History
  • No items yet
midpage
44 F. Supp. 3d 359
S.D.N.Y.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Arrow Productions owns copyrights and registered trademarks for the film Deep Throat and the names “Deep Throat” and “Linda Lovelace.”
  • Defendants produced the 2013 biographical film Lovelace, depicting Linda Lovelace’s life and alleging coercion and abuse during the production/marketing of Deep Throat; Lovelace contains no nudity.
  • Arrow alleged Lovelace copied three specific scenes from Deep Throat (opening driving scene; first pornographic/kitchen scene; Dr. Young diagnosis/sex scene) and reproduced dialogue, staging, camera angles, costumes, and settings.
  • Arrow asserted copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 107) and trademark claims: infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), false designation (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), and dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)).
  • Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); the court reviewed both films and concluded the factual record for fair use was complete without discovery.
  • Court entered judgment for defendants, holding the contested recreations were fair use and dismissing all trademark claims; denied defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Copyright: whether recreating three scenes from Deep Throat infringed copyright Arrow: defendants reproduced dialogue, staging, camera angles, costumes and settings—unauthorized copying of protected expression Defendants: use is transformative (critical biography), limited in scope, and constitutes fair use under §107 Court: Held fair use — recreation was transformative, limited in amount, and did not harm market for the original; copyright claim dismissed
Fair-use factor — purpose/character Arrow: defendants’ film is commercial and copies core expressive content Defendants: Lovelace is a critical, biographical work adding new meaning and commentary; transformative use presumption applies Court: Held purpose/character favors defendants — transformative despite commercial nature
Fair-use factor — amount/substantiality and nature of work Arrow: copied qualitatively significant scenes (heart of work) from a creative film Defendants: only three short recreated scenes (~4 minutes total) of a 61-minute film; tailored to new purpose Court: Held these factors favored defendants overall; amount was no more than necessary though the original is creative (this factor not dispositive)
Trademark claims: infringement, false designation, dilution Arrow: use of "Lovelace" title and references to "Deep Throat" would cause consumer confusion, dilute or tarnish famous marks Defendants: use pertains to biographical/critical film and does not create source confusion or plausible dilution Court: Held trademark and false designation claims inadequately pleaded as to likelihood of confusion and dilution; dismissal granted

Key Cases Cited

  • Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (transformativeness central to fair use analysis)
  • Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) (fair use is context-sensitive; transformative works weigh heavily)
  • Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (fair use determination is mixed question of law and fact)
  • Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) (copyright owner cannot preclude others from transformative markets)
  • Bill Graham Archives, LLC v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 386 F. Supp. 2d 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (biographical/critical uses can fall within fair use presumption)
  • NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) (amount and substantiality factor examines qualitative and quantitative heart of the work)
  • Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991) (caution urged in early dismissal on fair use where facts are contested)
  • Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (factors for awarding attorney’s fees in copyright cases)
  • Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001) (purpose/character is the heart of fair use inquiry)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Arrow Productions, Ltd. v. Weinstein Co.
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Aug 25, 2014
Citations: 44 F. Supp. 3d 359; 111 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1984; 2014 WL 4211350; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119072; No. 13 Civ. 5488
Docket Number: No. 13 Civ. 5488
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.
Log In
    Arrow Productions, Ltd. v. Weinstein Co., 44 F. Supp. 3d 359