Source: https://www.lowelaw.com/death-of-copyright/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:37:38+00:00

Document:
Were all these cases without merit, or did the studios and networks simply have far superior counsel in each case? These suppositions are very unlikely. The case law governing these actions simply has become so amorphous that, for almost every principle of law favorable to creators, the courts have endorsed and applied an opposite principle. As a result, the determination of each case now rests almost entirely in the unfettered discretion of trial judges, who have consistently dismissed plaintiffs' claims. Unless the current trend changes, longstanding principles once favorable to creators may be eclipsed by an evolving body of law so unfavorable to them that the studios and networks are essentially immunized from liability except in cases of identical copying and conceded access to the plaintiff ‘s work.
Even when access is established, the path to a favorable judgment remains perilous for plaintiffs. 21 In fact, in many cases in which summary judgment has been granted for defendants, the courts simply presumed that access existed. 22 This is because “even massive evidence of access cannot by itself avoid the necessity of also proving the full measure of substantial similarity.” 23 And this full measure has become virtually impossible to establish under recent case law.
In the seminal 1991 case Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Company, the US Supreme Court held that, when dealing with works largely (or even entirely) composed of unprotectable elements, “choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original.” 30Transposed to the literary arts, the test provides that, although copyright law does not generally protect basic plot premises in literary works or commonly used expressions that flow naturally from those premises (scenes a faire), the original selection and arrangement of these elements can constitute a protectable work in and of itself. 31 Therefore, the wholesale exclusion of all unprotectable elements improperly limits the scope of copyright protection. The Ninth Circuit has recognized this principle on numerous occasions but has spent the better part of the past decade aggressively denying its use to plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases against studios and networks.
The court did not strip the works of their unprotectable elements before diving into an extrinsic analysis of substantial similarity, consistent with the general purpose of the selection-and-arrangement test (that is, to protect in combination that which cannot be protected separately). 36 In the years since its publication, however, the analysis of Metcalf has proved to be the exception and not the rule.
The 2003 case of Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Company may have played the heaviest hand against the use of the selection-and-arrangement test. 37 The Rice court stated that “similarities derived from the use of common ideas cannot be protected.” This assertion ignored the holdings and rationales of the cases that the court cited, including Metcalf, but the Rice court attempted to distinguish Metcalf by stating that it was “based on a form of inverse ratio rule analysis” (i.e. , the rule whereby more access requires less substantial similarity and vice versa) and seemed to imply that the selection-and- arrangement test is applicable only when access is conceded. 38 This implication, which limits Metcalf to its facts, overlooks that nowhere in Metcalf (or any case prior to it) is the inverse ratio rule required for the application of the selection-and-arrangement test. 39 Nevertheless, Rice‘s misinterpretation of Metcalf has been repeatedly followed by the Ninth Circuit in subsequent opinions.
The outcome in Benay is emblematic of just how far copyright decisions have strayed from maintaining a balance between the interests of creators and the interests of producers. The ad hoc use of substantial dissimilarity and the refusal to acknowledge selection and arrangement not only has stripped creators of the doctrines that once protected them but also effectively endorses creative theft whenever the elements of an implied contract are not satisfied. If more juries were exposed to the facts of these cases, creators might hope to reverse the imbalance. The determination of appropriation has time and again been allocated to the presiding judge of each case instead. Indeed, copyright infringement may be the only remaining area of the law in which judges seem increasingly willing to decide material facts on summary judgment, effectively removing both experts and juries from the process entirely.
Many troubling questions arise from this trend. Why do judges believe that they can perform the extrinsic analysis of literary works better than plaintiffs' experts? 61 An extrinsic analysis is no easy feat. A judge who dismisses an expert witness, believing the subject matter within his or her grasp, effectively acts as a self-appointed expert. This is a disservice to the creators of literary works. It implies that writing a screenplay is a less complex and involved undertaking than writing a song or a software program. Moreover, the judge essentially deprives plaintiffs of their constitutional right to a jury trial. Nevertheless, this is the current state of copyright law for literary works, with no signs of rebalancing anytime soon.
