Blehm v. Jacobs
702 F.3d 1193
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Blehm created Penmen cartoons (distinctive head, large half-moon smile, four fingers, long limbs) with rules for drawing; six Penmen posters (1989–1993) registered with the Copyright Office and distributed nationally.
- Jacobs brothers designed Life is Good Jake imagery starting around 1994, later expanding to shirts and other media; Jake depicted engaging in simple activities and wearing clothes.
- Blehm filed December 2009 suit alleging copyright infringement and contributory infringement; district court granted Life is Good summary judgment on not substantially similar elements, while finding relevant access existed.
- On appeal, Blehm contends Life is Good copied protectable Penmen expression; Life is Good argues independent creation and lack of substantial similarity.
- Court reviews de novo the substantial similarity question, applying the ordinary observer test and the idea/expression distinction; court affirms district court’s summary judgment finding no substantial similarity between Penmen protectable elements and Jake images.
- Court acknowledges Blehm’s protectable expression exists but finds Life is Good’s Jake images not substantially similar; copying of ideas without protectable expression would not infringe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jake is substantially similar to Blehm’s protectable Penmen expression | Blehm says Jake copies protectable expression | Life is Good says similarities are unprotectable ideas | Not substantially similar; protectable expression not copied |
| Whether Life is Good copied Blehm’s works as a factual matter | Blehm contends there was copying of expression | Even if copied, the similarity concerns ideas, not protectable expression | Even if copying occurred, it would be copying of ideas, not infringement |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (Supreme Court 1991) (originality required for copyright protection; ideas not protected)
- Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993) (idea/expression distinction and substantial similarity framework)
- Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002) (two-part copying test; substantial similarity after protectable expression identified)
- Country Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1996) (ordinary observer test; protectable expression versus ideas; substantial similarity)