Jennifer Aniston’s new movie ‘Love Happens’ may be cancelled over plagiarism claims.

The romantic comedy – which also stars Aaron Eckhart – faces being pulled from release because screenwriters Greg Crowder and Tony Freitas have filed a lawsuit against NBC Universal.

The pair claim they showed a script titled ‘The Truth’ to Scott Bernstein in 2006, when he worked at Universal Pictures as the Vice President of Production.

In the federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday September 15, Crowder claims he met with Bernstein several times over the script but a deal wasn’t finalized despite the company’s interest.

The writer says he offered to rewrite the storyline if Universal would pay, but their offer was refused.

Crowder says he first became aware of the similarities in the plotline when another film company – who he submitted the script to earlier this year – told him they were “concerned” he had stolen the idea from Jennifer’s latest movie.

Crowder and Freitas have asked for the release of the movie to be stopped from its planned opening today September 18, or $100,000,000 in profits.

‘Love Happens’ depicts the story of a widower’s struggle to cope with new love after the loss of his spouse.

Despite the legal action, Aniston and Eckhart were all smiles as they hugged and posed for photographs on the red carpet for the film’s Los Angeles premiere at the Mann Village Theatre on September 15.

Related posts:

1. Writers Sue Jennifer Aniston’s “Love Happens”
2. Jennifer Aniston Doesn’t Mind Being Single
3. Jennifer Aniston Collapses on “The Baster” Movie Set

The overly “emotional” Mr Smith is filmed on a set of steps writing a story about the Obama victory.  Obviously hammered he then admits to plagiarisng his take on the historic US election, yelling “thank God for the BBC becuse I am cutting and pasting it all, baby!”

The video is a 4 minute embarrassment, and is therefore hilarious.  The Birmingham Mail is refusing to comment on what it calls an “internal matter”.

Adam Smith has got to be regretting his F*&k You resignation which he didn’t even remember the next day.  The worst I have ever done when a little inebriated is drunk dialled an ex.  Tell us your humiliating drunk story in the comments. Go on, it won’t be as embarrassing as Adam Smith’s.

Related posts:

1. Drunk Ewoks on the Today Show: what could possibly go wrong?
2. Sarah Palin Resigns as Alaska Governor – Resignation Speech (VIDEO)
3. Obama Victory Speech

The whole thing started when Jody Rosen over at Slate discovered an article of his reproduced nearly verbatim in a weekly newspaper from Montgomery County, Texas. The Bulletin, he explains, made some minor modifications — but largely just lifted his copy and put it under its own staff member’s byline.

Rosen investigated further and found chunks of content from two other publications within the same story — and it didn’t stop there. Some creative Googling uncovered article after article in the Bulletin matching previously published stories, almost word-for-word.

The ordeal gets more interesting as it goes on. Rosen ended up having a couple of conversations with the publisher, but never got a real answer. The publisher, he says, stopped returning his calls — and now, the Bulletin’s web site has mysteriously disappeared.

In his engaging, funny, and well-written account, Rosen takes us through his mixed emotions: Could this have been a big joke? Could such a paper — one purporting to have been around since 1969 — actually have built itself on such journalism practices? Or are those practices, Rosen suggests, perhaps not as evil as they seem? Maybe, he suggests, the Bulletin is “bringing guerilla-style 21st-century content aggregation to 20th-century print media.”

The Inquisitr has certainly seen its share of discussions about the line between 2.0-style blogging and good old-fashioned splogging. This is the first time, though, I’ve seen the same kind of argument come up in the world of print. Sure, at a glance, any journalist would label the Bulletin as a plagiarist based on Rosen’s discoveries — but could it, in fact, be doing the same thing sometimes argued as acceptable within web publishing? Maybe it’s just a step ahead of the rest of the newspaper publishing industry. Where does one draw the line?

The case does raise some interesting questions. In the end, though, I think most would agree to call it content theft. The Web may have loosened some rules and opened some opportunities for sharing, but there’s a difference between excerpting with due credit and downright ripping off. Lifting someone else’s words and passing them off as your own is plain ol’ plagiarism, no matter how you spin it — or how many different sources you combine.

That’s my take, and you can quote me on it…though you’d better properly attribute the words.

No related posts.