Disney Copyright Case: The 9th Circuit Court has reinstated a $600K copyright verdict against Disney over the use of Rearden’s motion-capture tech in Beauty and the Beast.
A Major Legal Reversal for Disney
San Francisco, Sept. 12, 2025 — The Walt Disney Company has been dealt a setback after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a nearly $600,000 jury verdict in a copyright battle involving the 2017 live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast. The ruling reinstates claims that Disney vicariously enabled the unauthorized use of proprietary motion-capture technology developed by Silicon Valley firm Rearden LLC.
A three-judge panel found that U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar erred in overturning the 2023 jury verdict. The court said evidence was sufficient to show Disney had the ability to supervise its visual-effects contractor, Digital Domain 3.0 (DD3), which allegedly used stolen software during production.
MUST READ: The Science of Happiness: What Research Really Says
Disney Copyright Case: The Technology at Stake
At the heart of the case is MOVA Contour Reality Capture, a groundbreaking facial motion-capture system developed by former Apple engineer Steve Perlman. The tool, which uses 64 cameras to scan actors’ facial expressions in real-time, was instrumental in rendering the Beast’s hyper-realistic look in the 2017 film.
Rearden accused ex-employee Greg LaSalle of stealing MOVA’s code in 2014 and transferring it to DD3, which then used it without a valid license on Disney and Marvel blockbusters.
Key Timeline of the Disney Copyright Case
- 2014–2015: Alleged theft of MOVA tech; Disney signs with DD3 for Beauty and the Beast.
- June 2017: Rearden sues Disney, seeking damages and profit-sharing.
- December 2023: Jury finds Disney vicariously liable, awards $596,318 in damages.
- August 2024: Judge Tigar overturns the verdict, citing lack of evidence of Disney’s control.
- September 2025: Appeals court reinstates the damages, rejecting Disney’s defense.
Disney Copyright Case: Court’s Reasoning
In its 28-page opinion, the appeals panel likened Disney’s role to cases where landlords were held liable for tenant infringements. Judges noted Disney representatives were physically present at motion-capture sessions and had contracts granting rights to supervise DD3’s use of MOVA.
“Disney’s contract with DD3 clearly gave it… the right to terminate the contract for copyright infringement,” the panel wrote.
MUST READ: If America Stops Outsourcing to India: Who Loses More?
Reactions from Both Sides
Rearden’s attorney Mark Carlson called the decision a victory for innovation:
“This ruling underscores that big studios can’t bury their heads in the sand when red flags wave.”
Disney, represented by Kelly Klaus, reiterated its innocence, stating it was a victim of contractor deception. A spokesperson said Disney is considering further appeals, including possibly taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Disney Copyright Case: Industry Implications
Experts say the decision may force studios to tighten vendor audits and contracts in an industry increasingly reliant on outsourcing for VFX and AI-driven tools.
“This isn’t just about Disney,” said IP attorney David Singer. “It’s a wake-up call for how motion-capture and AI effects are policed.”
While the $600K award is modest compared to Beauty and the Beast’s $1.25 billion box office, the verdict reinforces Rearden’s intellectual property claims and could influence future disputes across Hollywood.
FAQs on the Disney Copyright Case Verdict
Q1. Why was Disney found vicariously liable?
Because its contracts and on-set presence gave it the ability to supervise DD3, even without direct knowledge of infringement.
Q2. What is MOVA Contour technology?
A facial motion-capture system that generates lifelike digital animations by scanning actors’ expressions in real-time.
Q3. How much does Disney owe?
Nearly $600,000 in statutory damages, unless the decision is overturned by further appeal.
Q4. Could this impact other studios?
Yes. The ruling may push studios to increase oversight of contractors handling proprietary technologies.