564 F. App'x 631
2d Cir.2014Background
- Gregory Murphy wrote a stage play and screenplay titled The Countess about Effie Gray and John Ruskin; Effie Film, LLC developed a separate screenplay titled Effie based on the same historical events.
- Effie Film sued for a declaratory judgment (Feb. 4, 2011) that its screenplay did not infringe Murphy’s copyright after Murphy publicly claimed infringement.
- The District Court granted judgment on the pleadings for Effie Film under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), holding no actionable substantial similarity between the works.
- Murphy appealed, arguing the District Court applied an incorrect legal standard for substantial similarity and thus erred in its infringement conclusion.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(c) decision de novo and considered whether the works were substantially similar in protectable elements, applying the more discerning test for works incorporating public-domain/historical material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Effie Film) | Defendant's Argument (Murphy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for substantial similarity in historical works | District Court applied correct, "more discerning" test limiting comparison to protectable expression | District Court focused too heavily on "total concept and feel" and used an incorrect standard | Affirmed: District Court applied proper test, considering total concept and protectable elements |
| Whether Effie infringes The Countess (copying/protectable similarity) | Effie Film: similarities are trivial, scènes à faire, or unprotectable historical elements; no substantial similarity | Murphy: identified non-historical similarities that show protectable copying | Affirmed: similarities either trivial/scattered or not sufficiently similar to an ordinary lay observer |
| Role of public-domain/historical material in analysis | Effie Film: broad latitude to use historical facts; only original expression protected | Murphy: protection extends to his particular expression even within historical subject matter | Court: applied heightened scrutiny for public-domain elements; protect only original selection/arrangement |
| Application of scènes à faire and genre/stock elements | Effie Film: many shared features are scènes à faire/stock for Victorian biography | Murphy: some shared plot/character details are uniquely expressed in his work | Court: scènes à faire/stock themes are unprotectable; only unique expression can be compared |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.) (copying proven by access plus substantial similarity to protectable material)
- Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.) (ordinary-observer/total concept-and-feel test)
- Boisson v. Banian, 273 F.3d 262 (2d Cir.) ("more discerning" test for works with public-domain elements)
- Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (examine selection, coordination, and arrangement of public-domain components)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.) (protectable elements must be considered standing alone)
- Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir.) (scènes à faire and unprotectable stock themes in genre works)
- Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir.) (need to grant latitude to historical works to avoid chilling effects)
- King v. American Airlines, Inc., 284 F.3d 352 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)