RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0082P (6th Cir.) Twentieth Century Fox Film File Name: 04a0082p.06 Corp.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS _________________
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COUNSEL _________________ ARGUED: Louis P. Petrich, LEOPOLD, PETRICH & SMITH, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant. Mayer MURRAY HILL PUBLICATIONS, X Morganroth, MORGANROTH & MORGANROTH, INC., - Southfield Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Louis P. Plaintiff-Appellee/ - Petrich, LEOPOLD, PETRICH & SMITH, Los Angeles, - Nos. 01-2668/2721 California, Maria N. Bernier, Gregory B. Jordan, REED & Cross-Appellant, - SMITH, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Laurie J. Michelson, > BUTZEL LONG, Detroit, Michigan, J. Michael Huget, , v. - BUTZEL LONG, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. - Mayer Morganroth, Jeffrey B. Morganroth, Jason R. Hirsch, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX - MORGANROTH & MORGANROTH, Southfield, Michigan, FILM CORPORATION , - for Appellee. Defendant-Appellant/ - _________________ Cross-Appellee. - - N OPINION _________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor. BOGGS, Chief Judge. Twentieth Century Fox Film No. 97-60405—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge. Corporation (“Fox”) appeals following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Murray Hill Publications, Inc. (“Murray Hill”), in Argued: August 7, 2003 its action for copyright infringement. During the creation of the movie “Jingle All The Way” (“JATW”), Fox received Decided and Filed: March 19, 2004 from Murray Hill a submission of the screenplay for “Could This Be Christmas” (“CTBC”). After the theatrical release of Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; SILER, Circuit Judge; and JATW, Murray Hill sued Fox, alleging that the JATW movie RICE, District Judge.* infringed upon its copyright of the CTBC screenplay. At trial, both Fox and Murray Hill presented expert evidence to establish whether the JATW movie was substantially similar to the CTBC screenplay. After the jury returned a verdict for Murray Hill, the district court disallowed damage items * representing the bulk of the jury award and denied attorney’s The Honorable Walter Herbert Rice, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. fees to Murray Hill. On appeal, Fox argues that it was
1 Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 3 4 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
entitled to summary judgment on the issue of substantial then “So This Is Christmas,” and finally “Could This Be similarity, that the trial was tainted by improper expert Christmas.” Webster first registered this screenplay with the testimony by Murray Hill’s expert witness and by misleading Copyright Office in 1989 and re-registered it in 1991. From jury instructions, necessitating a new trial, and that the 1989 through 1993, Webster and his agent made repeated damages awarded were unsupported in law or fact. Murray attempts to sell this screenplay to a variety of potential Hill cross-appealed and argues that it was entitled to the full producers. While Murray Hill pleaded a number of theories damages awarded by the jury and also to attorney’s fees. We on how the screenplay could have found its way to Fox reverse because Fox was entitled to judgment as a matter of during this period, the district court considered all of the law. We do not reach the issues of the expert evidence, the theories too speculative and found that Fox did not have jury instructions, the attorney’s fees, or the damages. access to the CTBC screenplay during this period. Murray Hill does not raise this issue on appeal. Significantly, on I February 4, 1994, Webster sold an option to CTBC to Murray Hill and eventually transferred all rights in CTBC to Murray The principal author of the JATW screenplay was Randy Hill. On June 21, Murray Hill submitted CTBC to the Family Kornfield, a Fox script reader and freelance writer of Film division of Fox. On July 9, the CTBC screenplay was screenplays. In 1993, Kornfield tried to buy a Mighty read and summarized by Rudy Romero, another Fox script Morphin’ Power Ranger action figure as a birthday present reader and friend of Kornfield’s. Romero was also the script for his son. The difficulties he encountered in this pursuit and reader who a few months later performed the same task for conversations with other parents similarly engaged gave the JATW screenplay. On August 1, Fox declined the CTBC Kornfield the idea for a screenplay. On January 11, 1994, screenplay. After Fox declined the screenplay, Murray Hill Kornfield registered his “treatment,” a six-page summary of made no further attempts to sell it. a proposed screenplay, then called “A Christmas Hunt,” with the Writer’s Guild of America. On July 17, he registered a At some time in February 1996, Robert Laurel, the fleshed-out screenplay of this treatment. Executives at the principal of Murray Hill, read an article in Daily Variety Fox Searchlight division liked the screenplay and bought it about the JATW movie then in production. Concerned about for “1492 Pictures,” a production company affiliated with the apparent similarities between JATW and CTBC, Laurel Fox. From November 1994 through June 1995, Kornfield contacted his attorneys, who sent a series of cease-and-desist worked with Fox and 1492 Pictures to revise the screenplay. letters to Fox. Early settlement negotiations between Fox and In November 1995, Fox hired two more scriptwriters to Murray Hill failed over Murray Hill’s unwillingness to continue editing and enhancing the screenplay. During this commit to any particular theory of how and when Fox could editorial process, the screenplay acquired the JATW title. have obtained access to the CTBC screenplay and Fox’s refusal to share some of its information until Murray Hill The author of the CTBC screenplay was Brian Webster, a committed to such a theory. Nevertheless, Fox proceeded Detroit school teacher and aspiring script writer. In 1988, with the JATW movie. On November 22, 1996, the movie inspired by his difficulties in obtaining a Golden Batman as was released and quickly proved to be a commercial success. a Christmas present for his son, Webster wrote the first draft of a screenplay, initially entitled “Action Man: The Toy,” Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 5 6 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
