Opinion ID: 610561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prima facie copyright liability

Text: 9 PIL first makes several related attacks on the District Court's determination that, at least absent a fair use or First Amendment defense, PIL infringed TPP's copyrights. To make out a prima facie case of copyright liability, the copyright holder must prove ownership of a valid copyright, and ... copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1296, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). The plaintiff may establish copying either by direct evidence or by showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the two works are substantially similar. See Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1092 (2d Cir.1977). 1 PIL contends that the District Court erred in finding that PIL had access to the teleplays, that substantial similarity existed between the Book and the teleplays, and that the Book was a derivative work of the teleplays. 10 1. Access. PIL argues that because there is no evidence that it had access to the teleplays, TPP's infringement claim fails as a matter of law. Yet PIL has conceded that it had access to the broadcast programs, and does not dispute that the broadcast programs contained virtually all of the protected expression in the teleplays. In isolated instances, dialogue quoted in the Book varies slightly from dialogue as set forth in the teleplays, presumably resulting from variations that occurred in the course of making the television programs, but these instances are insignificant. One who views a performance of a copyrighted work and copies expression contained in that work may be found to have infringed. See 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.03[C], at 2-32 (1992) (hereafter Nimmer). In the circumstances of this case, we hold that PIL's access to the televised programs serves as the functional equivalent of access to the protectable content of the teleplays. Thus, if, as the District Court thought, TPP's registrations applied to the teleplays, access was adequately shown. Alternatively, if, as TPP now alleges, registrations were obtained for the televised episodes, access is undisputed. 11 2. Substantial similarity. PIL next argues that the District Court erroneously applied a literal similarity test instead of a substantial similarity test in concluding that the Book copied the teleplays. We find no error. PIL fails to recognize that the concept of similarity embraces not only global similarities in structure and sequence, but localized similarity in language. In both cases, the trier of fact must determine whether the similarities are sufficient to qualify as substantial. See 3 Nimmer § 13.03[A], at 13-28 to 13-29 (1992) (substantial similarity can take the form of fragmented literal similarity or comprehensive nonliteral similarity). In this case, two chapters of the Book (chapters 3 and 7) consist of extensive direct quotations from the teleplays. Indeed, PIL concedes that 89 lines of dialogue were taken. TPP claims that a far greater amount was taken. But even on PIL's concession, the District Court was entitled to find that the identity of 89 lines of dialogue between the works constituted substantial similarity. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 548, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2224, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (finding substantial similarity where defendant's work excerpted 300-400 words including some uncopyrightable material). 12 Moreover, while the District Court confined its inquiry to literal similarity, we have little doubt that the record supports a finding of substantial similarity through comprehensive nonliteral similarity. Chapter 3 of the Book is essentially a detailed recounting of the first eight episodes of the series. Every intricate plot twist and element of character development appear in the Book in the same sequence as in the teleplays. The elaborate recounting of plot details consumes 46 pages of Chapter 3. The degree of detail is illustrated by excerpts set out in the margin. 2 13 3. Infringement of the right to make derivative works. PIL further contends that the District Court erred in finding that the Book infringed not only rights in the teleplays but also the right to make derivative works of the teleplays. The finding that the Book was a derivative work would seem unnecessary to the finding of prima facie infringement. See 2 Nimmer § 8.09[A], at 8-114 (right to make derivative works is completely superfluous, since infringement of the adaptation right necessarily infringes the reproduction right or the performance right). Nevertheless, we believe the District Court was correct in determining that the Book constituted a derivative work[ ] based upon the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106(2) (1988). The Book contains a substantial amount of material from the teleplays, transformed from one medium into another. See Rogers v. Koons, 751 F.Supp. 474, 477 (S.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 365, 121 L.Ed.2d 278 (1992).