Gordon v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45723
D. Mass.2013Background
- In 2008, DreamWorks (with Paramount) released Kung Fu Panda; Gordon, an artist, claims to have created the film’s main panda characters in the 1980s–1990s and sues for copyright infringement, contributory infringement, and vicarious infringement.
- Gordon registered numerous drawings and story sketches with the U.S. Copyright Office, including panda-related materials dubbed Panda Power and Kidd Panda/Redd Panda.
- Gordon submitted materials to Disney (1989–1992) and to DreamWorks (1999); Disney generally required agent submissions, and DreamWorks processed a 1999 submission as a business proposal.
- Gordon created a website in 2000 to promote his characters, with Koro helping copy materials onto the site; materials included Panda Power and related characters.
- In 2008, Gordon compiled preexisting Panda Power materials into the Book of P.U., shredded the original preexisting materials, and registered the Book of P.U. two days before Kung Fu Panda’s release; later, in 2009–2011, additional sketches were found and registered.
- Gordon faced discovery-related issues; a spoliation dispute arose, and some preexisting materials were eventually excluded from evidence; Partello later found sketches and additional registrations were filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation and preservation duty | Gordon argues no spoliation sanction warranted | Gordon destroyed preexisting materials despite anticipated litigation | Gordon’s spoliation found; 2008 registration excluded |
| Copyright infringement elements | Ownership and copying shown via registrations and Panda Power materials | No conclusive copying or substantial similarity established | Summary judgment denied on infringement; genuine issues remain |
| Access to the copyrighted work | Gordon’s 1999 submission to DreamWorks gave access | Unclear handling of unsolicited submissions; disputed records | Fact issues remain; summary judgment on access denied |
| Substantial similarity | Registrations show similarities that may support infringement | Independent creation defense remains possible; similarity not dispositive | Summary judgment inappropriate on substantial similarity |
| Independent creation defense | Gordon’s submissions influenced DreamWorks’ process | Independent creation may defeat infringement | Not entitled to summary judgment; issue for factfinder to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Grubb v. KMS Patriots, L.P., 88 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (independent creation considerations and expert-like evidence)
- Mag Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Cherokee, Inc., 496 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standards and material facts)
- Gordon v. Johnson, 409 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2005) (copyright access and substantial similarity principles)
- Trull v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 187 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 1999) (preliminary questions and evidentiary standards)
- Feist Publ’n, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality and copyrightability standards)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting and summary judgment standards)