A $10 billion lawsuit has been filed against Disney, alleging that their highly successful franchise Moana was created by copying “Bucky the Wave Warrior”, an original screenplay by animator Buck Woodall. Since its filing in a California Federal Court in January 2025, the case has received significant media attention, bringing to the fore various legal issues.
Background
Buck Woodall claims that Moana and its sequel largely copied his screenplay, which he has worked on for over 20 years. Woodall states that the twin narratives centre around a common plot: a teenager defies parental prohibitions to set sail on a perilous sea mission aimed at saving a threatened island. The thematic similarity, together with other prototypical elements supported by Woodall, such as ancient spirits appearing as animal guides for the protagonists, also forms an essential aspect of his infringement claim.
He argues that he provided various materials regarding “Bucky” to Jenny Marchick, a former director of Mandeville Films who is now a top executive in feature development at DreamWorks Animation. He argues that Marchick passed these materials on to Disney without his consent. Among other things, he seeks damages and $5 billion as share in the gross revenues from Moana 2.
Legal Implications & Possible Ramifications For Disney
Woodall’s entire lawsuit rests on issues of copyright law protecting original works that can be fixed in any tangible form. In this particular case, Woodall was conferred the copyright for “Bucky” in 2004, which was modified in 2014. However, he argued that Disney’s use of his works without permission constituted copyright infringement.
By a general definition, copyright infringement means usage of a copyrighted work by a third party without authorization. Woodall will have to prove, among other things, that: Woodall has a valid copyright and there exists substantial similarity in several aspects of Moana and Woodall’s work.
Woodall asserts that he provided Marchick with various materials related to “Bucky” character designs, storyboards, and an animated concept trailer. The court will assess whether those similarities between Buck and Moana are sufficiently substantial to suggest copying rather than independent creation. Woodall points to particular characteristics, including character arcs and plot devices, that he says provide such similarity.
If Woodall wins this case, Disney could be liable for a large payment, perhaps between $500 million to $1 billion in compensatory and punitive damages to deter future infringement. Compensation would be contingent upon the anticipated earnings that Moana and its merchandise make. In addition, Disney might not be allowed to continue selling or distributing Moana and its sequel until a satisfactory commercial agreement between the parties is entered into. Woodall is seeking 2.5% of gross revenue from Moana 2 and all related products, which could translate into billions.
Historical Context & Industry Significance
Buck Woodall previously sought legal remedies over the alleged or supposed infringement of some of his concepts by Moana. After dismissing off the first case, he raised new claims of further grievances in 2023. Disney denied any wrongdoing and asserted that no person involved in Moana saw or used Woodall’s materials until after the suit was filed. According to Ron Clements, the co-director of Moana, there was absolutely nothing in the Moana conception and development that was inspired or adapted from Woodall’s project.
The case raises questions related to intellectual property rights in the animation industry today. In an industry where studios are now borrowing from multiple cultures and essentially plagiarising enormous number of stories, it becomes hard to distinguish an homage from copyright infringement. The case should establish a perfect example of the manner in which court verdicts in such copyright-infringement cases should stand.
The public opinion towards this lawsuit is divided; while some Moana fans supported the integrity of Disney, others raised concerns about the need to protect the rights of independent creators. Professionals in the industry are keenly monitoring its impact on originality and submissions.
Conclusion
As the case sails through the courts, it will continue raising larger questions, challenging the entertainment industry on the burning issue of copyright infringement. Given that billions of dollars are at stake here, makes it a landmark case wherein Courts will have to lay down as to how to protect intellectual property in animation and beyond. This battle will not only have repercussions for Disney, but will also shape the future of creativity in cinema with respect to ownership of storytelling.
Authors: Mahima Gupta & Nitya Sanghavi