Another Disney lie

No, Portrait of a Knight doesn't infringe on Kate and Leopold. That would be like saying Kate and Leopold infringes on Mannequin. Or that The Panthers infringes upon Portrait of a Knight.. It's got songs; it borrowed some of the Riddell Productions techniques. - We put Portrait of a Knight on Vimeo in 2018.

That means Disney's lawyers have no case. We would've received a C&D. The album was a genuine success on Amazon Music. 12,000+ people listened to The Knight on My Couch. That's big for an indie musical. It also proves my point: the plot isn't derivative and the songs are completely original. From the first moments of the movie, where Rachel sings alone in the gallery, we're on completely different turf than Kate and Leopold. It's an integrated musical, but it's also a character with a different occupation singing a brand new aria. In Kate and Leopold, Hugh Jackman invents time travel. In Portrait of a Knight, Rachel's song brings Reginald to life. The key line of Reginald's dialogue is this: "Think! I did not think: I simply was." or "I only had character, not knowledge." Hugh Jackman's character had a life before his time travel adventure. Reginald didn't. That's a huge distinction, despite the vague physical resemblance. In Kate and Leopold, there's a time clock and Meg Ryan follows Hugh into the past. In Portrait of a Knight, Reginald keeps turning back to paint and returns to his painting, while Rachel gets on with her life after her brief spell of mild insanity. Even with Disney attempting to kill it, many of my film nerd allies saw it. Spielberg was heavily influenced by our approach in his West Side Story film. - Your threats can only ever result in extensive legal action. I wrote C&D letters in 2024 and 2025 re: Weeded Out that Disney's lawyers need to read. They're very crisp and sharp. Back off and accept that Wellington Stories is a great film. Kate and Leopold sucks because of studio interference; that's what Mangold says.