Opinion ID: 784350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jorgensen's claim of striking similarity

Text: 30 As noted above, a copyright plaintiff's circumstantial proof of copying requires a showing of both access and probative similarity. Repp, 132 F.3d at 889; Herzog, 193 F.3d at 1249. In this case, the Heart defendants' summary judgment motion was based solely on the issue of access and did not address Jorgensen's claim of probative similarity between Lover and Heart. As such, the District Court declined to address the question of probative similarity. 31 The District Court did, however, reject Jorgensen's last-minute argument that the allegedly infringing works, Heart and Amazed, were so strikingly similar to Lover that Jorgensen need not prove access. 2002 WL 31119377, at . 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. NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, § 13.03[D], at 13-77. We have held that where the works in question are so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation, copying may be proved without a showing of access. Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 471 (2d Cir.1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Repp, 132 F.3d at 889. Jorgensen offered nothing to support this allegation of a striking similarity, 9 however, and as the District Court properly concluded, Jorgensen's own statements — e.g., that the infringement of his song, Lover, was subtle — wholly undercut his claim of a striking similarity between the songs. 2002 WL 31119377, at .