What Really Happened With the M. Night Shyamalan Servant Copyright Lawsuit

Hollywood loves a good twist, but M. Night Shyamalan probably didn't want this one. For five years, the director behind The Sixth Sense was locked in a legal cage match that sounded like something straight out of one of his scripts. A grieving mother. A creepy, lifelike doll. A mysterious nanny who enables the delusion.

It sounds like the plot of the Apple TV+ hit Servant, right? Well, according to filmmaker Francesca Gregorini, it was also the plot of her 2013 indie film, The Truth About Emanuel.

The M. Night Shyamalan Servant copyright lawsuit wasn't just some minor legal spat over a shared idea. It was an $81 million war that questioned the very nature of "originality" in an industry where everything feels like a remix.

The $81 Million Doll Problem

The core of the dispute was simple. Gregorini sued Shyamalan, Apple, and show creator Tony Basgallop in 2020. She claimed Servant was a "wholesale copy" of her movie.

In her film, a woman treats a "reborn" doll as a real baby to cope with loss, and she hires a nanny who plays along. In Servant, a Philadelphia couple hires a nanny for their reborn doll after their infant son dies. The similarities are, honestly, pretty glaring on paper. You’ve got the same specific grief-coping mechanism and the same strange power dynamic between the mother and the hired help.

🔗 Read more: Love Island UK Who Is Still Together: The Reality of Romance After the Villa

But ideas are slippery things in a courtroom. You can’t copyright a "vibe." You can't own the concept of a doll being used for therapy.

Why the Case Wouldn't Die

Most of these lawsuits get tossed out before they even get a coffee break. This one was different.

• Initial Dismissal: A judge first threw the case out in 2020, saying the works weren't "substantially similar."
• The Reversal: In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals basically said, "Wait a minute," and revived the suit. They felt a jury should decide if the cinematic "expression" was too close for comfort.
• The Trial: By January 2025, the case finally hit a federal courtroom in California.

Shyamalan actually had to take the stand. Imagine being one of the most famous directors in the world and having to defend your integrity against a filmmaker who points out that even your camera angles look like hers. He called the whole thing a "misunderstanding" and was pretty adamant that he’d never even heard of Gregorini’s movie.

The Evidence That Flipped the Script

The defense had a killer argument: nobody saw the movie.

💡 You might also like: Gwendoline Butler Dead in a Row: Why This 1957 Mystery Still Packs a Punch

The Truth About Emanuel wasn't exactly a Marvel blockbuster. During the trial, it came out that the film made about $226 at its best-selling theater in Los Angeles. In Philadelphia—Shyamalan’s home turf—it reportedly sold one single ticket. Just one.

The lawyers for Apple and Shyamalan used this to hammer home a point about "access." In copyright law, you can't steal what you haven't seen. If the creators of Servant were never in a room with the film, how could they have copied it?

Gregorini’s team tried to prove a "chain of events" linking the two. They pointed out that an Apple executive had an email with a link to her film in his inbox from years prior. But the executive testified he never clicked it.

A Unanimous Verdict

After a seven-day trial in early 2025, the jury didn't take long to decide. They ruled unanimously in favor of Shyamalan and Apple. They found there was no evidence that the Servant team had "access" to Gregorini's work.

📖 Related: Why ASAP Rocky F kin Problems Still Runs the Club Over a Decade Later

Case closed. No $81 million payout. No "stolen" credit.

What This Means for Filmmakers

This case sets a massive precedent. It basically reinforces the "Independent Creation" defense. If you can prove you came up with an idea on your own—or that you simply weren't exposed to the "original"—you're largely in the clear.

It also highlights the "scènes à faire" doctrine. That’s a fancy legal way of saying some things are just tropes. A character fainting? Tropes. A mother grieving? Universal. A creepy doll in a thriller? That’s basically a Tuesday in Hollywood.

Actionable Takeaways for Creators

1. Document Your Development: Tony Basgallop, the creator of Servant, had evidence that he'd been working on the "nanny and doll" concept since 2005. That paper trail is a lifesaver in court.
2. Understand the "Access" Bar: Just because your work is on the internet doesn't mean a celebrity has seen it. Proving "wide dissemination" is incredibly hard for indie creators.
3. Ideas vs. Expression: You can’t sue someone for using a similar "what if" scenario. You can only sue if the specific dialogue, character names, and sequence of events are virtually identical.

The M. Night Shyamalan Servant copyright lawsuit finally ended in early 2025, but it serves as a warning. In a world where everyone is "inspired" by everyone else, the line between a tribute and a heist is thinner than ever. Shyamalan walked away with his reputation intact, but the five-year battle shows just how expensive a "misunderstanding" can be.

If you're a writer or director, keep your notes, date your drafts, and maybe don't send your links to executives who might never click them—because in court, that unclicked link might be the only thing standing between you and a multi-million dollar headache.