secured licensing or permission from Plaintiff, yet the
Motion Picture shares similarities so substantial to the Subject Work that its production and
distribution constitute copyright infringement.

23.

At all relevant times, Defendants had access to the Subject Work through

Defendant Sarkic, Defendant Scout Film, and various other motion picture resources.
24.

After Plaintiff released the Subject Work in or about December 2007, Plaintiff

travelled to Sarajevo to promote the Subject Work and create awareness for Bosnian war
victims’ organizations.
25.

On one of these occasions, Plaintiff was approached by Defendant Sarkic, who

was an executive motion picture producer in the Bosnian region with Defendant Scout Film.
Defendant Sarkic shared with Plaintiff that he read the Subject Work and expressed sincere
interest to meet with Plaintiff on future occasions to discuss the Subject Work in further detail.
26.

From March 2008 through November 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant Sarkic met at

least three times to discuss details of the Subject Work, including plot and character development
and the story’s cultural significance and historical accuracy.
27.

These conversations evolved into pursuing the possibility of creating a motion

picture from the Subject Work, which Defendant Sarkic would produce through Defendant Scout
Film.
28.

Subsequent to these meetings, through 2008 and 2009, Plaintiff and Defendant

Sarkic communicated extensively over the telephone and through text messages in attempts to
continue the conversation about potentially creating a motion picture of the Subject Work.
29.

In or about August 2009, Plaintiff emailed LaToya King at Defendant Jolie’s

organization, Make It Right, and proposed a collaboration for “Bridge of Love” whereby by
Defendant Jolie would partner with Plaintiff to build villages of houses across desolated cities,
including Sarajevo and New Orleans, linking the continents, cities, and people of different racial
and cultural backgrounds. Plaintiff sent this email without knowing of any partnership or

communications between Defendant Sarkic and Defendant Jolie.
30.

In 2010, Plaintiff learned through media outlets about Defendant Jolie’s Motion

Picture that was being filmed in the Bosnian region and its striking similarity to the Subject
Work. At this time, Plaintiff also learned that Defendant Sarkic was an executive producer of the
Motion Picture and that Defendant Scout Film was actively involved in production.
31.

The similarities between the Subject Work and the Motion Picture are obvious:

the Motion Picture copies key plot elements, themes, characters, events, sequences and settings
of the Subject Work, including without limitation, the following:
a. The Subject Work illustrates a love story that takes place in war-torn Bosnia and
Herzegovina in the early 1990’s. The Motion Picture also depicts a love story that
takes place in war-torn Bosnia and Herzegovina in the early 1990’s.
b. The Subject Work’s main female character is a Croatian (her mother is a Muslim),
living near Sarajevo, who is captured and imprisoned in a Serbian-held
concentration camp that was located in a village, which was highly unusual since
most camps were located in abandoned industrial or agricultural complexes. The
Motion Picture’s main female character is also a Muslim who is captured and
imprisoned in a Serbian-held camp that was located in a village, not an abandoned
complex.
c. The Subject Work’s main female character is subject to continuous abuse and
rape by soldiers and officers in the camp. In addition to being raped continuously
by soldiers and officers, she is forced to become a servant at the camp
headquarters, a duty assumed by very few of the captives. The Motion Picture’s
main female character is also subject to continuous rape by soldiers and officers

in the camp and subsequently becomes a servant at camp headquarters.
d. The Subject Work’s main male character is the deputy camp commander. His
father is a high-ranking “Greater Serbian” nationalist and important officer of the
Yugoslav Peoples Army. The Motion Picture’s main male character is also a
camp commander whose father is a high-ranking “Greater Serbian” nationalist
and important officer of the Yugoslav Peoples Army.
e. In the Subject Work, the main male character struggles with the polarity of his
emotions and his military duty; he loves the main female character but is expected
to fulfill his duties as a high-ranking member in the army force. Amidst his
struggle, he helps her escape from camp. In the Motion Picture, the main male
character also struggles with his love for the main female character and his duties
as a high-ranking member of the army force. Like in the Subject Work, the main
male character in the Motion Picture helps the main female character escape from
the camp.
COUNT I:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 17
U.S.C. § 101 et seq. AND THE BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS
(Against All Defendants)
32.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 31 and realleges them here as

though fully set forth herein.
33.

