Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones
1:24-cv-08760
| S.D.N.Y. | Jan 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Ralph W. Baker, Jr. is the author of "Shock Exchange: How Inner-City Kids From Brooklyn Predicted the Great Recession," which he claims is an original, copyrighted work (registered 2012).
- Plaintiff alleges that several prominent authors—specifically Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X. Kendi, and others—infringed on his copyright through works such as The 1619 Project, "Four Hundred Souls," and related books and essays.
- Baker claims he provided his book to certain defendants prior to the publication of the accused works, establishing access.
- Plaintiff contends that substantial similarities in arrangement, content, and specific language indicate copying, not coincidence.
- He further alleges that such copying constitutes unfair competition under the Lanham Act and New York law, causing harm to his reputation and market for his work.
- The case is at the preliminary pleading stage, with plaintiff seeking to avoid dismissal and secure court consideration of his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Copyright Claim | Baker owns valid copyright and can show copying/access | Defendants did not copy, or works differ | Not yet decided |
| Timeliness of Claims | Claims are timely under Second Circuit "discovery rule" | Claims are time-barred | Not yet decided |
| Substantial Similarity/Infringement | Arrangement/words and content are substantially similar | Any similarity is coincidental, not substantial | Not yet decided |
| Unfair Competition (Lanham Act) | Defendants' conduct misleads public, harms market/reputation | No actionable unfair competition | Not yet decided |
| Contributory Infringement | Defendants contributed to each other's infringing acts | No contributory infringement | Not yet decided |
| Fair Use | Use is commercial, non-transformative, not fair use | Use, if any, is protected fair use | Not yet decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (protectable subject matter of a copyright is the author's precise arrangement of words)
- Hartfield v. Peterson, 91 F.2d 998 (threshold for substantial part copied in literary works)
- Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (basis for secondary copyright liability)
- Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (no bright line test for copyright infringement; decisions are ad hoc)
- Gershwin Publ'g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt. Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (contributory copyright infringement standard)
- Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (impersonating a distinctive voice can be unfair competition)
- Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 663 F. Supp. 706 (substantial similarities prove unfair use)
- Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (willful blindness as knowledge in copyright law)