As of December 2000, the JATW movie had earned $183 respect to all damage items except the producer’s and writer’s million. fees, thus reducing the award to $1.5 million. The court also declined to award attorney’s fees to Murray Hill and entered On December 3, 1997, Murray Hill filed suit against Fox in judgment in the reduced amount. Before this court now are the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Fox’s timely appeal and Murray Hill’s timely cross-appeal. Michigan. While this complaint alleged a multitude of theories of liability, the only claim still relevant is Murray II Hill’s allegation that the JATW movie infringed upon the copyright of the CTBC screenplay. The court made a finding To determine whether the district court erred in allowing that Murray Hill failed to establish directly that Fox had this case to go to the jury, we must look both at the access to the CTBC screenplay at any time before Murray developing law of copyright as it addresses the elements of Hill submitted it to Fox. The case then proceeded to trial by proof for copyright infringement, and to the specific elements jury. The district court instructed the jury based on the Ninth of the two works before us. We will first lay out the Circuit’s test for judging the “substantial similarity” of framework of law, as our circuit has pronounced it (Part III); copyrighted works. As the jury was deliberating, the court then describe the dramatic elements of the two works (Part found that the JATW treatment, created prior to the CTBC IV); and, finally, apply the law to an assessment of the submission, did not infringe on the CTBC screenplay.1 relation of the protectible elements of the copyrighted work However, the jury was not informed of this ruling. Four days to the overall tenor of the allegedly infringing work (Part V). later, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Murray Hill. The damages included $1 million in producer’s fees and $500,000 III in writer’s fees that Murray Hill lost because Fox did not contract with it for these services, $2 million in lost goodwill, Title 17 of the United States Code protects owners’ and $500,000 in merchandising revenue Fox earned from the copyrights in creative works. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332. sales of a JATW sound track and toys. While the jury found Copyright owners have the exclusive right to reproduce the that JATW had not yet earned any profits for Fox, it estimated protected work, to prepare derivative works, and to distribute Fox’s future profits on JATW at $15 million and also copies to the public. 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)-(3). In the case of awarded that amount to Murray Hill. Accordingly, the infringement, the owner of a copyrighted work may seek district court entered judgment in favor of Murray Hill in the injunctive relief, impoundment and disposition of the sum of $19 million. Fox renewed its motion for judgment as infringing articles, damages, infringer’s profits, and legal a matter of law and also moved for new trial. The court costs, including attorney’s fees. 17 U.S.C. §§ 502-505. “To granted Fox’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with succeed in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff must establish that he or she owns the copyrighted creation, and that the defendant copied it.” Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 1 853 (6th Cir. 2003); see also Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 The earlier finding did not preclude all possibility that the JATW U.S. 340, 361 (1991). “However, in most cases courts have treatment infringed , because Murray Hill had argued that the alleged no objective evidence of the process by which the challenged “striking similarity” between the CTBC screenplay and the JATW treatment estab lished access inferentially. object was developed and thus are forced to rely on the Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 7 8 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
inferences which may be drawn from two basic facts: access 520 (D.D.C. 1978), aff’d, 607 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). and similarity.” Glanzmann v. King, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1594, “Nor is a ‘bare possibility’ of access sufficient. A plaintiff 1595 (E.D. Mich. 1988) (citing Ideal Toy Corp. v. Kenner must establish that defendant(s) had a ‘reasonable possibility’ Prods., 443 F. Supp. 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)). “[W]here there to view plaintiff’s work.” Glanzmann, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1595 is no direct evidence of copying, a plaintiff may establish ‘an (citing Meta-Film Assocs. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 1346, inference of copying by showing (1) access to the 1355 (C.D. Cal. 1984)). See also Grubb v. KMS Patriots, allegedly-infringed work by the defendant(s) and (2) a L.P., 88 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996) (denying copyright substantial similarity between the two works at issue.’” infringement claim on design of football team’s logo where (emphases added). Kohus, 328 F.3d at 853-54 (quoting Ellis alleged infringer had largely completed his design before v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1999)). “Thus, copying access to plaintiff’s design). is an essential element of infringement and substantial similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendants’ works is an Where the plaintiff cannot prove access, the copyright essential element of copying.” Wickham v. Knoxville Int’l infringement claim can still succeed, but only by proof of a Energy Exposition, 739 F.2d 1094, 1097 (6th Cir. 1984) higher level of similarity than the merely substantial. See (citations omitted). Ellis, 177 F.3d at 507 (noting that “[s]ome case law indicates that the stronger the similarity between the two works in The access element of a copyright infringement claim is question, the less compelling the proof of access needs to be” usually the less problematic. “Access is essentially ‘hearing (citing Nimmer § 13.02[B])). The quantum of similarity that or having a reasonable opportunity to hear the plaintiff[’s] will substitute for proof of access is “striking similarity.” work and thus having the opportunity to copy.’” Ellis, 177 Such striking similarity “preclude[s] the possibility of F.3d at 506 (quoting Tree Publ’g Co. v. Warner Bros. independent creation.” Glanzmann, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1595 Records, 785 F. Supp. 1272, 1274 (M.D. Tenn. 1991)). (citing Ferguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. “Access is proven when the plaintiff shows that the defendant 1978)). Of course, even in a striking similarity case, “[a]bsent had an opportunity to view or to copy plaintiff’s work.” copying, there can be no infringement.