425 F. App'x 42
2d Cir.2011Background
- Cabell, proceeding pro se, sued Sony Pictures Entertainment, Columbia Pictures Industries, Pulse Advertising, Happy Madison, Adam Sandler, Robert Smigel, and Judd Apatow asserting copyright infringement and unfair competition.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims on May 26, 2010.
- The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Cabell.
- The court concluded that, aside from unprotectable ideas, the works’ expressions were not substantially similar.
- It dismissed Cabell’s New York unfair competition claim as preempted by 17 U.S.C. § 301.
- On appeal, Cabell abandoned any plot-based infringement claim and challenged only the visual promotion materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the works are substantially similar. | Cabell argue s substantial similarity exists. | Sony et al. contend only unprotectable ideas are similar. | Affirmed summary judgment; no substantial similarity. |
| Whether ideas are protectable in the works. | Cabell contends ideas are protectable expressions. | Defendants maintain ideas are unprotectable and only expression is protected. | Unprotectable ideas identified; only expression at issue. |
| Whether the NY unfair competition claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. | Cabell asserts distinct unfair competition claims survive copyright preemption. | Defendants argue preemption applies when claim is based on copying of protected expression. | Preempted; NY unfair competition claim dismissed. |
| Whether the plot-based infringement claim was abandoned on appeal. | Cabell relying on plot-based claims remains active. | Appeal treated plot claim as abandoned. | Abandoned; focus remains on visual promotional images. |
| What standard governs the grant of summary judgment on appeal. | Standard should be favorable to Cabell where facts are unresolved. | Standard requires no genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. | De novo review with no genuine issues of material fact; affirmation of judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (guides substantial similarity analysis; protectable expression vs ideas)
- Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986) (copyright protects expression, not ideas)
- Mattel, Inc. v. Azrak-Hamway Int’l, Inc., 724 F.2d 357 (2d Cir. 1983) (traditional fighting pose is an unprotectable idea)
- Kregos v. Associated Press, 3 F.3d 656 (2d Cir. 1993) (preemption principle for NY unfair competition claims)
- Costello v. City of Burlington, 632 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and favorable review for non-movant)