739 F. Supp. 2d 642
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Allen, as trustee of Adrian Jacobs's estate, sues Scholastic for copyright infringement over Goblet of Fire's 2000 U.S. publication, alleging protected elements from Jacobs's The Adventures of Willy the Wizard—No 1 Livid Land (UK 1987).
- Scholastic moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing no reasonable juror could find substantial similarity between Goblet of Fire and Livid Land.
- Court accepts plaintiff has a valid copyright in Livid Land and that copying occurred, but turns on whether substantial similarity exists in protectible elements.
- Court compares Goblet of Fire and Livid Land across total concept and feel, theme, characters, plot/sequence, pace, and setting, citing representative excerpts.
- Court finds the works differ markedly in length, structure, mood, detail, and narrative arc; many similarities are scenes a faire or generic to a wizard-competition motif.
- Holding: Scholastic's motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety, case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial similarity exists between Goblet of Fire and Livid Land. | Allen: substantial similarity in total concept and protectible elements. | Scholastic: no substantial similarity; differences dominate; many similarities are unprotectible scenes. | No substantial similarity; dismissal granted. |
| Whether protectible expression is copied or merely common ideas/scenes. | Allen contends identifiable protectible elements were copied. | Scholastic: similarities are unprotectible ideas/scenes or scenes a faire. | Unprotectible elements predominate; no infringement. |
| Whether the works’ plots, characters, and settings are sufficiently distinctive to avoid infringement. | Allen asserts analogies in characters and wizard-world setting show copying. | Scholastic: fundamental differences in plot/characterization preclude infringement. | Distinct plots, themes, and characterizations show no substantial similarity. |
| Appropriateness of the Court’s ‘total concept and feel’ comparison for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. | Allen: need expert filtering of unprotectible elements; not appropriate for dismissal. | Scholastic: total concept-and-feel inquiry is proper on a 12(b)(6) motion when works are attached to complaint. | Court may assess total concept and feel at dismissal; no infringement found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Sotheby’s, 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (court may resolve substantial similarity on Rule 12(b)(6); works themselves control)
- Lewinson v. Henry Holt & Co., 659 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (total concept and feel; scenes a faire; protectible vs. unprotectible elements)
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996) (analysis of theme and expression in children’s works; non-protectible ideas)
- Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2003) (scenes a faire; protectible expression vs. unprotectible ideas)
- Feist Publ’ns., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (originality and idea-expression dichotomy; total concept and feel)
- Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2003) (copying requires substantial similarity to protectible elements)
- Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Spirit, 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (rule for addressing substantial similarity; district court can decide on motion to dismiss)