Opinion ID: 2977607
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: A. Standard of review; legal standard for copyright infringement We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir. 2006). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). We view factual evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. See Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is not appropriate if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. In copyright infringement cases, “summary judgment, particularly in favor of a defendant, is a practice to be used sparingly” because substantial similarity is often an extremely close question of fact, but “a court may compare the two works and render a judgment for the defendant on the ground that as a matter of law a trier of fact would not be permitted to find substantial similarity.” Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 853 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Wickham v. Knoxville Int’l Energy Expo., Inc., 739 F.2d 1094, 1097 (6th Cir. 1984)). “To 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, 328 F.3d at 853; see also Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) (stating that a copyright infringement claim requires proof of valid copyright and proof of copying of original elements of allegedly infringed work). Where there is no direct evidence of copying, a plaintiff may “establish an inference of copying by showing (1) access to the allegedly-infringed work by the defendant(s) and (2) a substantial similarity between the two works at issue.” Ellis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Fogerty v. MGM Group Holdings Corp., Inc., 379 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Nos. 07-1051/1566 Jones et al. v. Blige et al. Page 7 Cir. 2004). A lesser showing of access (or even no showing at all) will suffice where the works are “striking[ly]” similar, strongly suggesting that copying occurred. See Murray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 317 (6th Cir. 2004). B. Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to “access” “Access is essentially hearing or having a reasonable opportunity to hear the plaintiff[’s] work and thus having the opportunity to copy.” Ellis, 177 F.3d at 506 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “‘Access is proven when the plaintiff shows that the defendant had an opportunity to [listen to] or copy plaintiff’s work.’” Murray Hill Publ’ns, 361 F.3d at 316 (quoting Glanzmann v. King, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1594, 1595 (E.D. Mich. 1988)). “‘Although evidence that a third party with whom both the plaintiff and defendant were concurrently dealing had possession of plaintiff’s work is sufficient to establish access by the defendant, access may not be inferred through mere speculation or conjecture.’” Id. (quoting Ellis, 177 F.3d at 506 (additional internal quotation marks omitted)). “‘A mere assertion of access, unsupported by probative evidence is inadequate.’” Id. (quoting Glanzmann, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15705, at ). “‘Nor is a ‘bare possibility’ of access sufficient . . .[; a] plaintiff must establish that defendant(s) had a ‘reasonable possibility’ to view plaintiff’s work.’” Id. (quoting Glanzmann, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1595). Plaintiffs base their theory of access on the following facts: White delivered a demo CD that included “Party Ain’t Crunk” to McKaie at Universal with McKaie’s permission; someone in McKaie’s office opened the package containing the CD; Frederick told White that the CD (or the package containing it) was on McKaie’s desk and that he would listen to it; and Blige and Young have business relationships with Universal. In response, Defendants offered uncontroverted evidence that Blige, Young, and the other artists who created “Family Affair” did not have access to “Party Ain’t Crunk.” Frederick stated that she never listened to the CD or passed it on to any person, including McKaie, but simply returned it to White. McKaie stated that he never observed any materials submitted by White, did not listen to the demo CD, and did not Nos. 07-1051/1566 Jones et al. v. Blige et al. Page 8 pass the demo CD on to any person involved with Blige’s album. Furthermore, McKaie stated that he had not had any contact with any of the artists who created “Family Affair” prior to the release of No More Drama. Blige did not know the names “Andy McKaie” or “JoAnn Frederick.” Her only connection to McKaie is that she has a recording contract with Universal. Young did not know McKaie or Frederick, and Young’s only connection with McKaie is that Young’s record label, “Aftermath,” has a distribution joint venture with a Universal entity called “Interscope.” Plaintiffs’ assertions of a connection between McKaie and Defendants are entirely unsupported by the record. Plaintiffs claim that McKaie is a “liason between the departments that release old and new material and he has to coordinate with the new release division on the creative end,” but they cite no support for this in the record (Pls. Br. 25), nor does the record contain such support. Also without citation or support, Plaintiffs claim that McKaie “was in a position to provide suggestions or comments to Blige and Young.” (Id.) Plaintiffs point out that one of the songs on the No More Drama album contains a sample of a television theme-song, and they claim that the sample would have been cleared through McKaie’s department and that he therefore “knew