Opinion ID: 4644700
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Amount and Substantiality of the Use of Go!

Text: Weigh Against Fair Use The third statutory factor asks whether “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole” favor fair use. 17 U.S.C. § 107(3). We consider both “the quantitative amount and qualitative value of the original work used in relation to the justification for that use.” Seltzer, 725 F.3d at 1178. This factor circles back to the first factor because “the extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of the use.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586–87. The quantitative amount taken by Boldly is substantial. To be sure, we understand that “[t]he inquiry under this factor is a flexible one, rather than a simple determination of the percentage of the copyrighted work used.” Monge, 688 F.3d at 1179. That said, ComicMix’s copying was considerable—it copied “14 of Go!’s 24 pages,” close to 60% of the book, and significant “illustrations from Grinch and two stories in Sneetches.” Crucially, ComicMix did not merely take a set of unprotectable visual units, a shape here DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES V. COMICMIX LLC 21 and a color patch there. 5 For each of the highly imaginative illustrations copied by ComicMix, it replicated, as much and as closely as possible from Go!, the exact composition, the particular arrangements of visual components, and the swatches of well-known illustrations. ComicMix’s claim that it “judiciously incorporated just enough of the original to be identifiable” as Seussian or that its “modest” taking merely “alludes” to particular Seuss illustrations is flatly contradicted by looking at the books. During his deposition, Boldly illustrator Templeton detailed the fact that he “stud[ied] the page [to] get a sense of what the layout was,” and then copied “the layout so that things are in the same place they’re supposed to be.” The result was, as Templeton admitted, that the illustrations in Boldly were “compositionally similar” to the corresponding ones in Go!. In addition to the overall visual composition, Templeton testified that he also copied the illustrations down to the last detail, even “meticulously try[ing] to reproduce as much of the line work as [he could].” 5 We are cautious not to overzealously decompose visual expression into its abstract, and thus unprotectable, units, because that would mean that any amount of taking by ComicMix would be permissible. See Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1003 (2d Cir. 1995) (critiquing the view that “there can be no originality in a painting because all colors of paint have been used somewhere in the past” (citation omitted)). 22 DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES V. COMICMIX LLC Again, we turn to Boldly itself for illustrative examples. Here, ComicMix replicated the overall composition and placement of the shapes, colors and detailed linework. ComicMix also took the overall composition of a Seuss illustration—the placement of the tree, the hills, and the white space surrounding these elements. The trees in both versions have the same exact number, bends, and lengths of branches, with the same branch in both versions hoisting a dangling figure. ComicMix’s “‘verbatim’ copying of the original” weighs against fair use. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 589. The qualitative value used by Boldly is also substantial. The qualitative analysis often asks if the copyist took the “heart,” that is, “the most valuable and pertinent portion,” of the work. L.A. News Serv., 305 F.3d at 940. Taking “the ‘heart’ of each individual copyrighted picture,” tilts the third factor against fair use. Monge, 688 F.3d at 1178. DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES V. COMICMIX LLC 23 ComicMix took the heart of Dr. Seuss’s works. For example, ComicMix’s copying of a Sneetches illustration exhibits both the extensive quantitative and qualitative taking by ComicMix. Sneetches is a short Seuss story about two groups of Sneetches: the snooty star-bellied Sneetches and the starless ones. The story’s plot, the character, and the moral center on a highly imaginative and intricately drawn machine that can take the star-shaped status-symbol on and off the bellies of the Sneetches. Different iterations of the machine, the heart of Sneetches, appear in ten out of twentytwo pages of the book. See Penguin Books, 109 F.3d at 1402 (the element that “appear[s] in nearly every image of [Cat]” is “the highly expressive core of Dr. Seuss’[s] work”). ComicMix took this “highly expressive core” of Sneetches. Templeton testified that “the machine in the StarBellied Sneetches story” was “repurposed to remind you of the transporter” in Star Trek. Drawing the machine “took . . . about seven hours” because Templeton tried to “match” the drawing down to the “linework” of Seuss. He “painstakingly attempted” to make the machines “identical.” In addition to the machine, Boldly took “the poses that the Sneetches are in” so that “[t]he poses of commander Scott and the Enterprise crew getting into the machine are similar.” Boldly also captured the particular “crosshatch” in how Dr. Seuss rendered the machine, the “puffs of smoke coming out of the machine,” and the “entire layout.” 24 DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES V. COMICMIX LLC Finally, we cannot countenance ComicMix’s argument that the amount taken is not substantial because ComicMix used only five out of almost sixty Dr. Seuss books. This is fake math that distorts the result because ComicMix has identified the wrong denominator; the third factor looks at “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,” not to the entire corpus of the author. 17 U.S.C. § 107(3) (emphasis added). Under ComicMix’s theory, the more prolific the creator, the greater license a copyist would have to copy and imitate the original works. Nothing supports that argument. Given the absence of a parody or a transformative work, ComicMix offers no justification for the commercial exploitation and the extensive and meticulous copying of Go!. In fact, after the case was initiated, Gerrold offered to “replace the stuff that’s too dead on,” demonstrating that the mash-up “based on Dr. Seuss’s artwork” could have been created without wholesale copying of the work. The third factor weighs decisively against fair use.