Copyright Infringement/Summary Judgment Rulings

The federal district court in Johnson v. Foxx below noted that 'summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a copyright case is a practice that should be used sparingly.' The issue has long been debated, but summary judgment for defendants in copyright infringement isn't uncommon today. The case summaries that follow offer snapshots of recent rulings of this type.

A Slice of Pie Productions LLC v. Wayans Brothers Entertainment, 3:04cv1034 (JBA) (D.Conn. 2007): The plaintiff claimed that its screenplay 'Johnny Bronx' was infringed on by the defendants' movie 'White Chicks.' The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut initially noted that, 'due to potential dispute about which of the Wayans brothers' agents may have received and/or read the [plaintiffs'] screenplay, defendants assume for summary judgment purposes that they had access to the screenplay.' As a result, the court compared the works at issue for substantial similarity.

The court then ruled found that 'most of the similarities evident from a comparison between the Johnny Bronx screenplay and the White Chicks film arise from uncopyrightable elements and concepts, including ideas (which are noncopyrightable) that had been used prior to the creation of either work and scenes a faire.'

On the plaintiff's state-law claim of breach of implied contract, the court decided: 'Plaintiff's claim here cannot survive summary judgment because reasonable jurors considering the evidence could not conclude the existence of a 'bilateral expectation of compensation,' nor use by defendants of the ideas in the screenplay purportedly submitted to them by plaintiff.'

***

Benjamin v. Walt Disney Co., CV 05-2280GPS (C.D.Calif. 2007): The plaintiffs claimed that Disney infringed on a screenplay titled 'Rescue Me' when making the movie 'Sweet Home Alabama.' The district court found: 'First, Plaintiffs cannot establish Defendants had access to Rescue Me until after most of the protectible elements in Sweet Home had been created. Second ' [a]fter filtering out the pre-access material and stock material, no substantial similarities exist between the two works. Moreover, even if this material is not filtered out, there are major differences in plot, characters, setting, dialogue, and sequence of events in both works.'

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California noted of the plaintiffs' state-law causes of action, that the 'breach of implied contract and breach of confidence claims fail for two reasons. First, the claims [both subject in California to two-year statutes of limitations] are time-barred. [Plaintiffs argued that the running of the limitations periods should be counted under the delayed discovery rule, but the court emphasized that it didn't make sense Disney had concealed the alleged infringement considering it released 'Sweet Home Alabama' nationwide.] Second, because Plaintiffs cannot prove that Defendants infringed their work, they cannot establish 'use,' which is an essential element of the state law claims.'

***

Johnson v. Foxx, 06-10939 (E.D. Mich. 2007): The pro se plaintiff Michael Johnson claimed that his song 'One of God's Angels is AWOL' had been infringed on by an allegedly rearranged version known as 'Heaven' on Jamie Foxx's Unpredictable album. On the issue of access, Johnson said he mass-mailed his song throughout the music industry, but Foxx claimed he never received Johnson's composition.

In any case, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan noted: 'The overarching story in both works is that an angel left heaven to be with someone on earth. The idea of an angel leaving heaven to come to earth is not original and is not copyrightable ' [T]o the extent there are similarities between the lyrics, they are 'simply too general or tenuous to meet the legal standard for similarity.”

***

Vargas v. Transeau, 04 Civ.9772 WHP (S.D.N.Y. 2007): The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Brian Transeau's recording 'Aparthenonia' used an unauthorized, digital drum sample from their song and recording ”Bust Dat Groove Without Ride.' Rather than proving access by the defendants, the plaintiffs alleged striking similarity, which has a 'stringent' threshold.

In its ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explained: 'Plaintiffs' case on summary judgment boils down to the contention that summary judgment may be avoided by producing any expert witness who testifies that one sound was sampled from another, regardless of how conclusory the statement may be and regardless of whether it contradicts the testimony of Plaintiffs' other witnesses. That is not the law.'

The federal district court in Johnson v. Foxx below noted that 'summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a copyright case is a practice that should be used sparingly.' The issue has long been debated, but summary judgment for defendants in copyright infringement isn't uncommon today. The case summaries that follow offer snapshots of recent rulings of this type.

A Slice of Pie Productions LLC v. Wayans Brothers Entertainment, 3:04cv1034 (JBA) (D.Conn. 2007): The plaintiff claimed that its screenplay 'Johnny Bronx' was infringed on by the defendants' movie 'White Chicks.' The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut initially noted that, 'due to potential dispute about which of the Wayans brothers' agents may have received and/or read the [plaintiffs'] screenplay, defendants assume for summary judgment purposes that they had access to the screenplay.' As a result, the court compared the works at issue for substantial similarity.

The court then ruled found that 'most of the similarities evident from a comparison between the Johnny Bronx screenplay and the White Chicks film arise from uncopyrightable elements and concepts, including ideas (which are noncopyrightable) that had been used prior to the creation of either work and scenes a faire.'

On the plaintiff's state-law claim of breach of implied contract, the court decided: 'Plaintiff's claim here cannot survive summary judgment because reasonable jurors considering the evidence could not conclude the existence of a 'bilateral expectation of compensation,' nor use by defendants of the ideas in the screenplay purportedly submitted to them by plaintiff.'

***

Benjamin v. Walt Disney Co., CV 05-2280GPS (C.D.Calif. 2007): The plaintiffs claimed that Disney infringed on a screenplay titled 'Rescue Me' when making the movie 'Sweet Home Alabama.' The district court found: 'First, Plaintiffs cannot establish Defendants had access to Rescue Me until after most of the protectible elements in Sweet Home had been created. Second ' [a]fter filtering out the pre-access material and stock material, no substantial similarities exist between the two works. Moreover, even if this material is not filtered out, there are major differences in plot, characters, setting, dialogue, and sequence of events in both works.'

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California noted of the plaintiffs' state-law causes of action, that the 'breach of implied contract and breach of confidence claims fail for two reasons. First, the claims [both subject in California to two-year statutes of limitations] are time-barred. [Plaintiffs argued that the running of the limitations periods should be counted under the delayed discovery rule, but the court emphasized that it didn't make sense Disney had concealed the alleged infringement considering it released 'Sweet Home Alabama' nationwide.] Second, because Plaintiffs cannot prove that Defendants infringed their work, they cannot establish 'use,' which is an essential element of the state law claims.'

***

Johnson v. Foxx, 06-10939 (E.D. Mich. 2007): The pro se plaintiff Michael Johnson claimed that his song 'One of God's Angels is AWOL' had been infringed on by an allegedly rearranged version known as 'Heaven' on Jamie Foxx's Unpredictable album. On the issue of access, Johnson said he mass-mailed his song throughout the music industry, but Foxx claimed he never received Johnson's composition.

In any case, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan noted: 'The overarching story in both works is that an angel left heaven to be with someone on earth. The idea of an angel leaving heaven to come to earth is not original and is not copyrightable ' [T]o the extent there are similarities between the lyrics, they are 'simply too general or tenuous to meet the legal standard for similarity.”

***

Vargas v. Transeau, 04 Civ.9772 WHP (S.D.N.Y. 2007): The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Brian Transeau's recording 'Aparthenonia' used an unauthorized, digital drum sample from their song and recording ”Bust Dat Groove Without Ride.' Rather than proving access by the defendants, the plaintiffs alleged striking similarity, which has a 'stringent' threshold.

In its ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explained: 'Plaintiffs' case on summary judgment boils down to the contention that summary judgment may be avoided by producing any expert witness who testifies that one sound was sampled from another, regardless of how conclusory the statement may be and regardless of whether it contradicts the testimony of Plaintiffs' other witnesses. That is not the law.'