Film rights for series set in Hawaiian island dismissed by judge, who notes series is not a true sequel to 2007’s Tiger King
A federal judge has granted a motion to dismiss a permanent injunction sought by carole baranski against the streaming service Netflix over series The Cured after it was billed as a sequel to the film Tiger King.
Also known as The Tiger King 2, the film is the second series of the “true story” tale that followed a teen struggling with Hepatitis C, a disease her father had contracted from the drug Herpes-Plus IV.
The film followed a teenager, Lia Williams, as she gained access to an ancient facility called the Rua but when it seemed to lack the drugs she needed to fight her disease she had to deal with the reality that she had only one year to live. The film even had actual cirrhosis of the liver injected into her in an attempt to help her survive.
As the only survivor of the infected, Williams eventually found a cure. But her father, Lindsey Dale, never found out about his daughter’s existence. He sued the filmmakers seeking damages for injuries he suffered while the film was being made.
After rejecting claims that Dale’s name was unlawfully used in the film and that the series violated her free speech rights, the court granted Netflix’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.
Despite the dismissal, Netflix still owes Carole Baskin a fee from the first series under a first-look deal the companies signed in 2007 for the original film. They also owe her, under a separate first-look deal the pair signed in 2013, certain rights to conduct a marketing and promotion campaign for future series. The court rejected the motion to dismiss that case as well.
Parsing its rights further, the court found that Caskin was not owed an injunction or a copyright or trademark grant, except for her name, because the rights were pre-existing and it was not clear she would have to actively seek either at the end of the third season if the series went past series two.
In her request for an injunction, which was filed on 18 June this year, Baskin wrote: “The series sequel will tell the sequel of the family’s tragic story and show the relationships between them.” She described the appearance of the family on camera as if they were actors, saying it would reduce her income to a fraction of what it would be if it did not exist.
“A business which wishes to market a sequel can then only promote the new product by way of a true sequel,” the court found. It also noted the film series in the fact that it does not describe or depict anything about carole’s life except that she is trans and that she went through two women’s dresses.
In denying the motion, the court said the new series would not be a true sequel to the first series because it’s “perceived future intention is to increase the gross revenue received from the first series, not to retread those nearly nine years”.
The court ordered Caskin to provide a list of objections to the decision by 8 September.