McDonald v. West
15-3489-cv
| 2d Cir. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Joel R. McDonald (pro se) sued musicians and record companies alleging copyright infringement of his work.
- Defendants included Kanye West, Jay-Z, Mike Dean, Universal Music Group, and others; Frank Ocean and others were named but not central to the decision.
- The District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed McDonald’s amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; judgment entered September 30, 2015.
- The dismissal turned on the absence of plausible allegations that defendants actually copied protectible elements of McDonald’s work and that the defendant works were substantially similar to those protectible elements.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, applying the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and copyright substantial-similarity doctrine.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding the complaint and incorporated works did not plausibly allege actionable substantial similarity and that the district court’s reasoning was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges actual copying and unlawful substantial similarity | McDonald alleged defendants copied his work and created substantially similar material | Defendants argued the works are not substantially similar as to protectible elements and thus no actionable copying | Court held complaint failed to plausibly allege copying of protectible elements; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether substantial similarity can be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion | McDonald contended factual issues preclude dismissal | Defendants maintained the works (as incorporated) show only non‑copyrightable similarity or no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity | Court held a district court may resolve substantial similarity as a matter of law where appropriate and did so here |
| Role of public-domain/common elements in substantial-similarity analysis | McDonald argued overall similarity sufficed despite common elements | Defendants argued similarities derive from unprotectible/public-domain material and not protectible selection/arrangement | Court held when plaintiff’s work includes many public-domain elements, a more discerning test applies; plaintiff must plead similarity in protectible elements |
| Pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal in copyright cases | McDonald argued his allegations met pleading standards | Defendants argued allegations were conclusory and insufficient under plausibility standard | Court applied Twombly/Iqbal, finding allegations conclusory and insufficient to survive 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for plausibility and conclusory allegations)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (two-part test: actual copying and substantial similarity; works incorporated in pleadings control descriptions)
- Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262 (more discerning substantial-similarity analysis when plaintiff’s work includes public-domain elements)
- Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101 (ordinary observer test for substantial similarity)