502 F. App'x 107
2d Cir.2012Background
- Alexander, pro se, sues News Corp entities for copyright infringement in SDNY.
- District court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint; Alexander appeals.
- Court reviews the dismissal de novo, assuming factual allegations are true.
- Court may analyze works for substantial similarity even on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion per Gaito.
- Court finds only sparse, minor similarities between Modern Family and Loony Ben and no protectable expression.
- Rule 11 sanctions motion denied as improper and unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the copyright claim. | Alexander contends the claim should proceed. | Defendants argue dismissal was proper. | affirmed; district court dismissal upheld. |
| Whether district court erred by considering non-pleaded materials. | Alexander claims reliance on undisclosed materials. | Court treated materials as advocacy, not factual evidence. | affirmed; materials treated as advocacy, properly limited. |
| Whether substantial similarity between works supports infringement. | Alexander asserts substantial similarity between Modern Family and Loony Ben. | Similarity is sparse and de minimis; not protectable. | affirmed; no infringement. |
| Whether the court should have converted the motion to summary judgment. | Alexander seeks conversion to summary judgment. | Conversion was not required or appropriate here. | affirmed; no error in declining to convert. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions against defendants were proper. | Alexander sought sanctions for alleged misconduct. | Rule 11 sanctions are district-court matters; allegations lack merit. | denied; sanctions not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1999) (test for substantial similarity includes both total concept and details)
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996) (examines similarities in total concept, theme, and setting)
- Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986) (protectable expression requires more than general ideas)
- Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) (general abstractions insufficient to merit protection; scènes à faire)
- Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980) (treatment of topic is standard and unprotectable)
- Warner Bros., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983) (copyright does not prohibit copying of minor details)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (district court may analyze works for substantial similarity on motion to dismiss)