Canal+ Image UK Ltd. v. Lutvak
773 F. Supp. 2d 419
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Canal+ Image UK Ltd. holds copyright in the Film Kind Hearts and Coronets, based on the public-domain Novel Israel Rank; the Film and Novel share the same basic story with notable differences.
- Defendants Lutvak and Freedman are lyricist and songwriter who developed a stage musical derivative of the Film under a 2003 license agreement.
- The Agreement granted exclusive authorization to adapt the Film into a live stage musical through Oct. 1, 2004; if Canal+ declined production, rights would revert and Defendants would cease using Film elements.
- Defendants continued development of the Musical after Canal+ declined to produce, using the composite-victim device (one actor plays all victims) allegedly central to the Film’s expression.
- Canal+ filed suit on Feb. 19, 2010 alleging copyright infringement of the Film and breach of contract to develop the Musical.
- Court moves to dismiss: (1) no substantial similarity supports infringement; (2) breach claim preempted by the Copyright Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there substantial similarity to support copyright infringement? | Canal+ argues the Musical copies protectible expression. | Lutvak/Freedman contend similarities derive from non-protectible ideas. | No substantial similarity; infringement claim dismissed. |
| Is the breach-of-contract claim preempted by copyright law? | Canal+ argues contract rights are distinct from copyright rights. | Defendants contend the promise creates a qualitatively different right. | Preemption applies; breach claim dismissed. |
| Are any elements protectible derivations from the public-domain Novel? | Canal+ asserts unique expression from the Film’s adaptation. | Defendants emphasize idea/expression dichotomy; public-domain story limits protectible elements. | Most similarities are unprotectible; no protectible overlap. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamil Am. Inc. v. GFI, 193 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.1999) (substantial similarity requires protectible elements compare)
- Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.2010) (total concept and feel guiding infringement analysis)
- Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir.1995) (dissection vs. total concept in copyright)
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.1996) (Hollywood's lack of newness; idea/expression context)
- Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.2003) (total concept and feel; holistic approach to design)
- Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (idea/expression dichotomy)