**M. Night Shyamalan Wins Copyright Trial Over Apple TV+ Series ‘Servant’**
A high-profile legal battle that captivated the entertainment industry has officially concluded. On January 24, 2025, acclaimed filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan and Apple Inc. were cleared of copyright infringement allegations related to their Apple TV+ series, *Servant*. After a seven-day trial at a federal court in Riverside, California, a unanimous jury ruled in favor of Shyamalan, dismissing claims brought by Italian-born filmmaker Francesca Gregorini.
The verdict ended a five-year legal conflict that raised significant questions about the line between inspiration and originality in creative works.
### **The Core of the Case**
The dispute began in 2020, when Gregorini alleged that *Servant* plagiarized her 2013 indie film, *The Truth About Emanuel*. Both works center on a grieving mother who treats a doll as if it were a real infant, with a nanny playing a pivotal role in the story. Gregorini argued not only that the thematic and narrative parallels were striking but also that *Servant* mirrored specific visual elements, such as a scene where the nanny faints.
Gregorini sought $81 million in damages, claiming the alleged similarities harmed her career and reputation. However, Shyamalan and his team denied any knowledge of *The Truth About Emanuel* prior to the lawsuit. The defense further highlighted the differences between the two works—Gregorini’s film is a psychological drama, while *Servant* is a supernatural thriller with heavy elements of suspense and horror.
Shyamalan’s attorneys pointed out that the grieving mother/doll trope has been explored in countless narratives over time and is not unique to any one story. “Ideas and tropes are part of a shared creative language,” the defense emphasized during the trial, arguing that such storytelling elements cannot be owned under copyright law.
### **Key Trial Highlights**
Both sides presented passionate arguments in a courtroom charged with creative tension. Gregorini testified about her shock upon seeing promotional material for *Servant*, stating, “It felt like my work was staring back at me, stripped of my voice and vision.” However, Shyamalan remained resolute, asserting, “I had no prior knowledge of [Gregorini’s film]. These claims are based on a clear misunderstanding.”
Jurors were tasked with reviewing *The Truth About Emanuel* alongside the first three episodes of *Servant.* Ultimately, they found that while the two works shared surface-level similarities, the overall execution, tone, and genre of the projects were entirely different. The court ruled that the parallels Gregorini identified were unprotectable elements—general ideas and storytelling conventions that do not meet the threshold for copyright infringement.
This decision echoed a 2022 dismissal of the case by a federal judge, although it was subsequently revived by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Finally, in 2025, the jury’s unanimous verdict closed the case for good.
### **Implications for Creators**
This trial has brought to light critical issues facing filmmakers, particularly in navigating the tension between independent artists and large corporate entities. For Gregorini, this case was about more than just compensation—it was a stand for indie creators seeking to protect their work in an industry dominated by powerful studios and streaming giants.
Yet the jury’s decision also underscores the challenges of claiming ownership over universal storytelling elements. While originality remains highly valued, creative works often draw from shared cultural narratives, making it complex to ascertain where influence ends and infringement begins.
For Shyamalan, known for innovative storytelling in films like *The Sixth Sense* and *Unbreakable*, the verdict was a relief. Not only did it affirm his creative process, but it also vindicated his team, which he described as operating with the utmost integrity. Apple, the co-distributor of *Servant*, celebrated the ruling as a victory for innovation amid the highly competitive streaming marketplace.
### **Final Thoughts**
This case serves as a milestone in the ongoing conversation about copyright in the arts. Shyamalan’s win reinforces the notion that ideas and traditional tropes cannot be monopolized, while Gregorini’s pursuit highlights the struggles faced by indie creators striving for recognition in the shadow of Hollywood titans.
As storytelling continues to evolve in an era of heightened competition, this trial is a poignant reminder for both corporations and artists to prioritize originality while respecting creative boundaries. It’s a delicate balance, but one worth striving for to ensure the integrity and diversity of content in the entertainment industry.