In copyright infringement cases, judges are supposed to play the role of gatekeeper to the jury. Their task in analyzing substantial similarity is supposed to be extrinsic, that is, objective. 62 If a plaintiff can show objective similarity, a jury is brought in to determine whether the total concept and feel—the intrinsic test—of the plaintiff's and defendant's works are substantially similar. In practice, however, the extrinsic test has been devoured by an intrinsic test performed by the judge. Simply put, with judges able to substitute their opinions for those of experts and juries on issues of material fact, all other witnesses to the case become effectively redundant.
Case law has provided defendants with an impenetrable shield of confusing and often contradictory principles that thwart plaintiffs in nearly every instance, with only tiny cracks in that shield providing a mere glimpse of hope. Unless the Ninth Circuit seriously reexamines where courts have taken the law of copyright infringement, the cards will remain completely stacked in favor of the studios and networks.
One case arguably did not result in a clear-cut victory for the defendant studio. See Miller v. Miramax Film Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25967, at *28 (2001). The case achieved no final judgment on the merits, however. The court denied summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff's copyright infringement claim (much like two other cases discussed infra) before the case disappeared from the docket entirely.
In the last 20 years, in the Second and Ninth Circuits and the lower courts within those circuits, 48 copyright infringement cases against studios or networks were litigated to final judgment. In all 48 cases, the victors were the studio and network defendants. Most of the cases were determined by a grant of summary judgment.
Arden v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 908 F. Supp. 1248 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (summary judgment for defendant) (Groundhog Day).
Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 607 F. 3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (The Last Samurai).
Benjamin v. Walt Disney Company, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91710 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (summary judgment for defendant) (Sweet Home Alabama).
Bethea v. Burnett, 2005 WL 1720631 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (summary judgment for defendant) (The Apprentice).
Blakeman v. Walt Disney Company, 613 F. Supp. 2d 288 (E.D. N.Y. 2009) (summary judgment for defendant) (Swing Vote).
Burns v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24653 (W.D. N.Y. 2001) (summary judgment for defendant) (Backdraft).
Brown v. Perdue, 177 Fed. Appx. 121 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (The Da Vinci Code).
Bunick v. UPN, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35536 (S.D. N.Y. 2008) (summary judgment for defendant) (South Beach).
Cabell v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54667 (S.D. N.Y. 2010) (summary judgment for defendant) (You Don't Mess with the Zohan).
Cox v. Abrams, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6687 (S.D. N.Y. 1997) (summary judgment for defendant) (Regarding Henry).
Flaherty v. Filardi, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22641 (S.D. N.Y. 2009) (summary judgment for defendant) (Bringing Down the House).
Flynn v. Surnow, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26973 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (summary judgment for defendant) (24).
Funky Films v. Time Warner Entertainment, 462 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment for defendant) (Six Feet Under).
Gable v. NBC, 2010 WL 2990977 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (summary judgment for defendant) (My Name Is Earl).
Gilbert v. New Line Productions, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27134 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (summary judgment for defendant) (Monster in Law).
Gregory v. Murphy, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 4893 (9th Cir. 1991) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (Coming to America).
Grosso v. Miramax Film Corporation, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26199 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (summary judgment for defendant) (Rounders).
Historical Truth Productions v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17477 (S.D. N.Y. 1995) (summary judgment for defendant) (Universal Soldier).
Hudson v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11508 (E.D. N.Y. 2004) (summary judgment for defendant) (Life).
Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d (C.D. Cal. 2001) (summary judgment for defendant) (The Peacemaker).
Kodadek v. MTV Networks, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20776 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (summary judgment for defendant) (Beavis & Butthead).
Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures and Television, 16 F. 3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids).
Kretschmer v. Warner Bros., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7805 (S.D. N.Y. 1994) (summary judgment for defendant) (Defending Your Life).
Lane v. Universal City Studios, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23769 (9th Cir. Cal. 1994) (summary judgment for defendants affirmed) (Kojak: Fatal Flaw).
Laskay v. New Line Cinema, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 23461 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (summary judgment for defendant) (Don Juan DeMarco).
Lassiter v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 238 Fed. Appx. 194 (9th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (Drumline).
Mallery v. NBC Universal, Inc., 331 Fed. Appx. 821 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (Heroes).
Merrill v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45401 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (summary judgment for defendant) (Crossroads).
