693 F.Supp.3d 59
D. Mass.2023Background
- In 2015 Dorland posted a letter about her altruistic living-kidney donation to a private Facebook group; Larson read it and used it as inspiration for a short story titled The Kindest.
- Larson’s story existed in multiple published iterations: a 2016 Audible recording with substantial verbatim copying, a 2017 American Short Fiction (ASF) web version with close paraphrases and the same structure, and a 2018 substantially revised Boston Book Festival (BBF) version that removed most overlaps.
- After seeing ASF’s online publication in 2018, Dorland contacted ASF, BBF, reporters, writer conferences, and others alleging plagiarism; ASF took the story offline and BBF cancelled its One City/One Story program.
- Larson sued Dorland for defamation and intentional interference and sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement; Dorland counterclaimed for copyright infringement.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment the court analyzed (a) whether Larson’s letters were substantially similar to Dorland’s copyrighted letter, and (b) whether Larson could assert fair use; it also evaluated Dorland’s communications for defamation and tortious interference.
- Result: the court rejected Dorland’s copyright claims (finding Larson’s use protected by fair use overall and granting Larson summary relief on the counterclaims) but ruled for Dorland on defamation and intentional-interference claims (statements were substantially true/opinion and plaintiff failed to show pecuniary harm).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement — substantial similarity between Dorland’s 2015 letter and versions of The Kindest | Larson contends she owns The Kindest and that later (2018) version is not substantially similar; she also invokes fair use for all versions | Dorland argues Larson copied protectible expression (structure, unique lines) and that early versions (2016, 2017) are substantially similar and infringing | Court: 2016 version is substantially similar; 2017 is close enough to present a triable issue; 2018 is not substantially similar and does not infringe. Overall copyright claims denied because fair use protects Larson’s use. |
| Fair use defense | Larson argues The Kindest is transformative (critique/parody within a fictional short story), so use is fair; commerciality is not dispositive | Dorland argues the letter’s purpose is the same and Larson copied substantial, qualitative excerpts that supplant the original | Court: Applied Andy Warhol/Google/Campbell framework — transformative purpose (critical fiction), neutral/ mixed nature of the original, amount/substantiality unfavorable for 2016/2017 but favorable for 2018, and market effect favored fair use. On balance fair use wins for the at-issue versions. |
| Defamation — Dorland’s communications accusing Larson of plagiarism | Larson: Dorland’s accusations to ASF, BBF, press, and others were false and harmed reputation/economic prospects | Dorland: statements were true or non-defamatory opinions supported by the letter excerpts and factual context | Court: Statements about plagiarism as to the 2016/2017 versions were substantially true or non-defamatory opinion supported by provided facts; Larson did not show defamatory communications to press beyond articles that quoted both sides. Defamation claim dismissed. |
| Intentional interference with business relationships (ASF, BBF) | Larson: Dorland and her counsel intentionally and improperly interfered, causing loss of business opportunities and reputation | Dorland: actions were lawful attempts to protect copyright and seek remedies; no improper motive/means or provable pecuniary loss | Court: Larson failed to prove resulting pecuniary loss (ASF paid contract fee; BBF contract provided no payment to Larson), so tortious-interference claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright requires original constituent elements and proof of copying)
- Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000) (test for substantial similarity and weighing of points of similarity/dissimilarity)
- Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 143 S. Ct. 1258 (2023) (frame final contextual reference for transformative-use inquiry)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (four-factor fair use framework and discussion of parody/criticism)
- Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) (fair-use analysis; commercial nature not dispositive)
- Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (importance of market-effect factor and prepublication right)
- Núñez v. Caribbean Int’l News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000) (publication and context for fair-use/first-publication analysis)
- Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991) (amount and substantiality: close paraphrases and direct quotes count as use)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)