1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2 1. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking to put an immediate stop to, and to obtain
3 redress for, Defendants blatant, purposeful and massive infringement of the
4 copyright in Plaintiff Johnsons two-part manuscript entitled Tribulations of a
5 Ghetto Kid.
6 2. Plaintiff Johnson is a published author who has written numerous books and
7 short stories including "Cold Blooded," "Black Girl Found," "Firebug" and the
8 infringed manuscript Tribulations of a Ghetto Kid. Plaintiff Keller assisted
9 Johnson as editor of the infringed manuscript. At the time of the writing of the
10 infringed manuscript, both Johnson and Keller were incarcerated.
11 3. Johnson and Defendant Turner, who knew each other for years before Johnson
12 was incarcerated and before Turner became a successful author, formed an
13 agency relationship during Johnsons incarceration. The two entered into an
14 agreement by which she agreed to make every effort to sell his literary works
15 for a fee. After her review of Tribulations, the two even collaborated on an
16 anthology project, Street Chronicles, which was ultimately published.
17 During this time, Turner also shared with Johnson the news of a book
18 publishing business relationship with Defendant Jackson, and told Johnson he
19 would be the next best thing with the publishing of Tribulations in the near
20 future.
21 4. Recognizing Johnsons talent, and also recognizing her own advantageous
22 position due to Johnsons incarceration, in a brazen and improper effort to
23 capitalize on Johnsons creative work and adverse circumstances, Turner
24 shared Tribulations with Defendants, after which by copyright infringement,
25 theft, fraud and breach of contract, they created, aired and distributed the
26 Infringing Work Power which prominently features significant portions of
27 Tribulations without authorization from Johnson and now enjoys
28 considerable success and popularity as one of the anchor scripted programs of
1 course and scope of their employment and/or agency relationship(s) with other
2 Defendant(s).
3 21. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that each of the
4 Defendants, acting individually and/or in concert with each other, engaged in a
5 common plan to wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs of their respective rights,
6 ownership and beneficial interests in the Protected Work. Each and all of the
7 things done by each Defendant against Plaintiffs, as mentioned in this entire
8 Complaint, were done, in conspiracy and with full permission, knowledge,
9 approval, ratification, and support of each other Defendant.
10
11 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
12
13 Defendants Access to the Protected Work
14
15 22. Plaintiff Johnson wrote the Protected Work and all of his other works under the
16 pen name The Ghost.
17 23. In or around late 2005, Johnson communicated with Defendant Turner, whom
18 he had known socially for over a decade through a mutual friend, in the hopes
19 of her assisting him in getting the Protected Work published. Johnson
20 communicated with Turner and had a copy of the Protected Work delivered to
21 Turner.
22 24. After receiving a copy of the Protected Work, Ms. Turner began to initiate
23 more and more contact with Plaintiff Johnson, communicating regularly via
24 phone and mail.
25 25. At the same time that Ms. Turner received the Protected Work, she began
26 working with Defendant Jackson to develop projects to distribute literary
27 material about the sex, guns, cash, brutal highs and short lives of persons
28 involved in legally questionable situations in tough city streets. In the same
1 year, with Ms. Turner employed by Jacksons company, to wit, G-Unit Books,
2 Jackson also endeavored to develop television and film material based upon
3 the same subject matter to which Johnsons Protected Work is completely
4 devoted.
5 26. During this time period, Turner and Johnson shared numerous discussions
6 about her publishing the Protected Work in the near future and Turner told
7 Johnson that he was going to be the next best thing in the literary world.
8 Turner was so excited about Johnsons talent that she proposed representing
9 him as his agent, representing him in his effort to get his materials published
10 and stories sold. He agreed and they executed a purported agency agreement.
11 27. Turner also asked Johnson to collaborate with her on an anthology project
12 entitled Street Chronicles: Tales From Da Hood by contributing one of the
13 short stories. Johnson, who was incarcerated at all times relevant to his
14 interaction with Turner regarding his works, depended upon Turner keeping
15 her word and acting with professional integrity, as he had limited ability to
16 explore and verify potential deals on his own. When the business relationship
17 ended, due to Johnsons not being paid timely for his work on the anthology,
18 Turner still had in her possession a copy of the Protected Work, and was still
19 employed by Jacksons company.