Mestre v. Vivendi Universal U.S. Holding Co., 273 Fed. Appx. 631 (9th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (Billy Elliot).
Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F. 3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (jury verdict in favor of defendant studio), aff'd, Metcalf v. Bochco, 200 Fed. Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2006) (City of Angels).
Milano v. NBC Universal, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (summary judgment for defendant) (The Biggest Loser).
Mowry v. Viacom International, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15189 (S.D. N.Y. 2005) (summary judgment for defendant) (The Truman Show).
Novak v. National Broadcasting Company, 752 F. Supp. 164 (S.D. N.Y. 1990) (summary judgment for defendant) (Saturday Night Live).
Ostrowski v. Creative Artists Agency, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23732 (9th Cir. Cal. 1994) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (To Forget Palermo).
Pelt v. CBS, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20464 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (summary judgment for defendant) (Listen Up! Young Voices for Change).
Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Company, 330 F. 3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment for defendant affirmed) (The Mystery Magician).
Robinson v. Viacom International, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9781 (S.D. N.Y. 1995) (summary judgment for defendant) (Hi Honey).
Rodriguez v. Heidi Klum Company, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80805 (S.D. N.Y. 2008) (summary judgment for defendant) (Project Runway).
Rosenfeld v. Twentieth Century Fox Film, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9305 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (summary judgment for defendant) (Robots).
Shaw v. Lindheim, 809 F. Supp. 1393 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (upon remand, judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendant studio) (The Equalizer).
Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (summary judgment for defendant) (The Matrix).
The Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust v. Steven Spielberg, 2010 WL 3701343 (S.D. N.Y. 2010) (summary judgment for defendants) (Disturbia).
Thomas v. Walt Disney Company, 337 Fed. Appx. 694 (9th Cir. 2009) (defendant's motion to dismiss affirmed) (Finding Nemo).
Walker v. Viacom International, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1475 (9th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment for defendant) (SpongeBob SquarePants).
Weygand v. CBS, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19613 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (summary judgment for defendant) (Charlie).
Williams v. Crichton, 84 F. 3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996) (summary judgment for defendant) (Jurassic Park).
Willis v. HBO, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17887 (S.D. N.Y. 2001) (summary judgment for defendant) (Arli$$).
Zella v. E. W. Scripps Company, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (defendant's motion to dismiss granted) (Rachael Ray).
See Shaw v. Lindheim, 809 F. Supp. 1393 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (upon remand, judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendant studio); Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F. 3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (jury verdict in favor of defendant studio), aff'dMetcalf v.Bochco, 200 Fed. Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2006).
See 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.02 [A] (2007).
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.,562 F. 2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 1977); Berkic v. Crichton, 761F. 2d 1289, 1291 (9th Cir. 1985); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F. 3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994); Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F. 3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2000).
See Krofft, 562 F.2d 1157.
Three Boys Music, 212 F. 3d at 482.
Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F. 2d 675, 677 (1st Cir.1967).
Bevan v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 329 F. Supp. 601, 609 (D.C.N.Y. 1971).
Bevan, 329 F. Supp. at 610.
See Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F. 3d 46 (2d Cir.2003); Meta-Film Assocs., Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 1346 (C.D. Cal. 1984).
Meta-Film, 586 F. Supp. at 1355-1356.
See Mestre v. Vivendi Universal U.S. Holding Co., 2005 WL1959295 (D. Or. 2005), aff'd , 273 Fed. Appx. 631 (9th Cir. 2008); Merrill v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 2005 WL 3955653(C.D. Cal. 2005).
Meta-Film, 586 F. Supp. at 1358.
Meta-Film, 586 F. Supp. at 1359 (analyzing and distinguishing Kamar Int'l, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 657 F. 2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1981)).
See Merrill, 2005 WL 3955653, at *8 (citing only Meta-Film‘s three categories as a requirement for access); Mestre, 2005 WL1959295, at *5 (applying the three categories as limiting but adding the requirement that “at a minimum, the dealings between the plaintiff and the intermediary and between the intermediary and the alleged copier must involve some overlap in subject matter”); Weygand v. CBS Inc., 43 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1120, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (ignoring the three categories altogether, and instead citing general Meta-Film language as a catch-all provision: “courts have found access when . . . an individual in a position to provide suggestions or comments with respect to the defendant's work . . . had the opportunity to view the plaintiff ‘s work”).
