Opinion ID: 220242
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Scope of the Material Dedicated to the Public

Text: AVELA contends that the injection of the publicity materials into the public domain simultaneously injected the film characters themselves into the public domain. To the extent that copyright-eligible aspects of a character are injected into the public domain, the character protection under the corresponding film copyrights must be limited accordingly. As an initial matter, we reject AVELA's contention that the publicity materials placed the entirety of the film characters at issue into the public domain. The isolated still images included in the publicity materials cannot anticipate the full range of distinctive speech, movement, demeanor, and other personality traits that combine to establish a copyrightable character. See, e.g., Gaiman, 360 F.3d at 660 (holding that the character's age, obviously phony title (`Count'), what he knows and says, [and] his name combine with his visual appearance to create a distinctive character); Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 900 F.Supp. at 1296 (citing various character traits that are specific to Bondi.e. his cold-bloodedness; his overt sexuality; his love of martinis `shaken, not stirred;' his marksmanship; his `license to kill' and use of guns; his physical strength; [and] his sophistication, rather than his visual appearance alone, as establishing the copyrightability of the character); cf. Walker v. Viacom Int'l, Inc., 2008 WL 2050964, at -6 (N.D.Cal. May 13, 2008) (holding that a copyrighted cartoon consisting of four small and largely uninformative black and white panels that conveyed little to no information about [the character's] personality or character traits was insufficient to establish copyright protection of the character). Nevertheless, the publicity materials could have placed some aspects of each character's visual appearance into the public domain. A situation somewhat similar to the one we face was presented in Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 1098 (C.D.Cal.2008). The defendants owned the copyright in two promotional announcements for Superman comics, published before the first Superman comic book was issued. The black-and-white promotional announcements each included an image of the protagonist wearing some type of costume and holding aloft a car. Id. at 1126. The defendants argued that their copyright in the promotional announcements gave them rights over the entirety of the Superman character as later developed (and copyrighted separately) in the comic book. The court disagreed, stating: [N]othing concerning the Superman storyline (that is, the literary elements contained in Action Comics, Vol. 1) is on display in the ads; thus, Superman's name, his alter ego, his compatriots, his origins, his mission to serve as a champion of the oppressed, or his heroic abilities in general, do not remain within defendants sole possession to exploit. Instead the only copyrightable elements left [to defendants] arise from the pictorial illustration in the announcements, which is fairly limited. Id. (emphasis added). As a result, the scope of the promotional announcements encompassed only the limited character of a person with extraordinary strength who wears a black and white leotard and cape. Id. Despite the earlier publication of the promotional announcements, the copyright in the later comic book nevertheless encompassed the fully developed character with Superman's distinctive blue leotard (complete with its inverted triangular crest across the chest with a red `S' on a yellow background), a red cape and boots, and his superhuman ability to leap tall buildings, repel bullets, and run faster than a locomotive, none of which is apparent from the announcement. Id. Importantly, the scope of the character copyrighted through the promotional announcements was viewed on the strict basis of what was clearly visible in the announcements, not through the additional perspective of the later, more developed work. In the instant case, the only copyrightable elements in the publicity materials (albeit injected into the public domain, rather than registered for copyright) are even more limited than in Siegel. While the promotional announcements in Siegel at least showed proto-Superman holding a car over his head, establishing a distinguishing characteristic of extraordinary strength, the publicity materials here reveal nothing of each film character's signature traits or mannerisms. At most, the publicity materials could have injected some of the purely visual characteristics of each film character into the public domain, akin to the character in a black and white leotard and cape. Id. Because we must rely solely on visual characteristics, the individuals shown in the publicity materials establish characters for copyright purposes only if they display consistent, widely identifiable visual characteristics. See Rice, 330 F.3d at 1175. The Walker case is instructive in this regard. There, the plaintiff asserted his copyright in a comic strip entitled Mr. Bob Spongee, The Unemployed Sponge against the producers of the animated television series SpongeBob SquarePants. 2008 WL 2050964 at . The plaintiff had created sponge dolls based on his comic strip and placed advertisements in a newspaper. Id. Because these materials revealed little to no information about Mr. Bob Spongee's personality or character traits, id. at , the court could look only to his visual appearance for distinctiveness. The court held that in such a situation, a consistent visual appearance throughout the materials was a prerequisite for character protection. See id. at -6. Because of variations in the sponge's clothing, color, eye and nose shape, and hair among the comic strip, dolls, and advertisements, the plaintiff's copyright did not create any character protection. Id. at . [8] Therefore, we must determine if any individual is depicted with consistent, distinctive visual characteristics throughout the various publicity materials. If so, those consistent visual characteristics define the copyrightable elements of that film character, Siegel, 542 F.Supp.2d at 1126, which were injected into the public domain by the publicity materials. If not, then there are no visual aspects of the film character in the public domain, apart from the publicity material images themselves. With respect to the cartoon characters Tom and Jerry, we note that on the spectrum of character copyrightability, the category of cartoon characters often is cited as the