Opinion ID: 756424
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Tests

Text: 36 As defendants note, substantial similarity usually arises out of a claim of infringement as between comparable works .... [where] because of the equivalent nature of the competing works, the question of similarity can be tested conventionally by comparing comparable elements of the two works. Because in the instant case the original and secondary works are of different genres and to a lesser extent because they are in different media, tests for substantial similarity other than the quantitative/qualitative approach are not particularly helpful to our analysis. 37 Under the ordinary observer test, for example, [t]wo works are substantially similar where 'the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the] aesthetic appeal [of the two works] as the same.'  Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1072 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir.1960) (L.Hand, J.) (comparing dress designs)) (alterations in original). Undoubtedly, Judge Hand did not have in mind a comparison of aesthetic appeal as between a television series and a trivia quiz and, in the usual case, we might question whether any ordinary observer would regard [the] aesthetic appeal in a situation-comedy television program as being identical to that of any book, let alone a trivia quiz book, about that program. Cf. Laureyssens, 964 F.2d at 132, 141 (applying ordinary observer test to compare two sets of foam rubber puzzles). We note here, however, that plaintiff has a plausible claim that there is a common aesthetic appeal between the two works based on The SAT 's plain copying of Seinfeld and Golub's statement on the back cover that the book was designed to complement the aesthetic appeal of the television series. See The SAT (So twist open a Snapple, double-dip a chip, and open this book to satisfy your between episode cravings.). 38 Under the total concept and feel test, urged by defendants, we analyze the similarities in such aspects as the total concept and feel, theme, characters, plot, sequence, pace, and setting of the original and the allegedly infringing works. Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 588 (2d Cir.1996) (comparing children's books with novel and movie); Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 91 (2d Cir.1976) (comparing children's book with story in Sesame Street Magazine ). Defendants contend that The SAT and the Seinfeld programs are incomparable in conventional terms such as plot, sequence, themes, pace, and setting. For example, The SAT has no plot; [t]he notion of pace ... cannot be said even to exist in the book; The SAT 's sequence has no relationship to the sequences of any of the Seinfeld episodes, since it is a totally random and scattered collection of questions relating to events that occurred in the shows; and The SAT 's only theme is how much a Seinfeld fan can remember of 84 different programs. The total concept and feel test, however, is simply not helpful in analyzing works that, because of their different genres and media, must necessarily have a different concept and feel. Indeed, many derivative works of different genres, in which copyright owners have exclusive rights, see 17 U.S.C. § 106, may have a different total concept and feel from the original work. 39 Finally, we do not apply the fragmented literal similarity test, 6 which focuses upon copying of direct quotations or close paraphrasing, or the comprehensive nonliteral similarity test, which examines whether the fundamental essence or structure of one work is duplicated in another. 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[A], at 13-29, § 13.03[A], at 13-45 (1997) (hereafter Nimmer); Twin Peaks, 996 F.2d at 1372-73(applying Nimmer test); Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 240, 242 (2d Cir.1983) (applying Nimmer test to compare Superman and The Greatest American Hero ). In the instant case, because the direct quotations or close paraphrases that The SAT copied from the Seinfeld series are few and almost irrelevant to The SAT, undue focus upon these isolated quotations could improperly distract us from inquiring as to whether substantial similarity exists between Seinfeld and The SAT. 40 Castle Rock's comprehensive nonliteral similarity argument--that the defendants literally constructed the SAT with 643 fragments of Seinfeld 's creative whole--is also unhelpful to our analysis and unnecessary to our determination that The SAT is substantially similar to Seinfeld. Without having viewed Seinfeld itself, no SAT reader could plausibly construct in his or her mind the plot of any Seinfeld episode, nor any of Seinfeld 's settings (the Seinfeld and Kramer apartments, the foursome's restaurant hangout, George Steinbrenner's office, etc.), nor even the four principal Seinfeld characters. Nor does The SAT [duplicate] the fundamental essence or structure of Seinfeld. 4 Nimmer § 13.03[A], at 13-29; cf. Twin Peaks, 996 F.2d 1372-73 (finding substantial similarity through comprehensive nonliteral similarity where chapter of infringing book is essentially a detailed recounting of the first eight episodes of the [television] series and [e]very intricate plot twist and element of character development appear in the Book in the same sequence as in the teleplays). However, [t]he standard for determining copyright infringement is not whether the original could be recreated from the allegedly infringing copy, but whether the latter is 'substantially similar' to the former, Horgan, 789 F.2d at 162, and in copying a sufficient amount of protected expression from the Seinfeld television series, The SAT easily passes the threshold of substantial similarity between the contents of the secondary work and the protected expression in the original.