20 28. Over a decade after Johnson authored the Protected Work and registered it,
21 Power aired on the Starz Network with Jackson at the helm as one of the
22 executive producers. Defendants have advanced various claims about the
23 shows origination. Though Defendant Agboh is given credit as the shows
24 creator, it is clear from numerous interviews that the original development of
25 the show was heavily sourced from Defendant Jackson. It is also claimed that
26 Power was birthed out of a conversation between Defendants Jackson and
27 Canton. (see New York Times July 27, 2014 article:
28
1 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/arts/television/courtney-kemp-agboh-
2 runs-power-with-50-cents-input.html.)
3 29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Protected Work was unlawfully,
4 knowingly and intentionally transferred by Defendant Turner to Defendant
5 Jackson at or near the time she was employed by and/or in a business
6 relationship with him. Thereafter, Defendant Jackson and/or Turner caused the
7 Protected Work to be transferred to each of the other Defendants. The
8 Protected Work was then incorporated into, published, held out and/or sold as,
9 the Infringing Work by Defendants, and each of them.
10 30. Defendants have no license, authorization, permission or consent to make use
11 of the Protected Work.
12 31. On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff Johnson sued each defendant except Anchor Bay,
13 upon the same claims of infringement herein (Case No. VAED CV16-0088,
14 Doc. No. 3). Defendants were served with Plaintiff Johnsons lawsuit on
15 August 4, 2016 (Id at Doc. No. 6), and counsel for Defendant STARZ filed
16 motions to appear pro hac vice on August 16, 2016 (Id at Doc. Nos. 7,8). Thus,
17 Defendant STARZ was on notice of Plaintiff Johnsons claims of infringement.
18 Nonetheless, STARZ presently continues to publicize and distribute the
19 Infringing Work, having recently renewed its production of the Infringing
20 Work for two additional broadcast seasons.
21
22 Defendants Copying of the Protected Work
23
24 32. Both the Protected Work and the Infringing Work (collectively, both Works)
25 explore the life of an African-American protagonist drug dealer using his ill-
26 gotten gains to transition into the realm of legitimate business. In both Works,
27 the protagonist has a love interest, a side-kick, and gratuitous profanity and
28 violence are ever-present.
1 33. However, looking beyond the basic elements of many "bad man from the
2 streets turned good" stories, the Infringing Work goes so far as to borrow
3 character names, plot lines, and nearly identical language, from the Protected
4 Work, making one strikingly similar to the other. By way of example,
5 infringing similarities include, but are not limited to those set forth in
6 paragraphs 32 through 46 herein.
7 34. A first, clear, and blaring example of Defendants infringement is the name of
8 Powers protagonistGhostthe pen name Plaintiff Johnson used when he
9 authored the Protected Work 12 years prior.
10 35. In the Protected Work, the protagonists name is Prince. The protagonist, as
11 described in both Works, derives confidence from having a 360 degree
12 waves hairstyle and goatee facial hair. The protagonist is also very well-read
13 and an intellectual.
14 36. In both Works, the protagonist has the same long term goal and particular
15 method of achieving it. Both Works chronicle the protagonist's efforts to
16 achieve the goal of turning his drug dealing past into a legitimate future. In
17 both Works, the protagonist's particular methodology of realizing the goal is
18 ownership of a high class multi-level nightclub in a big city, showcasing the
19 hottest musical talent and frequented by celebrities. In the Protected Work, the
20 city is the Southern metropolis, Atlanta, Georgia. In the Infringing Work, it is
21 the Northern metropolis, New York, New York.
22 37. Both Works explore the protagonist's internal conflict between his desire to
23 end his criminal activities and his realization that even the legitimate aspects of
24 his life and lifestyle are tied to, and dependent upon, criminal elements.
25 38. A man with the particular name of "Pedro" and his friend, both from Miami,
26 supply the protagonist's drugs in Both Works. In both Works, Pedro and his
27 friend are connected with an international drug cartel. In Both Works, the
28 protagonist's most prominent criminal activity involves drug dealing. In Both
1 Works, conflict surrounding how the protagonist acquires his drugs, and from
2 whom, are major story elements factoring into suspense as to the protagonist
3 achieving his long term goal.
