Opinion ID: 788833
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inverse Relationship Between Access and Probative Similarity

Text: 28 PBT also complains that it requested an instruction on the inverse relationship between the degree of access an alleged infringer had to the original work and the degree of similarity needed to show that copying actually occurred. Specifically, PBT asked that the jury be instructed that PBT does not have to show as much similarity when a high degree of access is shown. The defendants counter that this inverse-relationship doctrine is not the law in the Fifth Circuit. PBT's argument fails for several reasons. 29 The defendants are correct that this circuit has not expressly adopted the principle that there is an inverse relationship between the requisite proof of access and similarity, and there is no need to do so here. However, this doctrine finds support in other circuits. See, e.g., Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 844-45 (9th Cir.2004) (Where a high degree of access is shown, we require a lower standard of proof of [probative] similarity.); Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir.2003) (There is an inverse relationship between access and probative similarity such that the stronger the proof of similarity, the less the proof of access is required. (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tienshan v. C.C.A. Int'l (N.J.), Inc., 895 F.Supp. 651, 656 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (noting: given that access has been conceded, the level of probative similarity necessary to show physical copying is diminished); see also 4 NIMMER § 13.03[D], at 13-79 ([T]he stronger the proof of similarity, the less the proof of access that is required.). Thus, other courts have held that a plaintiff who shows a high degree of similarity may satisfy the factual copying requirement with a lesser showing of access, 10 and, conversely, a plaintiff who shows a greater degree of access may satisfy the factual copying element with a lesser degree of probative similarity. 11 30 Regardless, the fact that this circuit has not explicitly adopted this doctrine means that the district court did not wrongly decline to give the jury instruction, and PBT's argument therefore fails. Finally, as we noted in the discussion of the definition of probative similarity, any error with respect to factual copying is rendered harmless by the jury's finding on substantial similarity, such that we cannot say that it was probably responsible for an incorrect verdict.