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 Glanzmann, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1595 (citing Sid & Marty Krofft U.S. 201, 218 (1954). However, striking similarity carries the Television Prods. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1163 burdens of proof that the infringing work is sufficient similar (9th Cir. 1977)). “Although ‘evidence that a third party with as to intrude into the copyrighted work’s protection and that whom both the plaintiff and defendant were concurrently the defendant must have had access to the copyrighted work, dealing had possession of plaintiff’s work is sufficient to even if the plaintiff can provide no extrinsic proof of that fact. establish access by the defendant,’ ‘[a]ccess may not be inferred through mere speculation or conjecture.’” Ellis, 177 In the usual infringement case, access can be shown and the F.3d at 506 (quoting 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, more difficult proof is that of “substantial similarity.” In Nimmer on Copyright § 13.02[A] (hereinafter “Nimmer”)). order to focus this inquiry, “[c]ourts have established various “A mere assertion of access, unsupported by probative tests for the substantial similarity finding.” Kohus, 328 F.3d evidence is inadequate.” Glanzmann, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1595 at 854. “The traditional approach is the ‘ordinary observer’ (citing Scott v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 449 F. Supp. 518, or ‘audience’ test, which ‘requires the trier of fact to gauge the similarities of the two works solely on the basis of his ‘net Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 9 10 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
impression’ and without relying on expert analysis or works. Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d dissection.’” Ibid. (citing Ellis, 177 F.3d at 506 n.2). 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994). “[S]atisfaction of the extrinsic “[C]ourts have undertaken various modifications—typically, test creates a triable issue of fact in a copyright action by adding a prior step that does allow expert testimony and involving a literary work.” Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1359. analytic dissection.” Kohus, 328 F.3d at 854. This court, however, had until recently not adopted any of The Second Circuit has adopted a test that distinguishes the refined versions of the substantial similarity test. Ellis, between two essential elements in a substantial similarity 177 F.3d at 506 n.2. Lacking guidance, the district court in suit–“(a) that defendant copied from plaintiff’s copyrighted the present case adopted the Ninth Circuit test. However, work and (b) that the copying (assuming it to be proved) went while this appeal was pending, we, in Kohus, adopted the so far as to constitute improper appropriation.” Arnstein v. District of Columbia Circuit’s test. In this test “the first step Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir. 1946). Expert testimony ‘requires identifying which aspects of the artist’s work, if any, is appropriate under the first part, but not under the second are protectible by copyright,’ the second ‘involves because “the determination of improper copying is to be made determining whether the allegedly infringing work is from the viewpoint of the ordinary observer.” Kohus, 328 ‘substantially similar’ to protectible elements of the artist’s F.3d at 854 (citing Arnstein). The Ninth Circuit, the court of work.’” Kohus, 328 F.3d at 855 (quoting Sturdza v. United appeals with the largest case load and experience in the area Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287, 1295, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). of movie industry copyright infringement, has adopted an This test is more similar to the Ninth Circuit test than it is to alternative two-part test. This test consists of an “‘extrinsic the Second Circuit test. See Kohus, 328 F.3d at 855 n.1 test,’ in which expert testimony and analytic dissection may (tracing history of the Sturdza test). The second part of our be employed to help the jury ‘determine whether there has test, and the Ninth Circuit’s intrinsic test, both address the been copying of the expression of an idea rather than just the question of whether the two works are, taken as a whole, idea itself’ . . . and the ‘intrinsic test,’ in which expert substantially similar in look and feel to a jury. The first part testimony is not appropriate because the trier of fact must of our test, and the Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic test, both require determine substantial similarity from the viewpoint of the a determination of what elements of the copyrighted work are ordinary reasonable person.” Kohus, 328 F.3d at 854 protected by the law and an exclusion of consideration of all (summarizing Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1163-64). While these elements that are not. names for the parts have remained, “[b]ecause the criteria incorporated into the extrinsic test encompass all objective However, significant differences remain in both parts. In manifestations of creativity, the two tests are more sensibly particular, we apply a more stringent standard regarding when described as objective and subjective analyses of expression, to allow expert testimony on the first part of the test. Also, having strayed from Krofft’s division between expression and not having adopted the eight Kouf factors, the first part of our ideas.” Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. test remains more free in form than the Ninth Circuit’s 1990) (citations omitted). The extrinsic test focuses on extrinsic test. “The essence of the first step is to filter out the articulable similarities between plot, themes, dialogue, mood, unoriginal, unprotectible elements . . . through a variety of setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events in the two analyses.” Kohus, 328 F.3d at 855 (citing Feist, 499 U.S. at 345). Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 11 12 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
