Clayton Tanksley v. Lee Daniels
902 F.3d 165
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Clayton Tanksley wrote, produced, and copyrighted a three-episode pilot Cream (2005) about an African‑American record‑executive who runs a hip‑hop label; key recurring elements included a herpes storyline, domestic abuse/shooting plot, and a family struggle over company control.
- Tanksley spoke with producer/director Lee Daniels at a 2008 Philly Pitch event and gave him a DVD and script of Cream; no further contacts are alleged.
- In 2015 Fox premiered Empire, created by Lee Daniels, a series about Lucious Lyon, an African‑American music mogul whose ALS diagnosis triggers a succession battle among his sons and a returning ex‑wife seeking half the company.
- Tanksley sued for copyright infringement and related claims; the District Court held a multi‑day hearing, treated the shows as integral to the complaint, and dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to plead substantial similarity as a matter of law.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Rule 12(b)(6) disposition was appropriate because the works were integral and no discovery or expert evidence would change the ordinary‑observer comparison, and (2) Cream and Empire are not substantially similar in protectable expression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial‑similarity can be resolved at pleading stage | Tanksley: too fact‑intensive; needs testimony, discovery, experts | Defendants: works are integral; comparison is a side‑by‑side ordinary‑observer test requiring no discovery | Court: Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate where works are integral and no reasonable juror could find similarity |
| Whether Cream and Empire are substantially similar (material appropriation) | Tanksley: numerous similarities in premise, characters, scenes, and screenshots show substantial similarity | Defendants: shared high‑level idea (Black record executive) is unprotectable; expressions differ in character, setting, plot, and tone | Court: No — similarities are at the idea/scene‑à‑faire level; protected expression differs as a matter of law |
| Whether circumstantial copying or access supports claim | Tanksley: Daniels had access via the 2008 meeting and materials provided | Defendants: even if access existed, must still show material appropriation of protected expression | Court: Did not need to decide copying; failure to plead material appropriation is dispositive |
| Validity of derivative claims (contributory infringement, torts) | Tanksley: contributory and various state‑law claims alleged | Defendants: derivative claims fail if direct infringement fails; some tort claims waived or preempted | Court: Dismissed contributory claims (premised on direct infringement); negligence/misrepresentation waived or preempted; further amendment futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Dam Things from Den. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002) (defines substantial‑similarity framework and ordinary‑observer test)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (works integral to complaint can be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904 (3d Cir. 1975) (ordinary‑observer standard; expert testimony generally unnecessary)
- Laureyssens v. Idea Grp., Inc., 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1992) (distinguishing copying inference vs. protectable expression)
- Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) (ideas/prototypes unprotectable; characters as prototypes)
- Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995) (total concept and feel; selection/arrangement can be protectable)
- Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (materiality of the taking; even small taking of protected expression may infringe)
- Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1983) (summary judgment considerations in copyright cases)