Alfred v. Walt Disney Co.
388 F. Supp. 3d 1174
C.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiffs sued Disney for copyright infringement, alleging five Pirates of the Caribbean films copied their screenplay "Pirates of the Caribbean."
- Plaintiffs attached their 111‑page screenplay to the complaint; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) solely arguing lack of substantial similarity as a matter of law.
- Defendants asked for judicial notice of the five films and two theme‑park ride DVDs; the court took notice of the films and DVDs (incorporated by reference) but denied notice of a book not referenced in the complaint.
- Plaintiffs alleged similarities in plot elements (cursed/skull‑faced pirates, treasure maps, ghosts, sea monsters), characters (Davey Jones, Jack Nefarious analogous to Jack Sparrow/Barbossa), themes (betrayal, ten‑year motif), dialogue, mood, setting, and pace.
- The court applied the extrinsic (objective) substantial‑similarity test and filtered out unprotectable elements (scènes à faire, stock themes, historical/unoriginal elements) before comparing concrete expressive elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether works are substantially similar under the extrinsic test | Plaintiffs: many shared elements (cursed/skull pirates, treasure hunt, characters, motifs) show substantial similarity | Defendants: similarities are generic, scènes à faire, or superficial; no protectable expressive overlap | Court: No substantial similarity as a matter of law; dismissed claims |
| Applicability of the inverse‑ratio rule | Plaintiffs: high access warrants relaxed similarity standard | Defendants: inverse‑ratio only affects proof of copying, not unlawful appropriation | Court: Inverse‑ratio irrelevant to unlawful appropriation; did not lower similarity standard |
| Judicial notice of films and related materials | Plaintiffs: no objection noted in record | Defendants: films and theme‑park DVDs are incorporated by reference and subject to judicial notice | Court: Took judicial notice of the films and DVDs; denied notice of an unreferenced book |
| Leave to amend after viewing film scripts | Plaintiffs: sought leave to amend after seeing defendants' original scripts | Defendants: complaint pleads infringement of films, not scripts; amendment would be futile | Court: Amendment would be futile; dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018) (defines copying/access and unlawful appropriation framework)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard and plausibility requirement)
- Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) (extrinsic test; filter out nonprotected elements)
- Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) (works telling different stories not substantially similar)
- Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm't, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010) (scènes à faire and unoriginal components are unprotectable)
- DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) (protection limited to especially distinctive, delineated characters)
- Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (stock scenes and scènes à faire not protected)
- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) (intrinsic test is jury’s subjective inquiry)