Disney Faces Legal Blow in ‘Beauty and the Beast’ Copyright Case
In 2017, Disney’s live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast delighted audiences around the world. Featuring Emma Watson as Belle, Dan Stevens as the Beast, and a cast that included Luke Evans and Josh Gad, the film quickly became a box office hit, grossing over $1.2 billion globally. With its stunning visuals and faithful recreation of the animated classic, Disney’s efforts seemed flawless.
However, not everything was smooth sailing behind the scenes, as a major legal battle was brewing over the technology used to bring the Beast to life on screen.
Related: Disney Brings ‘Beauty and the Beast’ Back to Life With New Cast & Big Changes
The legal issues surrounding Beauty and the Beast came to a head when a company named Rearden LLC filed a lawsuit against Disney. The company claimed that Disney had illegally used its proprietary motion-capture software, MOVA Contour, to create the Beast’s realistic facial expressions. The software was originally provided to Digital Domain (DD3), the special effects company Disney worked with, but Rearden alleged that the software had been used without proper authorization.
The lawsuit sought $38 million in damages, accusing Disney and Digital Domain of knowingly infringing on Rearden’s intellectual property.
The First Lawsuit: Disney’s Motion-Capture Misstep
In 2017, Rearden LLC accused Disney of using its MOVA Contour technology without permission, alleging that the software was obtained by Digital Domain through an unauthorized employee. Rearden claimed that both Disney and Digital Domain knew the software had been used illegally.
Related: Voice of Disney Princess Belle Has Died After Battle With Cancer
The case dragged on for years, and in 2023, the court sided with Rearden, fining Disney $600,000 for using the software without the necessary license.
However, the court did not award the full $38 million Rearden was seeking. Disney, not satisfied with the ruling, appealed the decision. They argued that they had not knowingly committed copyright infringement and that they should not be held responsible for Digital Domain’s actions.
The Legal Reversal
In August 2024, Judge Jon S. Tigar reversed the previous ruling, much to Disney’s relief. The judge ruled that Rearden LLC had failed to prove that Disney was aware of the illegal use of the software.
Related: Disney’s ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘Doctor Who’ Actor Passes Away “Suddenly and Unexpectedly”
According to Tigar, Digital Domain was the one that had illegally accessed MOVA Contour, and Disney had no way of knowing that the software was used improperly. This ruling was a significant victory for Disney, as it meant they would not be held liable for the damages claimed by Rearden.
However, the battle was far from over. Rearden LLC appealed the decision, and in September 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in to deliver a new verdict. The appeals court disagreed with Judge Tigar’s ruling and determined that Disney could be held responsible for the actions of its contractor, Digital Domain.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lucy Koh found in her opinion that a 2023 jury trial offered enough evidence to conclude Disney knew its contractor made unauthorized copies of facial motion capture software owned by San Francisco technology incubator Rearden. The three-judge appeals panel ruled that Disney vicariously committed copyright infringement by allowing its contractor, Digital Domain 3.0 (DD3), to use Rearden’s software.
Related: Disney Settles Major Lawsuit After Controversial Disney+ Series Sparks Outrage
The Aftermath: A Major Setback for Disney
Following the appeals court’s ruling, Rearden LLC’s CEO, Steve Perlman, issued a statement expressing satisfaction with the court’s decision. Perlman thanked the court for reinstating the initial ruling and emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property in the entertainment industry.
Disney, on the other hand, has not yet responded publicly to the ruling. It remains to be seen whether the company will continue to challenge the decision or settle the matter.
While the ruling in favor of Rearden LLC is significant, it also raises questions about the extent to which large corporations should be held accountable for the actions of their contractors. Disney, as the party benefiting from the use of the software, could have taken more proactive steps to ensure that its contractors were using legally obtained technology.
As the legal saga continues, one important question remains: should Disney continue to fight the ruling, or should it settle? Some argue that Disney should accept the ruling and move forward, paying the fine and focusing on its future projects. Others believe that Disney should continue its appeal to avoid setting a precedent for future copyright cases.
With the Ninth Circuit’s decision now reinstating the initial ruling, Disney’s options are limited, and the company will likely have to make a decision soon about how it plans to proceed.
What do you think about the ongoing legal battle between Disney and Rearden LLC? Do you believe Disney should continue to fight the verdict, or is it time for the company to settle? How important is it for Disney to ensure its contractors are using legally acquired technology? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below!
