Royce Mathew, a Florida-based author of abnormal journey stories, is looking to gleam a light on purported pirating going on during The Walt Disney Company.

‘Kon-Tiki’ Directors Land ‘Pirates of a Caribbean 5’ GigJudge Won’t Allow ‘Mass-Suing’ of Movie Pirates

He’s filed a copyright transgression lawsuit (read a censure here) that alleges that his work was taken for a remunerative Pirates of a Caribbean films. To attain in his thought of extracting billions of dollars for a claimed infringements, Mathew will not usually have to pass a tough authorised exam of demonstrating that a cinema were almost identical to his possess work, though also that he has brought a timely lawsuit that isn’t barred by a prior allotment agreement he done with Disney.

This isn’t, after all, a initial time that Mathew has sued.

About a decade ago, after observant a initial film that starred Johnny Depp, Mathew began contacting several lawyers and took an announcement out in Variety looking for someone to paint him. Without most success, Mathew filed a lawsuit opposite Disney in 2005 on his possess behalf. Eventually, Mathew was means to keep an attorney, and during a initial case, Mathew and Disney are pronounced to have intent in a find routine with any other.

STORY: Disney Announces Release Dates for Pixar and Animated Films Through 2018

Mathew says he supposing justification that his work was taken. In turn, Disney confirmed that Pirates of a Caribbean was “independently created,” that if true, meant that Mathew had no shot during prevalent on his copyright claim.

In particular, Mathew’s new lawsuit says that Disney affirmatively represented that it had exclusively combined “the singular abnormal elements in a POC Movie Franchise that involves pirates transforming and branch into vital skeletons underneath a light due to a appalling abuse inspiring them.”

During a initial lawsuit, Disney published a book about a mutation of a thesis park float to a strike film and credited thesis park artist Marc Davis with some of a essential elements. Disney constructed some of Davis’ “never-before-published” thesis park design in discovery.

Mathew says he relied on this representation, as good as a depositions of others during Disney, in subsidy off from his copyright claims in 2007 and signing a recover form.

Now, 6 years later, Mathew is again suing, observant that Disney “used fake and fake justification to gain a settlement.” As justification for this, a plaintiff points to a book that was after published in 2009 that allegedly decorated a same stage from Davis’ art, this time attributed to another artist named Collin Campbell. The published work also is pronounced to be justification that Disney had “altered and tampered” with a design for a purpose of formulating a apparition that it had exclusively combined a component of pirates transforming into vital skeletons underneath a moonlight.

Whether or not that’s true, Mathew total to have to uncover that his possess work was protectable countenance — rather than only an thought — and that Disney combined something almost similar. But first, Mathew will substantially have to remonstrate a decider that his claims aren’t barred by a government of stipulations and also that his claims aren’t precluded by any recover form he sealed behind in 2007.

On a latter point, his new profession Michael Wolk anticipates such an obstacle, observant in a lawsuit that since a recover agreement was “fraudulently procured,” it necessitates rescission, and that “even if a Fraudulently Procured Release Agreement is not rescinded, afterwards a Plaintiff still retains, and a Plaintiff is entitled to enforce, his exclusively viable copyright transgression claims opposite a Defendants formed on control holding place after May-June 2007.” 

He’s suing Disney, Buena Vista, Jerry Bruckheimer and others concerned in a film.

Disney has nonetheless to comment.

E-mail: eriq.gardner@thr.com; Twitter: @eriqgardner