The Ninth Circuit has cited Meta-Film but never for this proposition. See Cleary v. News Corp., 30 F. 3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1994); E. W. French & Sons v. General Portland, 885 F. 2d1392, 1401 (9th Cir. 1989); Lloyd v. Schlag, 884 F. 2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1989); Little Oil Co. v. Atlantic Ritchfield Co., 852 F. 2d 441, 445 (9th Cir. 1988).
Nick Gladden, “When California Dreamin' Becomes a Hollywood Nightmare; Copyright Infringement and the Motion Picture Screenplay: Toward an Improved Framework,” 10 J. Intell. Prop. L. 359, 359-384 (2003).
One unreported case may offer some hope for creators. See Miller v. Miramax Film Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25967, at *28 (2001) (holding that evidence of a screenplay submitted to Universal Pictures, along with evidence that agents were common to the writers of both works, was sufficient to preclude summary judgment on access).
See Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., 607 F. 3d 620 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P.,462 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006); Mestre , 2005 WL 1959295, at*5; Zella v. E. W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (C.D. Cal.2007).
4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[D] (2007).
Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F. 3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F. 3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002), aff'd, Metcalf v. Bochco, 200 Fed. Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The particular sequence in which an author strings a significant number of unprotectable elements can itself be a protectable element.”).
See Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F. 2d 1353, 1362 (1990) (quoting Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F. 2d 49,56 (2d Cir. 1936)); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F. 2d 898,901 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Dissection of dissimilarities is inappropriate because it distracts a reasonable observer from a comparison of the total concept and feel of the works.”); 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright§ 13.03[B][a] (2007).
See Weitzenkorn v. Lesser, 256 P. 2d 947 (Cal. 1953) (en banc); Morse v. Fields, 127 F. Supp. 63 (S.D. N.Y. 1954); Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F. 2d 1106 (9th Cir.1970); United States v. Hamilton, 583 F. 2d 448 (9th Cir. 1978); Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 348(1991); Shaw, 809 F. Supp. 1393; Three Boys Music, 212 F. 3d 477,481 (9th Cir. 2000); Fleener v. Trinity Broad. Network, 203F. Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2001); Metcalf, 294 F. 3d 1069; Satava v. Lowry, 323 F. 3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003); Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F. 3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).
Baxter v. MCA, 812 F. 2d 421, 425 (9th Cir. 1987); 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright§ 13.03[B][a] (2007).
1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.11 (2007).
Feist Publ'ns, 499 U.S. 340.
Metcalf, 294 F. 3d at 1074.
Shaw v. Lindheim, 809 F. Supp. 1393 (C.D. Cal. 1992).
Metcalf, 294 F. 3d at 1073.
See Fleener v. Trinity Broad. Network, 203 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1150 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“[C]opyright also protects the expressiveact of arranging completely unprotected works. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F. 3d 1435, 1445 (9th Cir. 1994).”).
Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F. 3d 1170, 1174-1175 (2003) (“In analyzing the scope of copyright protection afforded to The Mystery Magician, we note at the outset that ideas generally do not receive protection, only the expression of such ideas do.”); Metcalf, 294 F. 3d at 1074 (“It is true that this dichotomy between an idea and its expression is less clear when the idea and expression are ‘merged' or practically indistinguishable. However, we have held that ‘similarities derived from the use of common ideas cannot be protected; otherwise, the first to come up with an idea will corner the market.' Apple , 35 F. 3d at 1443.”).
Rice, 330 F. 3d at 1179. See Mestre v. Vivendi Universal U.S. Holding Co., 273 Fed. Appx. 631, 632 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Moreover, even if ‘[t]he particular sequence in which an author strings a significant number of unprotectable elements can itself be a protectable element' in certain contexts, Mestre has not demonstrated sufficient similarities in sequence to qualify for such protection.”) (citations omitted)).
While the plaintiff's case in Metcalf was “strengthened considerably” by the defendant's concession of access, the Metcalf court never actually invoked the inverse ratio rule, nor did it hold that finding substantial similarity through selection and arrangement was contingent on access being admitted.
Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P., 462 F. 3d1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Funky Films, 462 F. 3d at 1078.