This brings us to the most complex part of the substantial whether there has been copying of the expression of an idea similarity inquiry: the determination of which parts of the rather than just the idea itself.” Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1163. original work are protectible and which are not. It is “[N]o one infringes, unless he descends so far into what is “impossible to articulate a definitive demarcation that concrete [in a work] as to invade . . . [its] expression.” Nat’l measures when the similarity between works involves Comics Publ’ns v. Fawcett Publ’ns, 191 F.2d 594, 600 (2d copying of protected expression; decisions must inevitably be Cir. 1951). To draw the distinction between ideas and their ad hoc.” Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1356 (citing Krofft, 562 F.2d at expressions, courts use the abstraction test first described by 1164). Nevertheless, certain categorical judgments and Judge Learned Hand with respect to a theatrical play. Kohus, guideposts have been established. Unoriginal work enjoys no 328 F.3d at 855. copyright protection. “The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great be original to the author.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 345. “[I]t is a number of patterns of increasing generality will fit constitutional requirement that a plaintiff bringing an equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. infringement claim must prove ‘copying of constituent The last may perhaps be no more than the most general elements of the work that are original.’” Kohus, 328 F.3d at statement of what the play is about, and at times might 853 (emphasis added in Kohus) (quoting Feist, 499 U.S. at consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series 361). However, “the requisite level of creativity is extremely of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some ‘ideas,’ to which, apart from their expression, his creative spark, ‘no matter how crude, humble or obvious’ it property is never extended. might be.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 345 (quoting 1 Nimmer, § 1.08[C][1]). Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930). This test will only place a work’s elements on a In the general run of cases, where minimal creativity can be spectrum from more expression-like to more idea-like. It shown, the vital distinction is between ideas and their does not pick the point on the spectrum at which elements expressions. Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the cease to be unprotected ideas and become protectible expression of ideas. Kohus, 328 F.3d at 855.2 “The real task expressions. Nevertheless, it serves as a useful, if not in a copyright infringement action, then, is to determine dispositive, analytical tool in drawing these distinctions. See Peter Pan Fabrics v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960) (noting that “no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the ‘idea,’ and has 2 Of the two principles, that ideas are not p rotectible and that borrowed its ‘expression’” and that such decisions hence must expressions are protectible, it is the former that is the stronger. Where an “inevitably be ad hoc”). idea by necessity, or near-necessity, or custom, leads to a particular expression, it is the expression which b ecomes unpro tected, rather than Within the realm of works of fiction, literary or the idea that become s protected. To reach the opposite conclusion would, through the backdoor, create a forbidden cop yright in ideas. Shaw, 919 cinematographic, expressions not protectible because they F.2d at 1360. follow directly from unprotectible ideas are known as scènes Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 13 14 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
à faire, “those elements that follow naturally from the work’s are not protectible.” Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 589 theme, rather than from the author’s creativity.” Kohus, 328 (2d Cir. 1996). “The common use of such stock . . . merely F.3d at 856 (quoting Nimmer § 13.03[F][3]). Scènes à faire reminds us that in Hollywood, as in the life of men generally, are those “incidents, characters or settings which are as a there is only rarely anything new under the sun.” Id. at 588 practical matter indispensable, or at least standard, in the (quoting Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. treatment of a given topic.” Sturdza, 281 F.3d at 1295. A 1985)). few examples provide concreteness to this definition: Another question of degree in the evaluation of substantial If Twelfth Night were copyrighted, it is quite possible similarity is the amount of copying necessary to establish that a second comer might so closely imitate Sir Toby infringement. At the extremes, the rules of law are again Belch or Malvolio as to infringe, but it would not be clear. “Duplication or near identity is not necessary to enough that for one of his characters he cast a riotous establish infringement. ” Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1167 (citing knight who kept wassail to the discomfort of the Runge v. Lee, 441 F.2d 579, 582 (9th Cir. 1971), and household, or a vain and foppish steward who became Williams v. Kaag Mfrs., 338 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 1964)). amorous of his mistress. These would be no more than “A story has a linear dimension: it begins, continues, and Shakespeare’s ‘ideas’ in the play, as little capable of ends. If a defendant copies substantial portions of a plaintiff’s monopoly as Einstein’s Doctrine of Relativity, or sequence of events, he does not escape infringement by Darwin’s theory of the Origin of Species. It follows that adding original episodes somewhere along the line.” Warner the less developed the characters, the less they can be Bros. v. ABC, 720 F.2d 231, 241 (2d Cir. 1983). “The copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for misappropriation of even a small portion of a copyrighted marking them too indistinctly. work . . . may constitute an infringement under certain circumstances.” Murray Hill Publ’ns v. ABC Comm., 264 Nichols, 45 F.2d at 121. Other genres provide additional F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Universal Pictures Co. examples of scènes à faire. “Elements such as drunks, v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F.2d 354, 361 (9th Cir. 1947)). prostitutes, vermin and derelict cars would appear in any “Even if a copied portion be relatively small in proportion to realistic work about . . . policemen in the South Bronx” and the entire work, if qualitatively important, the finder of fact are therefore not protectible. Walker v. Time Life Films, 784 may properly find substantial similarity.” Baxter v. MCA, F.2d 44, 50 (2d Cir. 1986). Similarly, “[f]oot chases and the Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 425 (9th Cir. 1987). “No plagiarist can morale problems of policemen, not to mention the familiar excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did figure of the Irish cop, are venerable and often-recurring not pirate.” Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1362 (quoting Nimmer, themes of police fiction,” and hence not protectable. Ibid. § 13.03[B][1][a]). However, “individual lines of dialogue [in “While both the Dinosaur World books and the Jurassic Park a movie] are not automatically entitled to copyright works share a setting of a dinosaur zoo or adventure park, protection.” ABC, 264 F.3d at 632. “[W]hen a single line of with electrified fences, automated tours, dinosaur nurseries, a larger copyrighted work is appropriated by an alleged and uniformed workers, these settings are classic scenes a infringer, the test is whether ‘the work is recognizable by an faire that flow from the uncopyrightable concept of a dinosaur ordinary observer as having been taken from the copyrighted zoo. Thus, though perhaps substantially similar, the settings Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 15 16 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
source.’” Id. at 633 (quoting Harold Lloyd, 162 F.2d at 361). 328 F.3d at 856-57. As the diminished market for “[I]t is the combination of many different elements which copyrighted work is the harm that the copyright law seeks to may command copyright protection because of its particular avoid, this issue is crucial and contains an element of subjective quality.” Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1169 (citing Reyher subjectivity not found in most other jury determinations. v. Children’s Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 91-92 (2d Therefore, courts have recognized “that granting summary Cir. 1976), and Ideal Toy Corp. v. Sayco Doll Corp., 302 F.2d judgment, particularly in favor of a defendant, is a practice to 623, 624 (2d Cir. 1962)). “While any one similarity taken by be used sparingly in copyright infringement cases.” itself seems trivial, . . . it would [not] be improper for a jury Wickham, 739 F.2d at 1097; accord Kohus, 328 F.3d at 853. to find that the over-all impact and effect indicate substantial However, even taking into account this factor, summary appropriation.” Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1169 (quoting Malkin v. judgment is still permissible and may even be required. Dubinsky, 146 F. Supp. 111, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1956)). Wickham, 739 F.2d at 1097; Kohus, 328 F.3d at 853. Courts However, “random similarities scattered throughout the “have frequently affirmed summary judgment in favor of works” can be discounted. Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d copyright defendants on the issue of substantial similarity.” 1352, 1356 (9th Cir. 1984). “Such a scattershot approach Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1355. One reason to do so is that the cannot support a finding of substantial similarity because it question of substantial similarity can usually be decided on fails to address the underlying issue: whether a lay observer the basis of the works themselves and rarely, if ever, involves would consider the works as a whole substantially similar to questions of credibility, the peculiar province of the jury. one another.” Williams, 84 F.3d at 590 (citing Walker, 784 Also, while judges “may not be qualified literary critics, F.2d at 50, and Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 683 [they] are fitted by training and experience to compare literary F.2d 610, 624 (2d Cir. 1982)). works and determine whether they evidence substantial similarity.” O’Neill v. Dell Publ’g Co., 630 F.2d 685, 690 Finally, the issue arises of the proper standard for appellate (1st Cir. 1980). review of a grant or denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law in a copyright infringement case. The IV cornerstone of such review in copyright infringement cases, just as in other cases, is whether, given the law and evidence With this background on some relevant aspects of the law presented, a reasonable jury could have found for the non- of copyright infringement, we turn to the facts of this case. moving party. Nevertheless, the issue of whether substantial The crucial issue is the degree of similarity between CTBC similarity exists has certain features with special significance and JATW. While both of these works went through in the application of this standard. A jury deciding the issue numerous revisions, Murray Hill’s core claim is that the of substantial similarity not only makes findings of historical JATW movie infringes on its copyright to the CTBC fact, but usually also serves as a proxy for the works’ screenplay. A detailed summary of both is in order: intended audience. In this role as proxy, jurors decide not only what happened, but also can be properly influenced by CTBC tells the story of Bess Parker, a poor white divorced whether their exposure to the alleged infringing work would cleaning woman with a six-year-old son, Tommy. Lacking a diminish their appetite for the copyrighted work. See Kohus, father figure, Tommy focuses obsessively on “Action Man,” a super-hero action figure. Twelve days before Christmas, Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 17 18 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
