Opinion ID: 2763980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Copyright Infringement Action

Text: With the issue of copyright ownership conclusively decided against it, Stan Lee Media’s claim for copyright infringement necessarily fails as a matter of law. -14- To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show “(1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) ‘copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.’” TransWestern Publ’g Co. v. Multimedia Mktg. Assocs., 133 F.3d 773, 775 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). As with any cause of action, a plaintiff’s failure to sufficiently plead a required element necessitates dismissal for failing to state a claim. See Ellis ex rel. Estate of Ellis v. Ogden City, 589 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2009). Stan Lee Media pleaded a single count of copyright infringement against Disney premised on Stan Lee Media’s claimed ownership of the Marvel characters. This cause of action sought damages for Disney’s alleged infringing use within the past three years, including for producing and distributing Marvel’s the Avengers and other works. 4 Viewed from any angle, the Ninth Circuit’s decision precludes Stan Lee Media’s argument that it owns the copyrights to the 4 By limiting its challenge to Disney’s alleged infringing activities within the past three years, Stan Lee Media sought to satisfy the Copyright Act’s threeyear statute of limitations. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). But because Stan Lee Media’s claim of a copyright ownership interest stems from a contractual assignment, its infringement cause of action accrued in 2001 when Stan Lee expressly repudiated the 1998 Agreement. See Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283, 288 n.5 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Seven Arts Filmed Entm’t Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251, 1256–57 (9th Cir. 2013). Where ownership is the basis of the copyright dispute, this “accrual-upon-express-repudiation” rule prohibits infringement actions when the freestanding ownership action would be timebarred. Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224, 230 (2d Cir. 2011). Put simply, Stan Lee Media should have brought any copyright infringement action within three years of January 30, 2001, when Stan Lee unambiguously terminated Stan Lee Media’s intellectual-property rights under the 1998 Agreement. -15- Marvel properties forming the basis for this complaint. Accordingly, Stan Lee Media cannot state a claim for copyright infringement against Disney, and the district court correctly granted Disney’s motion to dismiss.