According to court documents obtained by TIME, those stories are false. In the case of a lawsuit filed in 2003 claiming damages, Stewart alleged that the idea of the 1984 film The Terminator and the 1999 film The Matrix were stolen from her own screen treatment entitled “The Third Eye,” which was copyrighted in 1983. The documents show that Stewart claimed she was defrauded of $200 million, plus royalties, a hefty sum if she could prove that the Wachowskis and Cameron had ripped her off. On her website, where she dubs herself “The Mother of the Matrix,” Stewart says she answered a magazine ad in 1986 that said the Wachowskis were soliciting science fiction stories to be made into a comic book, but after she sent it she never heard from the defendants.
However, her court claim goes back even further, saying she gave her original six-page treatment to 20th Century Fox in 1981, but did not get any acknowledgment of their receiving it until 1985, when it was rejected. At any rate, after viewing The Matrix, she said she immediately recognized her story and she wound up filing suit.
But the courts do not believe that her work was plagiarized by the Wachowskis or Cameron. The ruling from Morrow held that “plaintiff Sophia Stewart take nothing by way of her complaint against defendants…” Stewart reportedly failed to show up for her court date, but she denies any failure. The lawsuit was dismissed with the judge ruling Stewart and her attorneys “had not entered any evidence to bolster its key claims or demonstrated any striking similarity between her work and the accused directors’ films,” according to Snopes. The defendants were awarded $305,235.62 in attorney fees, but Stewart said they never collected.
On her website, Stewart does not claim she defeated the Wachowskis in court, but does say she won a $150 million judgment against Jonathan Lubell, her former attorney (now deceased). That court document does say she won a judgmen
t, but U.S. District Judge Clark Waddups denied Stewart the sum she asked for. Instead, he asks her for evidence as to why Lubell should pay that amount. Stewart insists that she is owed $3 billion. “The judge took it upon himself to…[say] I had to tally up the damages,” she said, maintining that justice is her true aim. “I’m not seeking damages, I’m seeking for someone to go to jail.”
If the Wachowskis took Stewart’s manuscript and turned it into a blockbuster without paying her for it, the federal court system has yet to say they believe her and none of the defendants have ever commented publicly on the case. Court documentation that Stewart sent to TIME shows that her struggle to prove she was wronged is at least a decade old and her petitions have gone unanswered by the judicial system, although she says she has offered proof that her work was stolen. But she alleges corruption within the judicial system tripped her up. “They paid a lot of people off to hide all of this stuff.”
Interestingly enough, although Stewart did not win her case, she’s not the only one who has accused the Wachowskis of stealing. Screenwriter Thomas Althouse accused them of lifting the ideas for sequels
The MatrixReloaded and
The Matrix Revolution from a screenplay he called
The Immortals. He
filed suit in federal court earlier this year.
In Stewart’s case, the Internet rumors that she was triumphant in her case have flourished. To be clear, the stories that the producers of “The Matrix” trilogy have forked over billions of dollars to Stewart are patently false. No judgment of damages for funds in any amount were decided in her favor. The case has been closed since 2005, but urban legend found its way to the Internet and for nearly a decade many who read unresearched stories believe that Stewart actually won her case.
Despite this, Stewart maintains that payment is due to her and vows to get satisfaction. She remains steadfast that The Matrix was her idea, and that there are uncanny similarities between her treatment and what theatergoers saw.
“I won that judgment and those judges are going to give me my money and Warner Bros. is going to pay it,” she said.
The Candy Candy Nightmare
Candy Candy, one of Japan's most popular franchises, originated in April of 1975 as a story by Kyoko Mizuki. Although Mizuki's original work was never published, a manga adaptation—the fruit of an informal partnership with illustrator Yumiko Igarashi—became one of the biggest hits among girls during its four-year serialization in the Nakayoshi magazine. By 1979, Candy Candy's widespread success had spawned a television series and movie from Toei Animation, the publication of three novels (Mizuki's rewrite of the original story) by Kodansha, and a variety of merchandise. For decades, Toei rebroadcast and distributed the series and movie with enough success to warrant another movie in early 1992.