Bess goes to the local toy store to buy the toy she has meet at a coffee shop, discuss their difficulties in finding an previously reserved. But when she finds herself short of cash Action Man toy and Bess’s potential romantic involvement to pay for it and the store clerks refuse to hold it for her any with Steve, whom both women believe to be a mere Santa longer, Bess hides the toy in the store. The next day Bess Claus impersonator rather than the owner of the toy store. returns to buy the toy she stashed away, but it is snatched out Meanwhile, Steve has been trying to use his position as a toy of her hands by Clare, a wealthy black woman who owns and store owner to obtain an Action Man toy for Tommy. On operates a real estate business. Bess attempts to recover the Steve and Bess’s next date, Bess insists that they go toy by threatening Clare with an authentic-looking toy gun, Christmas shopping at an inexpensive store, because Bess but Clare gets away. Dejected, Bess returns to the subsidized believes that the expensive department store suggested by apartment that she shares with her mother. Bess and Tommy Steve is unaffordable for them. buy a cheap Christmas tree and decorate it. The next time Bess goes to clean Clare’s house, she The next day, while cleaning the home of Carol, an discovers a bag full of Action Man toys and, annoyed at employee of Clare’s, Bess meets Steve, Carol’s brother and Clare’s greed, hides one of the figures under a pillow. When owner of a toy store. Later that day, Bess takes Tommy to see Bess visits Carol’s house in order to see Steve, Carol a toy store Santa Claus without realizing that it is Steve in mentions that Steve is in fact a well-to-do toy store owner, disguise. When Bess becomes angry at the Santa Claus for and Bess, furious with Steve for having misled her, storms promising Tommy an Action Man figure, Steve reveals his out. Having put Tommy, who is full of confidence that he is identity and Steve and Bess agree to go on a date. That going to receive an Action Man figure, to bed and inspired by evening, Carol calls Bess to tell her that Clare’s company is a drawing Tommy has made of an Action Man figure, Bess going to tear down Bess’s apartment building. The next day, decides to break into Clare’s home and retrieve the toy she Bess goes to a bank branch to obtain a loan to pay off her bills had stashed away. Bess, wearing camouflage face paint, is and a scene ensues when she accidentally pulls the toy gun surprised by Clare, who mistakes her for the Night Prowler, out of her purse. Bess’s next cleaning job is Clare’s house, a burglar who has been plaguing the neighborhood, but Bess where she meets Eric, Clare’s husband and a doctor. Eric is manages to escape with the Action Man figure. The annoyed that Bess mistakes him for a servant, perhaps following day, Bess and her mother have a kitchen-table because Eric too is black. At night, Eric shares this story with conversation. Bess, in despair over her financial situation, the Clare. The next day, Steve takes Bess to Carol’s office party imminent eviction, and the fact that she is a thief, decides to where Bess for the first time realizes that the woman who return the Action Man figure. After Bess is gone, Tommy took her action figure, the woman whose house she has been shows his grandmother the cereal-box tops he has collected to cleaning, and the woman whose company is going to tear redeem for an Action Man figure and she decides to forego down her home are all one and the same. playing the lottery and redeem the box tops instead. Back at home, Bess agrees to go sledding with Steve. When Bess arrives at Clare’s house, Clare and Eric are When Steve returns to Carol’s house, he tells her about his having a discussion on the wisdom of Clare’s plans to evict feelings for Bess. Over the following days, Steve takes Bess poor tenants in order to make room for her development and Tommy sledding and shopping. Bess and her mother project. As Bess tries to return the Action Man figure to Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 19 20 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
Clare’s stash, Clare comes upon her and for the first time the ceremony at which Jamie is to be awarded his purple belt notices that her cleaning woman is the woman with whom she in karate. Having been detained at the office by business struggled in the toy store. In the ensuing melee, Bess drops calls, Howard speeds to the ceremony, but is caught by police the action figure and flees the scene. Back at home, Clare officer Hummel and as a consequence misses the award again talks about Steve with her mother. The winning lottery ceremony. Howard’s wife Liz instead attends the ceremony numbers are announced and Bess’s mother realizes that she with their divorced neighbor, the oleaginous Ted, whose son would have won had she played that day. At this moment, also receives a belt at the ceremony. The next morning, in police officers enter and arrest Bess for being the Night order to return himself into the good graces of the deeply Prowler. disappointed Jamie, Howard promises to buy him a Turbo Man action figure for Christmas. After this prologue, the Enraged, Bess’s mother heads to Clare’s home and berates action skips forward to the morning of Christmas Eve at the her in front of her party guests for having had Bess arrested. Langston’s well-appointed home. Liz asks Howard whether After the party is over, Clare proceeds to a local church where he bought the Turbo Man figure. Howard, who had forgotten, she, dressed in a Santa Claus suit, hands out presents to poor nevertheless claims he did. Howard leaves, according to him children. After listening to the local priest describe the in order to pick up the toy from his office, but not before children’s plight, she has a change of heart. She returns promising Jamie that he will attend a Christmas parade at home, collects all the presents under her Christmas tree, and which Turbo Man is scheduled to appear. distributes them to the poor children at a local homeless shelter. Meanwhile, Bess is released on bail, raised by her Howard begins his frantic search for the Turbo Man action kindly neighbor, and Eric apprehends the real Night Prowler. figure at a local toy store. Here he meets Myron Larabee, a Clare, having discovered her error in identifying Bess as the stressed-out black mailman, who also is trying to make a last- Night Prowler, heads to Bess’s apartment where she tears up minute purchase of a Turbo Man figure for his son. When the eviction notice. She also offers Bess an Action Man Howard and Myron ask store clerks for a Turbo Man figure, figure, but Bess, realizing that her son needs his mother, not they are laughed at for expecting to be able to find this a toy, declines the gift. The following morning, Tommy