about the ‘No More Drama’ project and was working on it.” (Pls. Br. 25.) This apparently is mere speculation, as the evidence Plaintiffs cite does not support their claim that the sample originated from McKaie’s department or, if it had, that he would have known about it. (JA 370.) Plaintiffs never deposed McKaie or Frederick and have adduced no evidence at all about McKaie’s job description or responsibilities. They have presented no evidence of the nature of Blige’s and Young’s relationships with Universal that would permit a jury to conclude that they might have received a copy of Plaintiffs’ song from McKaie or from anyone else. At the summary judgment phase, Plaintiffs must come forward with some evidence that would allow a jury to conclude that there was a reasonable possibility that the creators of “Family Affair” had access to Plaintiffs’ song. Plaintiffs have not done so. The legal authority on which Plaintiffs rely fails to support their claim of access. Plaintiffs cite Kamar International, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 657 F.2d 1059, 1062 (9th Nos. 07-1051/1566 Jones et al. v. Blige et al. Page 9 Cir. 1981), for the proposition that access may be established where the alleged infringer and infringee “were dealing” with a third-party intermediary who had possession of the work that was allegedly copied. In Kamar, the defendant, a seller of stuffed animals, was found to have access to the “texture and design” of copyrighted stuffed animals sold by plaintiff, a competitor, where the defendant purchased its stuffed animals from the same foreign manufacturing companies that manufactured the plaintiff’s stuffed animals. Id. at 1060, 1062. While it is true that both Young and Blige dealt with Universal in certain respects, there is no evidence that either they or anyone else involved in the creation of “Family Affair” had any contact with McKaie or his division, even indirectly. In the other cases Plaintiffs cite, the alleged infringers had far more plausible opportunities to view or listen to the allegedly copied material. See Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 241 F.3d 350, 354 (4th Cir. 2000) (finding sufficient evidence of access where intermediary met with creators of allegedly infringing logo to discuss the logo’s design); Moore v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 939, 943 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding sufficient evidence of access where intermediary record executive knew the alleged infringers well and had opportunity to provide input to them directly). Plaintiffs argue that they have established access by virtue of the “corporate receipt” doctrine, under which possession of a work by one employee of a corporation implies possession by another corporate employee who allegedly infringed the work. See 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.02[A] (2008). This Court has not taken a published stance on the corporate receipt doctrine, but in one unpublished opinion, we affirmed a district court’s refusal to infer access from bare corporate receipt. See Glanzmann v. King, 887 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (unpublished). The district court in Glanzmann found that application of the corporate receipt doctrine would have resulted in the “implausible . . . quantum leap” that author Stephen King had access to a script submitted to a secretary at Columbia Pictures, even though the evidence suggested no reasonable possibility that the script had made its way to King. See Glanzmann, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15705, at -6. Nos. 07-1051/1566 Jones et al. v. Blige et al. Page 10 Other circuits have rejected “bare corporate receipt” as sufficient proof of access, requiring plaintiffs to introduce some evidence that it was “reasonably possible that the paths of the infringer and the infringed work crossed.” Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579, 583 (4th Cir. 1996) (requiring a “close relationship” for the corporate receipt doctrine to apply); see also Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[B]are corporate receipt . . . , without any allegation of a nexus between the recipients and the alleged infringers, is insufficient to raise a triable issue of access.”); Moore, 972 F.2d at 942 (a “bare possibility” of access is not enough; rather, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had a “reasonable possibility” of viewing his work). While we are cautious of making it overly difficult for plaintiffs to establish access where the chain of possession of a work within a corporation is difficult to prove, Plaintiffs in this case have set forth no evidence tending to show a reasonable possibility that their work made its way from McKaie to the creators of “Family Affair.” There is no evidence that Blige, Young, or the other artists knew McKaie or worked with him, even indirectly. There is no evidence of the nature of Blige’s and Young’s relationships with Universal employees that would support an inference that McKaie transferred Plaintiffs’ song to Blige or Young through other intermediaries at Universal. As far as the record shows, Blige and Young were affiliated with McKaie only through an attenuated corporate connection, and to find a reasonable possibility of access, a jury would be required to make an implausible leap, unsupported by evidence other than bare corporate receipt. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s determination that Plaintiffs did not establish that Defendants had access to “Party Ain’t Crunk.” The failure to offer proof of access cannot be excused in this case, because the two songs at issue are not so strikingly similar as to “preclude[] the possibility of independent creation.” See Murray Hill, 361 F.3d at 317 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The district court found that the lyrics of the two songs are so dissimilar that no jury could reasonably conclude that they had been copied. Aside from the lyrics, the melodies and beats of the two songs do bear a passing resemblance to each other, but the similarity is not so striking as to allow an inference that copying necessarily occurred. Nos. 07-1051/1566 Jones et al. v. Blige et al. Page 11 C. Independent creation Even if Plaintiffs had established an inference of copying, Defendants have provided unrefuted evidence that they created “Family Affair” independently before Plaintiffs created “Party Ain’t Crunk.” “[A]n inference of copying is rebuttable by evidence of independent creation of the allegedly infringing work.” Ellis, 177 F.3d at 507; see also Fogerty, 379 F.3d at 352-53. Defendants have demonstrated through testimony and studio records that Young created the core of the music of “Family Affair” on September 13, 2000, and that he had brought the non-lyrical portion of the song nearly to its final state by January 10, 2001. Longmire did not create the beat track for “Party Ain’t Crunk” until late December of 2000, and he did not create the melody for “Party Ain’t Crunk” until March of 2001. This proof of prior, independent creation rebuts any alleged inference of copying of the non-lyrical portion of “Party Ain’t Crunk.” See Fogerty, 379 F.3d at 352. Blige stated that she recorded the lyrics of “Family Affair” in late May or early June of 2001, which is after the alleged access occurred. Other than the bridge, which she wrote herself, Blige was unable to add any information about the creation of the lyrics, except to state that her brother and his team of writers had been responsible for them and that, to her knowledge, they were original. Unlike the specific testimony from Young about the creation of the music for “Family Affair,” the record does not contain testimony from Blige’s brother or his team members detailing the creation of the lyrics. Therefore, Defendants have proved independent creation only of the music, and not the lyrics, of “Family Affair.” However, because Plaintiffs could not establish access, and because the lyrics of the two songs are not so “striking[ly]” similar as to give rise to an inference of copying, see Murray Hill, 361 F.3d at 317, the grant of summary judgment as to the lyrics was also proper. D. Attorneys’ fees Defendants Blige and Universal appeal the denial of their motion for attorneys’ fees. Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides: Nos. 07-1051/1566 Jones et al. v. Blige et al. Page 12 In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. 17 U.S.C. § 505. We review the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792, 807 (6th Cir. 2005). A district court abuses its discretion when it makes clearly erroneous factual findings, improperly applies the law, or uses an erroneous legal standard. Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 349 (6th Cir. 2000). “The discretion to grant attorney fees in copyright infringement cases is to be exercised in an evenhanded manner with respect to prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants, and in a manner consistent with the primary purposes of the Copyright Act.” Bridgeport Music v. Diamond Time, 371 F.3d 883, 893 (6th Cir. 2004). The nonexclusive factors considered in exercising this discretion are: “frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (factual and legal), and the need to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Dimension Films, 410 F.3d at 807 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs produced evidence of the following: a validly copyrighted song, permission from an executive at Universal to submit a demo CD that included that song, assurance from a secretary that the executive would listen to the demo CD, and the return of the demo CD in a manner showing that someone had opened the package in which it was submitted. Defendants’ evidence countering Plaintiffs’ theory of access and showing independent creation was brought forth during discovery and was not available to Plaintiffs when they filed their suit. Furthermore, Plaintiffs offered expert testimony that the songs were similar, and although the testimony was excluded, its existence weighed against deeming the suit frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ case was not frivolous or “objectively unreasonable.” Nor, as the case progressed, did Plaintiffs conduct themselves in a manner that would justify us in finding that the district court’s decision not to award fees was an abuse of discretion. Cf. Diamond Time, 371 F.3d at 896 (upholding award based on district court’s conclusion that “litigation was undertaken and prosecuted in a fashion that would multiply the fees and encourage Nos. 07-1051/1566 Jones et al. v. Blige et al. Page 13 nuisance settlement”). On the issue of deterrence, Defendants provide no reason to question the conclusions of both the district and magistrate judges that awarding attorneys’ fees in this case could deter copyright holders from bringing valid enforcement actions. Therefore, we conclude that the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees was not an abuse of discretion.