The Lawsuit
Several years ago, the mutual working relationship between mangaka and original creator was disrupted by Igarashi's alleged decision to declare an exclusive copyright on the Candy Candy material. Using this claim to justify ownership, Igarashi began producing Candy Candy merchandise without the co-approval of Toei and Mizuki.
Claiming Igarashi had infringed upon her copyright, Kyoko Mizuki filed a lawsuit with a Tokyo district court in late 1998. During the court battle, Mizuki argued that she held equal rights on all Candy Candy property and derivative works, while Igarashi declared she did not need Mizuki's permission to sell merchandise based on her illustrations.
In February of 1999, the Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of Mizuki, establishing two precedents:
1. Both Ms. Kyoko Mizuki and Ms. Yumiko Igarashi possess the same copyright regarding Candy Candy.
2. Ms. Igarashi must obtain Ms. Mizuki's consent when using Candy Candy in business related matters (including merchandising).
After multiple appeals, both the Tokyo High Court (March 2000) and Supreme Court of Japan (October 2001) affirmed this ruling.
One year after the District Court's ruling, Igarashi sued Toei Animation, disputing Toei's claim to the "Candy Candy" trademark and television copyright. Hoping to avoid cultivating mistrust among other mangaka, as well as the continued circulation of now-"illegal" Candy Candy material, Toei enacted a broadcast freeze on the series.
As the conflict reached its final stages, original creator Kyoko Mizuki won another lawsuit against Yumiko Igarashi and five companies that distributed Candy Candy merchandise. On May 30th Presiding Judge Mimura Ryoichi of the Tokyo District Court awarded 29,500,000 yen compensation to Mizuki, fixing damages at 3% of total sales by the franchise.
Latest Developments
Recently a toy manufacturer in Misato City, Saitama Prefecture, sued two Tokyo companies that were managing Candy Candy's manga copyrights. The Saitama manufacturer claimed the two management companies had commissioned new Candy Candy jigsaw puzzles without informing the toy company of the danger that Mizuki could pull the plug on sales and production at any time. Arguing they were unable to sell the puzzles they manufactured, the Saitama company sued for eleven million yen to make up for their massive overstock and lost profit.
On September 10th, 2003, the Tokyo High Court ruled in favor of the toy company, forcing the two copyright managing companies to hand over 7.8 million yen. Meanwhile, Candy Candy jigsaw puzzles remain off the shelves in Japan, hitting consumers with yet another roadblock between themselves and new Candy Candy merchandise.
Outlook
It is generally feared that continued legal battles will prevent future reprints and rebroadcast of the original 1975-79 manga and anime. However, the recent Supreme Court decision also confirmed Ms. Mizuki Kyoto as the author of the original Candy Candy story she created in the seventies, suggesting that Mizuki may publish a novel of this story without Igarashi's cooperation. Additionally, Mizuki possesses the authority to to give an illustrator permission to draw new Candy Candy manga, and Toei is free to produce new Candy Candy anime.
Corporate interest in Candy Candy remains high: In 1992, Kodansha gave Mizuki a chance to remake the manga, and Toei commissioned her to write new Candy Candy scripts several years ago, but nothing tangible has come of these two offers. In June of 2002, one of Mizuki Kyoko's posts on her "Little Window BBS" gave new hope to those waiting for more Candy Candy.
"2002-06-05 (Wed) 23:36:04
I have a vague plan for the future...The foundation of the story is nearly complete, some editors have shows deep interest in the plan...The only anxiety was the course of this lawsuit, but now I've made up my mind to proceed without restraint..."
Sixteen months later, no visible progress has been made toward creating any more Candy Candy anime or manga. The toy lawsuit that concluded on September 10th once again reaffirms both Candy Candy's commercial value and the complexity of the issues that may prevent any new Candy Candy material from hitting store shelves in the near future.
Candy Candy is one of anime's most visible examples of the difficulty of keeping copyrights properly managed and protected in the 21st century. Despite the series' continuing mainstream popularity and numerous attempts to end the material drought, fans worldwide still find themselves with nothing new to satisfy their Candy Candy sweet tooths.