4 39. Both Works contain scenes with meetings between the protagonist and his
5 Miami drug suppliers wherein external conflict is increased via manipulating
6 suspense as to whether the protagonist will be able to maintain a steady supply
7 of drugs, and hinting at the possibility of increased access and control over the
8 supply. The dialogue is substantively identical:
9
10
Protected Work Infringing Work
11
12 "Before we start off doing "You know I checked you out.
13 business, I want to let you know Your reputation precedes you.
14 that I've been hearing a lot of Your name is feared on the streets.
15 negative shit about you. I've If you could get this situation under
16 already heard about the control. Murders/war, you could
17
influence you and your crew have your own cartel one day.
18
have in the city. Imagine if you When I hired you 6 months ago,
19
could supply the whole city with you guaranteed me a certain level
20
dope and coke. The only way we of professionalism. You also
21
can do business papa is if you guaranteed me a safe and secure
22
can guarantee the murders will pipe line with no interruptions."
23
24
cease."
25
26 40. Both Works contain characters in the protagonist's immediate circle of friends
27 named "Angela" or "Angie" with the same physical characteristics, who are
28 present in many of the same interactions. In the Infringing Work, "Angela" is a
10
11
1 and with the hopes of benefitting her boyfriend. In the Protected Work, the
2 woman's name is Christy. In the Infringing Work, her name is Holly.
3 47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants
4 knowingly and willfully copied the Protected Work and the protectable
5 expression contained therein, including, but not limited to, the expression of
6 concepts, ideas, plots, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and characters
7 contained therein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
8 that Defendants knowingly and willfully copied the original artistic and
9 creative choices that comprise Plaintiffs expression of the premise and the
10 elements of the Protected Work.
11 48. The Infringing Work is substantially and/or strikingly similar to the Protected
12 Work.
13 49. The total concept and feel of the Infringing Work is substantially and/or
14 strikingly similar to the total concept and feel of Plaintiffs Protected Work.
15
16 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 For Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement,
18 Against All Defendants
19
20 50. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
21 51. Defendants unauthorized reproduction, distribution, public performance,
22 display, and creation of a derivative work infringes Plaintiffs exclusive rights
23 in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.
24 52. Defendants did not seek or receive permission to copy or interpolate any
25 portion of the Protected Work into the Infringing Work. All of the elements of
26 the Protected Work copied by the Infringing Work are original to the Protected
27 Work.
28 53. Defendants conduct has at all times been knowing, willful, and with
12
13
14
15
1 their work, and caused them emotional distress, thereby harming Plaintiffs.
2 72. Defendants fraudulent conduct as described herein is oppressive and
3 despicable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive
4 damages for each Defendants perpetration of the aforementioned oppressive
5 and despicable acts set forth herein.
6
7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8 Breach of Contract per Cal Civ Code 1549
9 Against Defendants Turner and Jackson
10
11 73. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
12 74. This claim arises under the general laws of the California, inclusive of Civil
13 Code Sections 1549.
14 75. Defendant Turner, as an agent and/or employee of Defendant Jackson,
15 represented to Plaintiff Johnson that she would assist him in exploiting the
16 Protected Work.
17 76. Neither Defendant Turner, nor Defendant Jackson, assisted Plaintiff Johnson in
18 exploiting the Protected Work on his behalf. Instead, they breached the
19 contract by failing to assist Plaintiff Johnson as promised, misappropriating
20 Plaintiffs work as their own and exploiting it for themselves.
21 77. As a proximate result of Defendants breach, Plaintiffs suffered compensatory
22 and actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
23
24 NATURE OF ALL DEFENDANTS ACTIONS
25
26 78. Defendants acted intentionally, fraudulently and conspiratorially in infringing
27 upon plaintiffs clearly established interests under United States and California
28 law.
16
26 judgment and for all amounts not taken into consideration in the judgment
27 (v) An award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(b), including actual
28 damages, and the profits of Defendants as will be proven at trial, including a
17