Opinion ID: 6321960
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Framework for Copyright Infringement

Text: Because plaintiffs did not present any direct evidence that defendants copied Joyful Noise’s ostinato, they were required to show that (1) defendants had “access” to their work and (2) the ostinatos in Joyful Noise and Dark Horse “are substantially similar.” L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 2012), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 959 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994) (copying may be shown through “circumstantial evidence of access and substantial similarity”). We need not address the access prong because we may resolve this case based on the GRAY V. HUDSON 13 “substantially similar” prong. For that requirement, we have “traditionally determined whether copying sufficient to constitute infringement has taken place under a two-part test having ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ components.” Apple, 35 F.3d at 1442. “Both tests must be satisfied for the works to be deemed substantially similar.” Skidmore as Tr. for Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc). “The extrinsic test considers whether two works share a similarity of ideas and expression as measured by external, objective criteria. The extrinsic test requires . . . breaking the works down into their constituent elements, and comparing those elements for proof of copying as measured by substantial similarity. Because the requirement is one of substantial similarity to protected elements of the copyrighted work, it is essential to distinguish between the protected and unprotected material in a plaintiff’s work.” Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up); accord Skidmore, 952 F.3d at 1064. The intrinsic test focuses on “similarity of expression from the standpoint of the ordinary reasonable observer, with no expert assistance.” Apple, 35 F.3d at 1442. At oral argument and in their briefing, plaintiffs argued that we are required to defer to the jury’s determination that the Joyful Noise and Dark Horse ostinatos are substantially similar. But even when juries serve as the factfinders, judges retain an important gatekeeping role in applying the law. To be sure, the intrinsic test for substantial similarity is “uniquely suited for determination by the trier of fact” because of its focus on the lay listener, and so “this court must be reluctant to reverse” a jury’s finding that two works are intrinsically similar. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1166 (9th 14 GRAY V. HUDSON Cir. 1977), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore, 952 F.3d 1051; 5 accord Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore, 952 F.3d 1051 (quoting same, and adding, “We will not second-guess the jury’s application of the intrinsic test.”). Crucially, however, the extrinsic test is objective and is often resolved as a matter of law. See Benay v. Warner Bros. Ent., 607 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore, 952 F.3d 1051 (noting summary judgment is often granted on this issue). So, while we must refrain from usurping the jury’s traditional role of evaluating witness credibility and weighing the evidence, the extrinsic test requires us as a court to ensure that whatever objective similarities the evidence establishes between two works are legally sufficient to serve as the basis of a copyright infringement claim regardless of the jury’s views.