The Subject Work is an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible means of

expression that constitutes a literary work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) and is subject to
copyright protection under U.S.C. Act 17 § 101.
34.

Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention provides that “Authors shall enjoy, in

respect of works for which they are protected under This Convention, in countries of the Union
other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter
grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specifically granted by this Convention.”
35.

Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention provides further that “(t)he enjoyment and

exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise
shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.”
36.

Plaintiff has exclusive rights to each protectable component of the Subject Work,

including the right to create derivative works such as an adaptation of the Subject Work to a
Motion Picture.
37.

By directing and producing the Motion Picture, Defendants have reproduced,

copied, prepared a derivative work based upon, and intend to distribute copies of substantial
portions of the Subject Work, including key plot elements, characters, events and sequences for
their own use, without Plaintiff’s permission or authorization.
38.

Upon information and belief, such conduct by Defendants was and is willfully

done with knowledge of the rights of Plaintiff.
39.

Defendants’ conduct constituted, and continues to constitute, infringement upon

Plaintiff’s exclusive rights to reproduce, copy, prepare derivative works based upon, and
distribute the Subject Work, all in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and the Berne
Convention.
40.

By reason of Defendants’ acts and infringements, Plaintiff has sustained and will

continue to sustain substantial injury, loss and damage to his rights.
41.

Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by

him as a result of Defendants’ acts of copyright infringement. Plaintiff is at present unable to

ascertain the full extent of monetary damage suffered by reason of Defendants’ acts of copyright
infringement, but Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of such information and
belief, alleges that Plaintiff has sustained such damages in an amount exceeding $50,000.00.
42.

Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendants the gains, profits, and

advantages they have obtained and will continue to obtain as a result of their copyright
infringement. Plaintiff is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of monetary damage
suffered by reason of Defendants’ acts of copyright infringement, but Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and on the basis of such information and belief, alleges that Plaintiff has sustained such
damages in an amount exceeding $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against
Defendants and declare that:
A. Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s valid copyrighted Subject Work;
B. Defendants be ordered to pay statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
504(c);
C. Defendants be ordered to pay costs, including Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’
fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; and
D. Plaintiff has such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and
just.
COUNT II:
PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(Against All Defendants)
43.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 31 and realleges them here as

through fully set forth herein.
44.

Defendants have already infringed Plaintiff’s Subject Work through its

unauthorized copying, distribution, and public display of the Motion Picture in advertising and
promoting the Motion Picture by making an unauthorized motion picture script that is based
upon and copies virtually all of the copyrightable subject matter in the Subject Work.

45.

If not enjoined, Defendants will continue to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright by

advertising, marketing, and promoting the Motion Picture; and by releasing the Motion Picture
and otherwise distributing or licensing others to distribute the Motion Picture in various formats
and distribution channels.
46.

These wrongful acts of Defendants have caused irreparable injury to Plaintiff and,

unless this Court restrains Defendant from further use of the Motion Picture, Plaintiff will
continue to suffer irreparable injury for which he has no adequate remedy at law.
47.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Defendants have

been and will continue to be unjustly enriched, and Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
suffer damages in an amount not yet fully determined.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against
Defendants and declare that:
A. A preliminary injunction be entered against Defendants during the pendency
of this action and a permanent injunction thereafter enjoining and restraining
Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, partners, licenses,
divisions, affiliates, parent corporation(s), and all others in active concert or
participation with any of them from copying, distributing, publicly displaying,
or otherwise making any use of the Motion Picture, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
502; and
B. Plaintiff has such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and
just.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES J. BRADDOCK,

By:

/s/ Kelly A. Saindon____
One of Plaintiff’s attorneys

Mark D. Belongia, #6269391
[e-mail]
Kelly A. Saindon, #6244793
[e-mail]
Belongia, Shapiro & Franklin, LLP
20 South Clark Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]