Elijah Schkeiban v. James Cameron

Ninth Circuit

Elijah Schkeiban v. James Cameron

566 F. App'x 616

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2014

Docket12-56964

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 566 F. App'x 616 (Elijah Schkeiban v. James Cameron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elijah Schkeiban v. James Cameron, 566 F. App'x 616 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Elijah Schkeiban appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that James Cameron’s movie Avatar infringed the copyright of his book and screenplay Bats and Butterflies. We re *617 view a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and affirm.

The district court correctly ruled that Avatar and Bats and Butterflies are not “substantially similar in their protected elements.” Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir.2002). There are “few real similarities” between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events in Avatar and Schkeiban’s work. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.2006). Any similarities consist of unprotectable “general plot ideas” or scenes a faire flowing naturally from these ideas. Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir.1985).

Because we affirm the district court’s ruling that the works are not substantially similar, we do not need to reach the court’s alternative ground for dismissal that Schkeiban did not adequately allege that the defendants had access to his work. See Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient similarity to prevail even if the defendants had access to their work).

The defendants’ motion to submit commercially available copies of Avatar on DVD, filed on May 8, 2013, is granted.

Schkeiban’s motion to submit annotated copies of Avatar on DVD, filed on November 12, 2013, is denied. Schkeiban’s motion to submit highlighted copies of the book Bats and Butterflies, filed on December 9, 2013, is also denied. However, our disposition of the appeal would not be affected even if we were to grant these motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Elijah Schkeiban appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that James Cameron’s movie Avatar infringed the copyright of his book and screenplay Bats and Butterflies. We re *617 view a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and affirm.

The district court correctly ruled that Avatar and Bats and Butterflies are not “substantially similar in their protected elements.” Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir.2002). There are “few real similarities” between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events in Avatar and Schkeiban’s work. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.2006). Any similarities consist of unprotectable “general plot ideas” or scenes a faire flowing naturally from these ideas. Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir.1985).

Because we affirm the district court’s ruling that the works are not substantially similar, we do not need to reach the court’s alternative ground for dismissal that Schkeiban did not adequately allege that the defendants had access to his work. See Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient similarity to prevail even if the defendants had access to their work).

The defendants’ motion to submit commercially available copies of Avatar on DVD, filed on May 8, 2013, is granted.

Schkeiban’s motion to submit annotated copies of Avatar on DVD, filed on November 12, 2013, is denied. Schkeiban’s motion to submit highlighted copies of the book Bats and Butterflies, filed on December 9, 2013, is also denied. However, our disposition of the appeal would not be affected even if we were to grant these motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 F. App'x 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elijah-schkeiban-v-james-cameron-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack