971 F.3d 57
2d Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Anas Abdin created an unreleased point-and-click videogame (originally "Epoch," later "Tardigrades") posted online in 2014–2017; the registered copyright (the "Distillation") was filed June 28, 2018 and is a 23‑page compilation of images/descriptions.
- The Videogame featured a giant, space‑traveling tardigrade that envelops a human protagonist and enables instantaneous travel; the game is interactive with multiple endings and puzzle‑based play.
- Defendant CBS/Netflix et al. premiered Star Trek: Discovery (Sept. 24, 2017). Three episodes include a creature called "Ripper," a large tardigrade‑like being used (via the DASH Drive and mycelial network) to enable instantaneous jumps and that suffers physical strain when used.
- Abdin sued for copyright infringement (filed Aug. 19, 2018; Third Amended Complaint Jan. 15, 2019), alleging substantial similarity in concept, plot, mood, characters, and the tardigrade character.
- The district court dismissed, holding the shared elements were unprotectible (scientific facts/ideas, scènes à faire, and generalized character traits) and that, after extracting unprotectible material, the protectible elements were not substantially similar.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal, applying the "more discerning" observer test and concluding Abdin failed to plausibly allege substantial similarity of protectible expression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Discovery copied protectible elements of Abdin's work (substantial similarity) | Abdin: Discovery copied the Videogame's tardigrade, plot/mood, characters, and overall feel. | Defendants: Similarities are limited to unprotectible facts/ideas, scènes à faire, and generic traits; protectible elements differ. | Held: No plausible substantial similarity after extracting unprotectible elements; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the tardigrade and its space‑travel role are protectible | Abdin: His tardigrade‑human interactions and large, blue space‑tardigrade are original expression. | Defendants: Tardigrade anatomy and survival in space are scientific facts; space‑traveling tardigrade is an idea or natural extension of fact. | Held: Tardigrade facts/space‑travel idea unprotectible; alleged expression differs materially from Ripper. |
| Whether scènes à faire bars protection for shared sci‑fi elements | Abdin: Elements like using a strange creature to transit space are original in his concept. | Defendants: Space travel, alien encounters, advanced tech, and using creatures for plot functions are stock sci‑fi elements (scènes à faire). | Held: Many similarities are scènes à faire and thus unprotectible. |
| Whether character similarities support infringement | Abdin: Various characters in the Videogame correspond to Discovery characters (sex, race, hair, professions). | Defendants: Shared traits are generic, undeveloped, and therefore not protectible. | Held: Character similarities are generalized stock traits and do not support a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (facts and mere compilations are not copyrightable)
- Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ Inc., 262 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (ordinary observer substantial‑similarity test)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (apply "more discerning" observer; extract unprotectible elements)
- Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2001) (more discerning observer standard)
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996) (compare total concept and feel: theme, characters, plot, sequence, pace, setting)
- Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1976) (scènes à faire doctrine)
- Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980) (incidents/characters standard that flow from facts or themes)
- Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) (undeveloped/generalized characters not protected)
- Attia v. Society of New York Hosp., 201 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1999) (ideas, concepts, and processes are not protected)