'Raging Bull' lawyers duke it out in copyright dispute

• Screenwriter%27s daughter claims copyright infringement
• MGM%2C Fox say she waited too long to file her lawsuit
• 1980 film on boxer Jake LaMotta won two Academy Awards

WASHINGTON — Lawyers on both sides of a copyright case involving the 1980 film Raging Bull fought to an apparent draw at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The case, brought by the daughter of a man who collaborated with boxer Jake LaMotta on two screenplays and a book in the 1960s, was so unusual and complex that it had the justices ducking for cover at the specter of more such lawsuits.

The core of the dispute wasn't the screenplays, book or film, all written and released before any of the justices were on the court. Rather, it was the decision by Paula Petrella to bring her copyright infringement lawsuit in 2009 — long after most of the participants and witnesses died.

Petrella, whose father, Frank, died in 1981, seeks what the statute of limitations in copyright cases offers — damages for three years from 2006-09 and an injunction against future use of his work. MGM Holdings and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, which distributes the film on DVD, argued that she waited too long to bring the case.

Two lower courts have ruled against Petrella, but by agreeing to hear her case, the justices at least held out hope for a reversal. At Tuesday's argument, they appeared to have problems with both sides' positions.

Several justices noted that by waiting to file her case, Petrella — and others who might follow in similar copyright cases — could be trying to maximize profits.

Stephanos Bibas, Petrella's lawyer, noted that "creative works are worth the most right after they're released." Mark Perry, defending MGM and Fox, said the film — despite two Academy Awards, one for star Robert De Niro — never made a net profit.

"She is demanding her share in the gold mine after my clients spent years developing it," Perry said. "She wants to skim the cream."

"What's so bad about that?" wondered Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who gave the most visible support to Petrella's case.

On the other side, some justices worried that allowing studios and others to defeat lawsuits by saying they were not timely would lead to a new line of defense in copyright infringement cases.

"If we open this all up, we'll be seeing motions that nobody ever dreamed of before," Justice Elena Kagan said.