Opinion ID: 3064175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228, 1236 (11th Cir. 2005). We accept all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1122 (11th Cir. 2002). If a reasonable jury could conclude that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the verdict. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). “Because the jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence, the evidence may be sufficient even if it is not entirely inconsistent with conclusions other than guilt.” United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006). The evidence is sufficient unless no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Lyons, 53 F.3d 1198, 1202 (11th Cir. 1995). To establish criminal infringement of a copyright, the government must show (1) infringement of a copyright; (2) done willfully; (3) for the purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. 17 U.S.C. § 506(a); United States v. Goss, 803 F.2d 638, 642 (11th Cir. 1986). The Kims contend that the 3 government’s evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the graphic produced by Star Graphics was similar enough to the copyrighted image of Fat Albert to support infringement; and (2) the Kims acted with the requisite willfulness. See 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2) (evidence of reproduction or distribution of copyrighted work, without more is insufficient to establish willfulness). The Kims focus on the dissimilarities of the images Star Graphics produced--labeled “Big Face” internally within Star Graphics--with the copyrighted Fat Albert image. The Kims note that “Big Face,” unlike Fat Albert, wears a bandanna or dew rag on his head, wears jewelry, and portrays a persona very different than the clean-cut, friendly Fat Albert persona. The Kims make much of testimony that the copyright owner of Fat Albert would never have approved of “Big Face” as a rendition of Fat Albert. They argue that, to the extent the images were similar, the similarity could not support a copyright infringement conviction because the similarity did not relate to the portion of the Fat Albert copyrighted work that was of value to the copyright holder. A copyrighted work may be infringed although no exact reproduction is shown. See United States v. O’Reilly, 794 F.2d 613, 615 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Infringement may be found when the reproduction contains similarities 4 to the copyrighted work that relate to a substantial portion of the copyrighted work of value to the copyright owner. Id. An infringer cannot “excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate;” “it is enough that substantial parts were lifted.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether infringement has occurred is a question of fact for a jury to decide. See Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1213 (11th Cir. 2000). The jury heard witness testimony about the similarities between the copyrighted Fat Albert images and the “Big Face” images and the jury itself observed images of the copyrighted Fat Albert and images of the Kims’ “Big Face.” That the images differed some -- or even that the copyright holder would not approve the “Big Face” image -- is no legal bar to a finding of infringement. The cited differences and disapproval were matters for the jury to consider in making the factual determination of infringement; the jury was free to find infringement based on its assessment of the similarity of the images and on the other evidence. The Kims argue that the evidence was insufficient to show the infringement was willful. Steve was Vice President and Art Director of Star Graphics and was in charge of the facility where the counterfeit images were found. Also, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) informed the jury of Steve’s 1999 indictment and 5 conviction on criminal trademark counterfeiting charges. From this evidence, the jury reasonably could infer Steve’s awareness of the illegality of his acts and that he purposely infringed on the Fat Albert copyright with the intent to disobey the law. Muza was President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of Star Graphics and was in charge of distributing the counterfeit goods. Evidence was introduced that Muza made statements to buyers from which his awareness of the unlawfulness of the “Big Face” images and his willful intent reasonably could be inferred. Based on the evidentiary record, we cannot say that no reasonable jury could find Steve Kim and Muza Kim guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of copyright infringement.2