is extremely popular toy at such a late date. After driving from understanding about not receiving an Action Man figure and store to store without success, Howard overhears that a store Bess reconciles with Steve. Tommy discovers another at a local mall just received a late shipment of Turbo Man present, an Action Man figure after all, and for the lack of a figures. In his haste to get to the mall, Howard runs over better explanation, concludes that the real Santa must have Hummel’s motorcycle. Hummel is not amused. At the mall, brought it. As credits roll, a trio of Santas are seen walking when the toy store clerks try to distribute numbered balls to towards the homeless shelter. In the final image of the establish priority for the limited quantity of Turbo Man proposed movie, the Santas turn around and reveal one to be figures, a riot breaks out. After Howard and Myron struggle black, one to be white, and one to be Japanese. across the mall for one of the balls, Howard overcomes Myron only to lose the ball to an infant. The protagonist of the JATW movie is Howard Langston, the workaholic CEO of a mattress company. Howard has A suspicious-looking mall Santa offers to take the dejected promised his eight-year-old son Jamie that he would attend Howard to a secret warehouse where Turbo Man figures are Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 21 22 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
still available. At the warehouse, filled with Santa Clauses disgusted with Howard’s behavior, leaves for the parade with and elves, Howard pays $300 for a Turbo Man figure, only to Jamie, Ted, and Ted’s son. After dropping off the children, have it revealed as a poorly made foreign knock-off, which Ted attempts to kiss Liz, who violently rebuffs his advances. promptly falls apart in his hands. Before Howard can Meanwhile, Howard shares some beers with the reindeer and complain, the police raid the warehouse and arrest the Santas also heads for the parade. There Howard, mistaken for the and elves. Howard barely escapes by using a toy police actor hired to play Turbo Man, is put into a high-tech Turbo identification badge. Howard’s SUV, parked outside the Man costume, put on a float, and given a special Turbo Man warehouse, has been stripped clean by thieves. action figure to present to the attending child of his choice. Howard and Myron run into each other again in a coffee At the parade, Howard/Turbo Man spots Jamie, who does shop and commiserate. Myron explains to Howard how all not recognize him, in the crowd and gives him the Turbo Man his life’s misfortunes are traceable to not receiving a figure. At this point, Myron, who has stolen the costume of particular popular toy when he was a child. A radio playing Dementor, Turbo Man’s nemesis, attacks Howard and Jamie in the coffee shop announces a call-in contest offering a with intent to steal the figure. In a special-effects-heavy fight Turbo Man figure to the first person to name all of Santa’s between Howard/Turbo Man and Myron/Dementor, echoing reindeer. Myron and Howard fight over the local payphone an episode of the Turbo Man television program glimpsed at but only manage to break it. Instead, they start running to the the beginning of the movie, Howard defeats Myron. After the nearby radio station. Howard, being in much better physical fight, Howard reveals himself to Jamie. Jamie realizes that condition than the portly Myron, arrives first at the station because he has the real Turbo Man for a father he does not and breaks into the broadcast booth of the program’s host. need the action figure and gives the figure to Myron. Shortly afterwards, Myron too breaks into the booth and Howard, Liz, and Jamie embrace and credits roll. In a post- threatens to blow it up using a mail bomb he carries unless he credit scene, Liz wonders what Howard bought her for is given the Turbo Man figure. When the host reveals that he Christmas and the horrified Howard realizes that he forgot to was only offering a gift certificate, Howard leaves, but Myron buy her a present. drops the “bomb” which turns out to be only a regular Christmas package. On the way out of the station, Myron is V apprehended by a police SWAT team, led by Hummel, but manages to escape by using another mail bomb. This bomb Most of the issues that form the basis of a copyright does explode, leaving Hummel comically singed. infringement claim are no longer in dispute in this case. The CTBC screenplay was copyrighted. Fox did have access to Howard returns home defeated, but sees Ted and Liz the CTBC screenplay before it registered the JATW decorating his Christmas tree. Jealous and enraged, Howard screenplay and before production of the JATW movie, but not breaks into Ted’s house to steal the Turbo Man figure that before it received the JATW “treatment.” Finally, the jury Ted had bragged about buying for his son. Inside Ted’s found that the JATW movie and the CTBC screenplay were house, Howard is attacked by Ted’s pet reindeer, accidentally substantially similar, establishing Murray Hill’s copyright sets fire to several rooms, and is ultimately discovered by Ted infringement claim. Fox appeals on the basis of the denial of and Liz while holding the stolen Turbo Man figure. Liz, its pre- and post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 23 24 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
law on the issue of substantial similarity. “Judgment as a neighbor (a minor sympathetic character in CTBC and Ted in matter of law is appropriate only when there is a complete JATW), and three similarities in the theft of the toy (from absence of fact to support the verdict, so that no reasonable Clare by Bess in CTBC and from Ted by Howard in JATW). juror could have found for the nonmoving party.” Fisher v. Each of these similarities is tenuous. At the level of actual Ford Motor Co., 224 F.3d 570, 574 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting expression they differ significantly, and at any level of Moore v. KUKA Welding Sys. & Robot Corp., 171 F.3d 1073, abstraction that covers both JATW and CTBC, they are 1078 (6th Cir. 1999)). ubiquitous in literature and the cinema. We are instructed to look at such slight similarities holistically to determine Fox’s principal basis for requesting judgment as a matter of whether collectively they could prove substantial similarity. law is the six-page “treatment” that Kornfield registered prior