paradigm of distinctiveness. See, e.g., Warner Bros., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 240 (2d Cir.1983); 1-2 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.12. The record indicates that the Tom & Jerry publicity materials consist of just one public domain movie poster for each copyrighted short film, and the visual characteristics of Tom and Jerry in the first poster, for Puss Gets the Boot (released in 1940), are quite different from the characters popularly recognized as Tom and Jerry today. In addition, the first poster by itself reveals no distinctive character or visual traits, but only visual characteristics typical to cats and mice. As a result, the first poster is essentially a generic cat-and-mouse cartoon drawing that cannot establish independently copyrightable characters. Cf. Walker, 2008 WL 2050964 at -6 (finding a four-panel cartoon drawing featuring a personified sponge lacked the distinctiveness necessary to establish a copyrightable sponge character). Meanwhile, the copyrighted short film that immediately followed the first poster revealed Tom and Jerry's character traits and signature antagonistic relationship. With the benefit of these strong character traits, the first short film was sufficient to establish the copyrightable elements of the Tom and Jerry characters as depicted therein. See ante at 597-98. In such a situation, each subsequent movie poster could inject into the public domain only the increments of expression, if any, that the movie poster itself added to the already-copyrighted characters from previously released Tom & Jerry films. See Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir.1979) ([A]lthough the derivative work may enter the public domain, the matter contained therein which derives from a work still covered by statutory copyright is not dedicated to the public.); 1-3 Nimmer on Copyright § 3.07. Because they derive[ ] from a work still covered by statutory copyright, the underlying characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain until the copyrights in the Tom & Jerry short films begin to expire. In contrast to Tom & Jerry, the record is clear that a veritable blitz of publicity materials for Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz was distributed prior to the publication of each film. However, with respect to Gone with the Wind, the publicity material images are far from the cartoon-character end of the spectrum of character copyrightability. There is nothing consistent and distinctive about the publicity material images of Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara and Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. They certainly lack any cartoonishly unique physical attributes, and neither one is shown in a consistent, unique outfit and hairstyle. See Walker, 2008 WL 2050964 at ; cf. Siegel, 542 F.Supp.2d at 1126 (finding a black and white leotard and cape sufficiently distinctive to establish an element of character copyrightability). As a result, the district court correctly held that the publicity material images for Gone with the Wind are no more than pictures of the actors in costume. Indeed, if the publicity material images from Gone with the Wind were sufficient to inject all visual depictions of the characters Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler into the public domain, then almost any image of Vivian Leigh or Clark Gable would be sufficient to do so as well. Therefore, the only images in the public domain are the precise images in the publicity materials for Gone with the Wind. The characters in The Wizard of Oz lie closer to the cartoon-character end of the spectrum. There are many stylized aspects to the visual appearances of Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion, and they perhaps might be considered as live-action representations of cartoon characters. Dorothy, while not so thoroughly stylized, wears a somewhat distinctive costume and hairstyle. However, a close examination of the record reveals that these potentially distinctive visual features do not appear in a consistent fashion throughout the publicity materials. For example, in the publicity materials, Judy Garland as Dorothy sometimes wears a red dress and bow and black slippers, rather than the distinctive blue dress and bow and ruby slippers of the film, and her hairstyle also varies. From image to image, Scarecrow's costume color ranges from yellow to blue to black, Cowardly Lion's from light yellow to very dark brown, and Tin Man's from shiny silver to a dull blue-gray. [9] Moreover, there are publicity material images in which other stylized elements of the characters' costumes and faces are significantly different from the look used in the film. For example, in some images Tin Man's face appears metallic, and in others it appears flesh-colored. If the publicity material images for The Wizard of Oz were held to establish the visual elements of copyrightable characters, their scope would encompass almost any character who wears a scarecrow or lion costume, and a wide range of little girl and silver robotic costumes as well, creating an unacceptable result: If a drunken old bum were a copyrightable character, so would be a drunken suburban housewife, a gesticulating Frenchman, a fire-breathing dragon, a talking cat, a Prussian officer who wears a monocle and clicks his heels, a masked magician, Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1175-76 (9th Cir.2003), and, in Learned Hand's memorable paraphrase of Twelfth Night, a riotous knight who kept wassail to the discomfort of the household, or a vain and foppish steward who became amorous of his mistress. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930). It would be difficult to write successful works of fiction without negotiating for dozens or hundreds of copyright licenses, even though such stereotyped characters are the products not of the creative imagination but of simple observation of the human comedy. Gaiman, 360 F.3d at 660. While the overly broad characters would be in the public domain rather than copyrighted in the instant case, the analysis of the copyrightability of a character must be the same in either case. See Silverman, 870 F.2d at 50. We conclude that the characters' visual appearances in the publicity materials for The Wizard of Oz do not present the requisite consistency to establish any copyrightable elements of the film characters' visual appearances. Therefore, once again, the only images in the public domain are the precise images in the publicity materials for The Wizard of Oz.