Opinion ID: 787823
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comparing the Works

Text: 32 After filtering out the unprotectible elements such as ideas and scenes a faire, the final step is to determine whether the allegedly infringing work is substantially similar by comparing the two works. Wickham, 739 F.2d at 1097. Substantial similarity exists where the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectible expression by taking material of substance and value. Country Kids `N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1288 (10th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Murray Hill we wrote: 33 A story has a linear dimension: it begins, continues, and ends. If a defendant copies substantial portions of a plaintiff's sequence of events, he does not escape infringement by adding original episodes somewhere along the line. The misappropriation of even a small portion of a copyrighted work may constitute an infringement under certain circumstances. Even if a copied portion be relatively small in proportion to the entire work, if qualitatively important, the finder of fact may properly find substantial similarity. No plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate. 34 361 F.3d at 320 (citations omitted). In a case such as this, it is appropriate to examine the theme, characters, plot, sequence, pace, and setting for similarities. Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 588 (2d Cir.1996). However, `random similarities scattered throughout the works' may be discounted. Murray Hill Publ'ns, Inc., 361 F.3d at 320 (quoting Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir.1984)). In the end, the question is whether, based upon his net impression of the works' expressive elements, the ordinary lay observer would find them substantially similar to one another. See, e.g., Ellis, 177 F.3d at 506 n. 2. 35 Having reviewed The Keeper poem and screenplay and Little Nicky, we are unable to find any similarity between the works other than at perhaps the most superficial level. Casting aside the many stock themes, scenes a faire, and raw ideas cited by Stromback, we are left with two works that are completely dissimilar in both their overall look and feel and in their constituent expressive elements. 36 The respective themes, plots, moods, and settings of the works are dissimilar. The Keeper is a dark, disturbing, and humorless story about real people. Its theme is difficult to discern, but it appears to be that power and success in life can be attained through rhyming. The story takes place in California, and much of it occurs in the basement of the national paper where Ted works. While at the national paper Ted is attracted to a woman, Sue, who spurns him because he is weird. Ted dislikes the corrupt Governor and at some point figures out that the Governor was connected with a cult of devil worshipers and had something to do with a murder. In an effort to bring down the Governor, Ted sends a series of rhyming clues to the national paper that ultimately reveal the Governor's connection to the murder. 6 Ted refers to the Governor as evil and the antichrist several times throughout the story, but this is only his use of a metaphor, as there is never any suggestion that Governor John actually is the devil. The Governor eventually figures out that Ted is the rhyming dude and sends henchmen to kill Ted. Ted betrays his friend, Scott, by leading a henchman to believe that Scott is Ted. After the henchman shoots Scott, Ted reveals to Scott that he used Scott as his ladder. In the end, Ted becomes Governor and uses his power to exact revenge on Sue by raping her. 37 In contrast, Little Nicky is a comedy about the devil and his three sons. The predominant theme in Little Nicky is that good should and will prevail over evil. The story takes place in Hell, New York City, and Heaven. Little Nicky, the youngest of the three sons, is sent to Earth to bring back his two brothers, Casius and Adrian, who have escaped from Hell as part of their plan to assume control. Nicky must bring his brothers back to Hell in order to restore the balance of good and evil and to save his father, Satan. On Earth, Nicky meets and falls in love with Valerie. After dying and returning to Hell several times, Nicky ends up in Heaven and discovers that his mother is an angel. Just as Adrian is about to prevail and claim all of the souls of New York City, Nicky returns to Earth and, using the magic sphere his mother gave him, bottles Adrian in the magic flask. After Nicky returns his brothers to Hell, Satan sends Nicky back to Earth, and Nicky and Valerie have a son and live happily ever after. 38 The main characters, Ted and Nicky, are markedly different. Ted is portrayed as a slick and scheming character whose most prominent trait is that he speaks in rhymes, often as a means to deceive and lure women. For example, in one scene, Ted tells a waitress that he would like her ass, but when she responds in apparent disgust he says I would like your bass, bass ale. Ted reveals his evil side at the end of the story by betraying his friend and raping the woman who rejected him. In contrast, as a son of the devil, Nicky is unexpectedly portrayed as sweet, good-hearted, and naive. Nicky succeeds in the end by using his inner good and ultimately saves the world by restoring the balance of good and evil. 39 The list of similarities cited by Stromback is extensive, but nonetheless insufficient to render the two works substantially similar. Some of the alleged similarities do not exist, others are overstated, and, to the extent there are similarities, they are simply too general or tenuous to meet the legal standard for similarity. By way of example, Stromback says that Ted is shown as a riddler and a punner and claims that the same wordplay occurs in Nicky's character development, but this is simply not true. Unlike Ted, Nicky does not speak in rhymes or use wordplay. Likewise, Stromback claims that Ted and Nicky both assume the same burden — saving the world and souls. But, a fair read of The Keeper shows that Ted's true concern is his own self-interest. While there are some similarities — for example, references to Hell and the devil and interracial families — Stromback's claim fails because the similar details are trivial or scattered details. See Williams, 84 F.3d at 590-91. Where as here, the slight similarities are not thematically related, the whole is no greater than the sum of the parts. Murray Hill Publ'ns, Inc., 361 F.3d at 325. Thus, the district court was correct in concluding that a reasonable person could not conclude that NLC copied protected expression from The Keeper. 40 In spite of the absence of similar protectible elements in both works, Stromback contends that NLC's admission of access precludes a finding of no substantial similarity as a matter of law. This argument is easily rejected, because without substantial similarity, there can be no inference of copying, and thus, no infringement. In Wickham v. Knoxville International Energy Exposition, Inc., 739 F.2d 1094 (6th Cir.1984), we held that because there was no substantial similarity, access was irrelevant: No amount of proof of access will suffice to show copying if there are no similarities. Id. at 1097; accord Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir.1946) (Of course, if there are no similarities, no amount of evidence of access will suffice to prove copying.). 41 Finally, Stromback contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to NLC because it should have allowed discovery on the underlying and prior versions of the screenplay in order to permit Stromback to fully develop his claim. Stromback points out that he alleged not only that the movie Little Nicky infringed his copyright in The Keeper, but also that NLC substantially copied and prepared versions of The Keeper. Stromback contends that discovery was necessary to this portion of his claim and was relevant to address the question of how the movie Little Nicky was prepared in light of NLC's election not to rely upon independent creation as a defense. The district court rejected Stromback's request because only the movie was published to the public and because Stromback alleged in his amended complaint only that the movie was an infringing work. We think that this was the correct result. In deciding infringement claims, courts have held that only the version of the alleged infringing work presented to the public should be considered. See Davis v. United Artists, Inc., 547 F.Supp. 722, 724 n. 9 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (Since the ultimate test of infringement must be the film as produced and broadcast, we do not consider the preliminary scripts.). Courts have routinely rejected requests to consider earlier drafts of the screenplay. Consideration of earlier versions of the screenplay is too unreliable in determining substantial similarity. Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 615 F.Supp. 430, 435 (S.D.N.Y.1985); see also Madrid v. Chronicle Books, 209 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1234 (D.Wyo.2002) (quoting Walker and refusing to grant the plaintiff's request for discovery on the development of the defendant's movie because such discovery would be pointless). As the Madrid court noted, the intermediate copying concept has only been recognized in a very limited application to cases involving computer programs — because of the complex nature of the subject. Id. at 1236. Because this is not such a case, there is no need to apply the concept. Furthermore, in spite of Stromback's assertion to the contrary, the district court's assessment of the amended complaint was accurate because Stromback only alleged that the movie Little Nicky infringed The Keeper poem and screenplay.