97 F. Supp. 3d 512
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff David Adjmi wrote the play "3C," produced Off-Broadway in 2012; DLT Entertainment (copyright holder of the TV series Three’s Company) sent a cease-and-desist and alleged copyright infringement.
- Adjmi seeks a declaratory judgment that 3C does not infringe, aiming to publish and license the play; DLT counterclaimed for infringement against Adjmi and the production companies.
- The court considered a Rule 12(c) motion (judgment on the pleadings) and relied on the pleadings plus the DVDs of Three’s Company and the 3C screenplay (both incorporated into the record).
- The core factual overlap: both works use a three-roommate premise, similar character types (blonde, brunette, male roommate/aspiring chef), setting, and certain scene parallels; 3C, however, is darker, more vulgar, and openly treats homosexuality and other themes more directly.
- Court framed the dispute as whether any plausible set of facts could support DLT’s infringement claim, assessing fair use (parody) under the four Section 107 factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3C is noninfringing because it is fair use/parody of Three’s Company | Adjmi: 3C is a highly transformative parody that comments on and deconstructs the sitcom, so fair use protects extensive copying | DLT: 3C copies plot, characters, tone, and many specific elements; much of the taking is unnecessary and not a proper parody | Held: Court found 3C a highly transformative parody and fair use; judgment for Adjmi |
| Applicability of Rule 12(c) on the pleadings without discovery | Adjmi: Court may decide fair use on pleadings and incorporated materials (screenplay and TV episodes) | DLT: disputed scope/characterizations — urged more factual development | Held: Court resolved on pleadings, relying on incorporated materials; no discovery needed |
| Amount/substantiality of copying (third fair-use factor) | Adjmi: Parody legitimately must conjure the original; extent of taking is justified by parody purpose | DLT: 3C copies both the "heart" and numerous minor elements beyond what parody requires | Held: Although 3C copies substantial material, the taking was justified by its transformative/parodic purpose; this factor did not defeat fair use |
| Market effect (fourth fair-use factor) | Adjmi: 3C targets a different audience/style and will not substitute for Three’s Company or its derivative markets | DLT: 3C could impair potential stage-adaptation or other derivative markets | Held: Court found no cognizable market harm; parody’s critical effect is not a copyright injury—factor favors fair use |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (Supreme Court framework for parody and transformative use under fair use)
- Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (fair use considers market harm and nature of use)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects original expression; copying is an element of infringement)
- Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirmed fair use on comparison-based review of artworks)
- Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) (analysis of transformative use and parody in derivative works)
- Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) (parody may permit broader copying than ordinary substantial-similarity analysis)
- Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986) (discusses parody’s permissible harm to the market for original)