Lawsuit over Avatar sequel claims 3‑D designs were copied — what investors should watch

Kasowitz files suit: plaintiff says Avatar sequel lifted his 3‑D work

A law firm identified as Kasowitz has filed a copyright lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff Eric Ryder, according to a press release dated Dec. 16, 2025. The complaint accuses director James Cameron and several production and distribution entities tied to the film Avatar: The Way of Water of copying Ryder’s 3‑D designs and animations. The press release announcing the filing is the source for the complaint’s existence and timing; it states the case was lodged the same day.

The legal claim is straightforward in tone: Ryder says elements of his three‑dimensional artwork and animated designs appear in the film, and that those elements were used without permission. The suit frames the dispute as classic copyright infringement: Ryder created expressive 3‑D works, the film used similar expressive elements, and the film’s creators should be held accountable.

What the complaint says the filmmakers copied

The complaint describes Ryder’s work as a body of 3‑D designs and animations and says specific visual motifs and animated sequences from those works appear in Avatar: The Way of Water. It alleges copying of form and expression — not mere broad ideas — pointing to shapes, motion patterns and graphic elements that the plaintiff says are distinctive to his pieces.

According to the filing notice, the plaintiff points to a range of materials to make that case. The complaint says it relies on side‑by‑side comparisons between Ryder’s dated files and portions of the released film, and it claims the similarities go beyond common themes or generic elements. The filing asserts that these resemblances are sufficiently original and specific to qualify for copyright protection.

The core factual theory in the complaint mixes two points that courts focus on in these disputes: access and similarity. Ryder’s team says the filmmakers had access to the works and then copied protectable expression from them. The complaint asks the court to recognize that copying occurred and to award damages and other relief for the alleged infringement.

Who the suit names and why that matters to investors

The complaint names James Cameron in his capacity as the film’s director and identifies associated production and distribution entities as defendants. The press release speaks of “major Hollywood studios” being on the receiving end of the complaint; it ties the claim to the companies involved in making and releasing Avatar: The Way of Water. One clear investor‑relevant name linked to the film’s worldwide distribution is The Walt Disney Company (DIS), which owns the studio that distributed the film.

Naming the director and the production/distribution companies is standard in these cases: it puts on notice the people who commissioned, financed, produced and released the work. For investors, the specific corporate defendants determine how the case flows through contracts, insurance and indemnities — and whether a public company’s balance sheet or reputation is at stake.

How courts typically handle visual and 3‑D copyright claims

Courtrooms use familiar tests when a visual artist claims a film copied protected material. Two central ideas show up in nearly every case: access and substantial similarity. Access asks whether the alleged copier could realistically have seen the plaintiff’s work. Substantial similarity asks whether an ordinary observer would see the protected expression in both works, not just a shared idea.

For 3‑D work and animation, judges also parse idea versus expression. General themes — like ocean creatures or sweeping underwater shots — are not protectable. What can be protected are the particular choices an artist made: a distinctive creature design, a unique animation gesture, or a compositional sequence that is novel and identifiable. Courts also look for scenes a faire, meaning standard elements that naturally flow from a subject and therefore can’t be monopolized.

Practically speaking, plaintiffs face two recurring hurdles. First, they must show the filmmakers had a realistic path to seeing the material. Second, they must show that the similarities are not just general or inevitable in a project about the same subject. Big studios defend these suits by arguing independent creation, reliance on public domain influences, or that any similar bits are functional or generic rather than original expression.

Business stakes: what could move markets and what probably won’t

For most large studio releases, the immediate market risk is limited unless the complaint threatens the film’s ability to be shown or streamed. Damages on paper can be large, especially where statutory damages apply, but serious financial exposure usually arises only after a court finds infringement or a high‑cost settlement is reached.

For publicly traded companies tied to the film — notably The Walt Disney Company (DIS) — the investor signals to watch are specific. The most market‑moving scenarios are an injunction that limits distribution, a settlement so large it hits earnings, or an admission in company disclosures that legal exposure is material. All are possible, but they are not the likeliest immediate outcomes. Studios typically maintain errors‑and‑omissions insurance and contract indemnities that absorb much legal cost and settlement risk, which blunts the direct hit to shareholder value.

Reputational effects are harder to measure. A successful claim of copying could be a short‑term PR headache. But for a film with a big box‑office run and streaming deals, such reputational damage rarely translates into sustained financial harm unless the suit reveals broader wrongdoing or contractual breaches by the studio.

What to watch next: procedural steps and investor signals

This type of case follows a predictable timeline. Expect a defendant response first — typically a motion to dismiss that challenges legal sufficiency and urges the court to throw the case out before discovery. If the court allows discovery, that is when the dispute becomes more serious: studios and creators produce internal documents, drafts, communications and source files that can confirm or contradict the plaintiff’s access and copying theories.

Investors should watch for a few concrete signals: any public statement from named studios or the director; an SEC or regulatory filing by a public company acknowledging material litigation; a motion to dismiss opinion from the court (which can end a case early); and public reports of a settlement or large insurance claim. If discovery proceeds, filings describing internal emails, version histories or production notes are the moments when the factual picture can shift sharply.

For now, this complaint is a legal opening salvo. It raises questions that will play out across pleadings, motions and possible settlement talks. From an investor perspective, the key is whether the suit triggers a material operational or financial impact — not whether a claim was filed. So far, the posture looks like a serious allegation but not an immediate business emergency.

Sources

• prnewswire.com