4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[B] [a] (2007).
Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F. 2d 1353, 1362 (1990) (quoting Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F. 2d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 1936)).
Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., 607 F. 3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010).
Benay, 607 F. 3d at 622.
Benay, 607 F. 3d at 622-23.
Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, 2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 55719 (9th Cir. June 9, 2009) (“Defendants copied plaintiffs' work right down to the historical inaccuracy of cannons being new when in fact cannons date back to the fourteenth century.”).
Benay, 607 F. 3d at 629.
Benay, 607 F. 3d at 625 (“We agree with the district court that‘[w]hile on cursory review, these similarities may appear substantial, a closer examination of the protectable elements including plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events, exposes many more differences than similarities between Plaintiffs' Screenplay and Defendants' film.”‘).
Benay, 607 F. 3d at 629, 633.
See Rokos v. Peck, 182 Cal. App. 3d 604, 617-18 (1986) (holding that an implied-in-fact contract between the plaintiff and the writer was effective only between them).
While copyright law allows for recovery of actual damages and profits resulting from the infringement, a breach of contract allows recovery of damages only for the amount the plaintiff would have received under the contract. See17 U.S.C.A. § 504; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 345; Benay , 607 F. 3d 620.
In Montz v. Pilgrim Films & TV, Inc ., decided less than a week before Benay, the court affirmed the defendants' motion to dismisson the grounds that the plaintiff ‘s implied-in-fact contract claim was “merely derivative” of the plaintiff's rights under 17U.S.C. § 106 and was thus preempted by federal copyright law. Montz v. Pilgrim Films & TV, Inc., 606 F. 3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2010). Montz thus stands as another major blow for creators, who saw a chance to protect their works through implied contract claims based on earlier Ninth Circuit cases. See Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 28043 (holding that the implied promise to pay constituted an extra element for preemption purposes that transformed the action from one arising under the ambit of federal copyright law to one sounding in contract).
See Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P., 462 F. 3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006); Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F. 2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1985); Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F. 2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984); Shaw v Lindheim, 809 F. Supp. 1393, 1355 (C.D. Cal. 1992).
In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F. 2d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Bieghler v. Kleppe, 633 F. 2d 531, 534 (9th Cir. 1980) (“As a general rule, summary judgment is inappropriate where an expert's testimony supports the nonmoving party's case.”).
Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. 235 F. 3d 1184, 1192 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Weighing the credibility of conflicting expert witness testimony is the province of the jury.”).
See Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F. 3d 1170 (2003) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in disregarding the testimony of plaintiff ‘s expert); Bethea v. Burnett, 2005 WL1720631, at *12 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (ignoring plaintiff ‘s expert's testimony, finding it unhelpful to the court's own analytic dissection); Shaw v. Lindheim, 809 F. Supp. 1393 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (disregarding plaintiff ‘s expert's testimony in overturning jury verdict in favor of plaintiff); Funky Films, 462 F. 3d at 1076 (“[T]he district court conducted an independent analysis of[the works].”); Gable v. NBC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77772, at *59 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“Expert testimony is far less critical in a case like this than it is in a case where specialized knowledge is required to dissect the objective components of the copyrighted work.”).
Fleener v. Trinity Broad. Network, 203 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (denying defendants' requests for reconsideration and summary adjudication based on substantial similarities between the two works).
But see Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F. 3d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 2004)(The district court's dismissal of expert testimony and use of its own substantial similarity analysis to discount similarities between the two works as scenes a faire was erroneous.) (quoting Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F. 2d 1465,1472 (9th Cir. 1992)).
See Brown Bag Software , 960 F. 2d at 1473-1474 (relying on expert testimony in order to identify the objective points of comparison among different computer software programs); Swirsky, 376 F. 3d at 847-848 (relying on expert testimony comparing the objective elements—pitch, melodies, baselines, tempo, chords, structure, and harmonic rhythm—of musical works).
In re Apple Sec. Litig., 886 F. 2d 1109, 1442 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Brown Bag Software , 960 F. 2d at 1475; Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F. 2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1990)) (“[T]he extrinsic test now objectively considers whether there are substantial similarities in both ideas and expression, whereas the intrinsic test continues to measure expression subjectively.”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 504
 § 345
 v. 
 § 106
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.