Spielberg Goes To Court Over Rear Window Homage

Rear Window Pic 2

It appears that Disturbia shared a little too much in common with Rear Window and the owners of the short story that serves as the source are seeking bounty. We get the following news from the pirate caves of Yahoo:

According to the lawsuit, filed by the Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust, the basis for Hitchcock’s 1954 film was “Murder from a Fixed Viewpoint,” a short story by Cornell Woolrich. Hitchcock and actor James Stewart obtained the motion picture rights to the story in 1953. The lawsuit argues that Dreamworks should have done the same.

“In the Disturbia film the defendants purposefully employed immaterial variations or transparent rephrasing to produce essentially the same story as the Rear Window story,” the lawsuit said. In reviewing “Disturbia,” the New York Times called it “a kind of adolescent ‘Rear Window.”‘ The Toronto Star newspaper called it “a rip off with wit.”

I have yet to see Disturbia, and think I will watch Rear Window tonight in honor of this news story. If the story is as similar as everyone (see above reviews) is suggesting, then people should be sued. The rights were there for the taking; it certainly sounds like they would’ve been more than happy to license them out again. I am also guessing that those involved knew they were ripping off Rear Window, but thought everyone that could sue was dead.

We will see how this plays out – but if critics and fans alike see a blatant copy, I am sure a judge will see the same.

Comment with Facebook

16 thoughts on “Spielberg Goes To Court Over Rear Window Homage

  1. I in fact had assumed it was a remake with rights paid to original soruce creators or studio. It is not an homage, it is substantially the same story without question in my mind. I LOVE the original and really enjoyed Disturbia. The original source should be paid.

  2. They’re both similar in the basis of the story ( housebound spying, solving a murder by spying)….other than that no. Whereas Rear Window is boooorringgg, Disturbia is actually interesting.

    I’m a HUGE Hitchcock fan and I personally can’t stand Rear Window….on the other hand, I LOVED Disturbia.

  3. When I read about this information earlier on Imdb.com I said to myself “Did they just notice this now!?!” That was the first thing I said in the theaters to my friend that I was with and I remember someone turning around saying “what movie? don’t tell me this is a remake too” hahahaha

  4. The Simpsons and Home Movies uses were parodies, and fall under fair use.

    The statute of limitations on copyright infringement is three years. Disturbia came out last year. If the copyright owners wanted to, they could have waited even longer. Odds are, being a smaller company, they took a year so that they could compile adequate evidence. We’re only used to the idea of speedy litigation because the cases we’re most familiar with involve corporations with armies of lawyers straining at their collars waiting to be unleashed.

  5. why did they wait a whole year to sue? they they just realize yesterday what disturbia is about? a lot of people knew that disturbia wasnt very original. in fact, the story has been done a few times already, “bart of darkness” is a simpsons episode that uses this same story & theres also an episode of home movies thats a lot like it. i wonder if the simpsons or home movies got permission to use it.

  6. There are only two differences IMO it’s house arrest anklet and not a broken leg and the original story/movie is actually suspensefull. Not that I didn’t like disturbia cause I did. This is exactly what I thought when I first saw it.

  7. So far as I understand it, Hitchcock’s Rear Window has very little, if nothing, to do with this. The Hitchcock estate is not involved in this in any way that I’ve seen. The people who own the rights to the Cornell Woolrich short story, which is in no way public domain, are the ones pressing the lawsuit.

  8. So the lawsuit is saying that Disturbia stole from the Cornell Woolrich short story, not from Hitchcock. Is that correct?

    If so, then I believe the real question now is whether or not that short story is still under copyright or whether or not it is public domain. If it is public domain, does the Hitchcock estate have an arguement? If Hitchcock didn’t write the underlying story behing “Rear Window” but only adapted it, then wouldn’t that be something like the makers of the 1968 “Romeo and Juliet” sueing the makers of the 1996 “Romeo + Juliet” for being too similar? I’m not sure if this is a fair comparison or not, I’m just asking.

    Another view – If the story is still under copyright by Woolrich, then how does Hitchcock’s estate have the right to sue? Can they sue on behalf of someone else?

    I guess I’m confused what the explicit charge against Spielberg et al is about.

  9. Oh, Nagy. You make me so happy. Yours is the first take on this story that makes clear that this is about the original short story, and not the Hitchcock adapatation.

    Dragonslayer, Rear Window was written by Cornell Woolrich, the master of literary suspense and one of my favourite authors. Hitchcock also directed an adaptation of Woolrich’s 3 O’Clock for the television show Suspense, and it is considered by many Hitchcock enthusiasts to be one of his best works.

Leave a Reply