Steven Spielberg and major Hollywood studios stole the plot from Alfred Hitchcock's classic 1954 film Rear Window in making last year's Disturbia， a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court on Monday said.

曼哈頓聯(lián)邦法庭在周一對外宣稱，斯蒂芬#8226;斯皮爾伯格以及好萊塢幾大電影制作公司抄襲了阿爾弗萊德#8226;希區(qū)柯克于1954年執(zhí)導(dǎo)的經(jīng)典影片《后窗》的故事情節(jié)，并在去年推出了影片《后窗驚魂》，該訴訟現(xiàn)已受理。

Dreamworks， its parent company Viacom Inc， and Universal Pictures， a unit of General Electric Co's NBC Universal， are accused of copyright infringement and breach of contract for making Disturbia without first obtaining permission from the copyright holders， the suit said.

該訴訟宣稱，維亞康姆集團(tuán)旗下的夢工廠以及通用電器公司旗下NBC環(huán)球公司的環(huán)球影業(yè)，被指控侵犯版權(quán)以及違背合同規(guī)定，即在沒有得到版權(quán)所有者首肯的情況下制作了《后窗驚魂》。

Spielberg is credited as executive producer of the film， which grossed about $80 million at the U.S. box office， and is named as a defendant.

作為影片的監(jiān)制，斯皮爾伯格的名字出現(xiàn)在被告名單上，而該影片在美國的累計(jì)票房為8千萬美元。

According to the lawsuit， filed by the Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust， the basis for Hitchcock's 1954 film was Murder from a Fixed Viewpoint， a short story by Cornell Woolrich.

原告Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust控訴說，希區(qū)柯克1954年執(zhí)導(dǎo)的影片《后窗》改編自科內(nèi)爾#8226;烏爾里奇1942年的短篇小說《這肯定是謀殺》。

Hitchcock and actor James Stewart obtained the motion picture rights to the story in 1953. The lawsuit argues that Dreamworks should have done the same.

1953年希區(qū)柯克與演員詹姆斯#8226;斯圖爾特一起購得了電影制作權(quán)。訴訟表示，夢工廠也應(yīng)該執(zhí)行同樣的程序。

According to the lawsuit， Disturbia and the Rear Window story are \"essentially the same.\" Both are murder mysteries beginning with a man who， while peering from his window， witnesses strange behavior in the home of his neighbor.

根據(jù)訟詞，《后窗驚魂》與《后窗》的故事情節(jié)“在本質(zhì)上是相同的”。二者都是神秘謀殺案，都由一個(gè)男人從窗戶窺視外界，無意中成為鄰居家奇怪事件的目擊證人開始。

The protagonist in all three of the works behaves in essentially the same way， interacts with similar characters and the plot unfolds in basically the same way， the lawsuit said.

訴訟指出，三部作品中主角行為極為相似，都與同樣的角色發(fā)生互動(dòng)，而情節(jié)展開手法更是雷同。

\"In the Disturbia film the defendants purposefully employed immaterial variations or transparent rephrasing to produce essentially the same story as the Rear Window story，\" the lawsuit said.

訴訟還宣稱：“被告在《后窗驚魂》中有意識地對影片進(jìn)行非實(shí)質(zhì)性的改動(dòng)和顯而易見的編寫，以制作和《后窗》基本相同的故事?！?/p>

In reviewing Disturbia， the New York Times called it \"a kind of adolescent Rear Window\". The Toronto Star newspaper called it\"a rip off with wit\".

回顧下《后窗驚魂》的影評，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》稱其為“《后窗》少年版”，而《多倫多星報(bào)》則直言這是個(gè)“狡猾的掠奪”。