Erickson v. Blake
839 F. Supp. 2d 1132
D. Or.2012Background
- Erickson, Nebraska resident, composed Pi Symphony in 1992 and registered it with the Copyright Office.
- Pi Symphony is an orchestral two-movement work; primary motif maps digits 0-9 to notes and plays in pi order.
- Erickson maintained pisymphony.com and posted a YouTube description/video in May 2010.
- Blake published YouTube work What Pi Sounds Like in February 2011, using a pi-based melody.
- Erickson sued Blake in Nebraska for copyright infringement and unfair competition; Blake moved to dismiss (12(b)(6)).
- Nebraska court lacked personal jurisdiction/venue, transferred the case to this court; Blake’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion now resolved.]
- The court grants Blake’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blake copied Pi Symphony (copyright infringement). | Erickson alleges access and substantial similarity. | Similarities are limited to unprotectable ideas; no substantial similarity. | No infringement; similarities arise from unprotected elements. |
| Whether Erickson’s unfair competition claim survives after copyright dismissal. | Requests relief under state unfair competition law. | Claim relies on copyright claim; lacks independent basis. | Dismissed; unfair competition falls with copyright claim; no supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (copyright protects expression, not facts or ideas)
- Krofft v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) (requires copying of original elements for infringement)
- Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) (extrinsic test; dissection of protectable elements)
- Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987) (merger; scenes a faire; protectable variability in expression)
- Data East USA Inc- v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (ideas and general concepts not protectable; abstraction matters)
- Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) (copyright prevents only original expression; not public domain)
- Campbell v. Walt Disney Co., 718 F.Supp.2d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (musical similarity analysis; extrinsic/intrinsic framework)