Opinion ID: 437335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Production of a Derivative Work

Text: 32 Litchfield argues that defendants violated section 106(2) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(2) (1982), by preparing a derivative work based on Lokey. The district court did not address this issue. 33 Section 106(2) grants the exclusive rights to prepare a derivative work to the holder of the copyright. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(2). To constitute a violation of section 106(2) the infringing work must incorporate in some form a portion of the copyrighted work. Notes of the Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 94-1476, reprinted in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(2) (1982). 34 Litchfield argues that section 106(2) was intended to expand the definition of derivative works to include any work based on a copyrighted work. She argues that the similarities between her play and the movie constitute the required incorporation and show that E.T. was based on Lokey for purposes of the statute. Litchfield apparently believes that she does not have to show substantial similarity to show that E.T. is a derivative work. 35 Litchfield cites no authority to support this novel proposition. The little available authority suggests that a work is not derivative unless it has been substantially copied from the prior work. See Harry Fox Agency, Inc. v. Mills Music, Inc., 543 F.Supp. 844, 849 (S.D.N.Y.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 720 F.2d 733 (2d Cir.1983), cert. granted sub nom. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1676, 80 L.Ed.2d 151 (1984); Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S.Ct. 492, 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976); 1 M. Nimmer, The Law of Copyright, Sec. 3.01 at 3-3 (1983 ed.). 36 We have stated that [a] work will be considered a derivative work only if it would be considered an infringing work if the material which it has derived from a prior work had been taken without the consent of a copyright proprietor of such prior work. United States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961, 965 n. 2 (9th Cir.1976) (emphasis added). 37 To prove infringement, one must show substantial similarity. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d at 143, Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1172. Litchfield's arguments that section 106(2) radically altered the protection afforded by the law of copyright are frivolous.