297 F. Supp. 3d 362
S.D. Ill.2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael Kaye (pro se at filing) alleges Cartoon Network's Steven Universe copied his Amphoman comic series and sued for copyright infringement.
- Amphoman (self-published nine-part comic, ~120 pages) features Dr. Ulrius Joules who, after a space gem fuses to him, transforms when wet into Amphoman (half-man/half-frog) and fights gem-induced super-villains; the series is adult-toned, sardonic, and sexual.
- Steven Universe (animated TV series, scores of episodes) follows young Steven (half-Gem, half-human) who lives with three female Crystal Gems; Gems are anthropomorphic beings with innate permanent powers and Steven’s gem is in his abdomen; the show is child-oriented, optimistic, and often musical.
- Plaintiff attached a 60-item list of purported similarities; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing no substantial similarity as a matter of law.
- The court considered the works themselves and concluded that, despite the shared conceit of “gems,” the works differ in concept, plot, characters, setting importance, tone, length, and overall feel.
- The court granted defendants’ motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Steven Universe is substantially similar to Amphoman | Amphoman's gem-based transformations and character/visual similarities were copied into Steven Universe | The shared "gems" conceit is generic; overall concept, characters, plots, tone, and expression differ as a matter of law | Dismissed — no substantial similarity as a matter of law |
| Whether similarities alleged overcome scènes-à-faire and unprotectable elements | Kaye asserts specific shared traits (gems falling from sky, powers, gem locations, physical resemblances) show copying of protectable expression | Defendants argue many alleged similarities are scènes-à-faire, generic, or factually inaccurate when works are compared directly | Dismissed — many alleged similarities are unprotectable or incorrect |
| Whether characters are substantially similar | Plaintiff contends visual/trait overlap (e.g., round faces, gem locations) shows character copying | Defendants contend characters differ in species, age, temperament, role, and total concept and feel | Dismissed — characters not substantially similar |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Plaintiff sought leave to amend to cure defects | Defendants argued amendment would be futile because the works themselves negate substantial similarity | Denied — amendment futile; dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.) (total concept and feel test; compare works themselves)
- Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.) (ordinary observer substantial similarity test)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard — plausible claim required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard — plausibility)
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.) (holistic comparison; children’s works)
- Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.) (scènes-à-faire doctrine)