Where, as here, the slight similarities are not thematically to the time that Murray Hill could establish, directly or related, the whole is no greater than the sum of the parts. inferentially by means of striking similarity, that Fox had Therefore, if the court was required to filter out all the other access to the CTBC screenplay. At trial, Murray Hill pressed similarities, summary judgment for Fox would have been several theories about how Fox could have gained access to appropriate. the CTBC screenplay earlier, but the district court found that these theories were too speculative to establish access and Contrary to the parties’ equally fervent, though otherwise Murray Hill does not appeal this finding. As we noted above, diametrically opposed, assertions, the question of whether striking similarity, precluding all possible conclusion but that elements already found in a copyright defendant’s earlier, the work was copied, can substitute for proof of access. non-infringing work are properly discounted in performing However, even a superficial glance at the CTBC screenplay substantial similarity analysis is, at least in this court, one of and the JATW treatment reveals that whatever the first impression. The canonical statement of law is that non- similarities, they most certainly do not approach the level protectible elements must be filtered out. Kohus, 328 F.3d at precluding all possibilities but copying. Therefore, the 855. But here the argument is not that the eighteen district court rightly found that the treatment was an similarities allegedly shared by the CTBC screenplay, the independent creation. JATW movie, and the JATW treatment were non-protectible, but rather that these elements were independently created. Murray Hill’s claim of substantial similarity between the We turn to persuasive precedent and reason to determine JATW movie and the CTBC screenplay rested on an expert- whether independently created elements must be discounted. prepared list of twenty-four similarities between the two. However, of these twenty-four similarities, all but six already Precedents in our sister circuits suggest that under existed in the independently created treatment. Thus, only appropriate circumstances even protectible elements may be those six elements could possibly have been taken by Fox filtered out. In Apple Computer v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d from the CTBC screenplay. These six remaining similarities 1435 (9th Cir. 1994), Apple filed suit alleging that elements were the children’s drawings (of Action Man in CTBC and of of Microsoft’s graphical user interface infringed on the the Langston family in JATW), the unhelpful toy store clerks copyright of Apple’s equivalent software. Significantly, (refusing to give the toy to Bess in CTBC and laughing at Microsoft had obtained a license from Apple for some, but Howard’s late request for the toy in JATW), the intrusive not all, elements of Apple’s software. The court stated that Nos. 01-2668/2721 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. 25 26 Murray Hill Pub., Inc. v. Nos. 01-2668/2721 Twentieth Century Fox Film Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Corp.
“[w]here, as here, the accused works include both licensed legally copy from himself. Therefore, where an element and unlicensed features, infringement will depend on whether occurs both in the defendant’s prior work and the plaintiff’s the unlicensed features are entitled to protection.” Id. at 1441. prior work, no inference of copying can be drawn. See “Because only those elements of a work that are protectible Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 54 (2d and used without the author’s permission can be compared Cir. 1936) (“If the defendant has had access to other material when it comes to the ultimate question of illicit copying, we which would have served him as well, his disclaimer [of use analytic dissection to determine the scope of copyright copying] becomes more plausible.”); Ellis, 177 F.3d at 507 protection before works are considered ‘as a whole.’” Id. at (“[A]n inference of copying is rebuttable by evidence of 1443 (citations omitted). In so concluding, the Apple court independent creation of the allegedly infringing work.”) extended the application of filtering, from unprotectible (citations omitted). Such elements should be removed from elements to protectible elements used with the permission of consideration. the copyright owner. Therefore, we hold that elements of a copyright defendant’s In Sturdza, an architect brought a claim against the United work that were created prior to access to a plaintiff’s work are Arab Emirates alleging that the design of the defendant’s new to be filtered out at the first stage of substantial-similarity embassy infringed on the copyright of architectural drawings analysis, just as non-protectible elements are. In the present she had previously submitted to the defendant. 281 F.3d at case, no reasonable jury could have found substantial 1291-92. The defendant contended that the design was in fact similarity solely on the basis of the six minor elements not so based on the work submitted by another architect. Ibid. The filtered. Therefore, Fox’s motion for judgment as a matter of district court in performing the substantial-similarity analysis law should have been granted. discounted elements of the embassy design that were already present in work submitted by the other architect before the VI defendant had access to the plaintiff’s drawings. Id. at 1297. Because the plaintiff did not appeal this discounting, the For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the judgment of District of Columbia Circuit also excluded the elements that the district court and REMAND for an entry of judgment as were already present in the earlier work. Ibid. a matter of law in favor of Fox.
Logic also supports the filtering of independently-created elements. The purpose of the substantial-similarity analysis is to answer the question whether the defendant copied the work of the plaintiff. Ordinarily, similar elements between known work of the plaintiff and the defendant’s work will, depending on the degree of uniqueness and originality of the element, support such an inference. However, where defendant owns a prior work containing the same elements, he has no reason, beyond the illicit thrill of copyright infringement, to copy wrongfully from another what he could