992 F. Supp. 2d 543
D. Maryland2014Background
- Moore, a Maryland science fiction writer, owns copyrights in Aquatica (1994) and Pollination (2003).
- Avatar was created by Cameron/Lightstorm and produced/distributed by Fox, releasing in 2009.
- Moore alleges Defendants had access to Aquatica, Pollination, and related artwork before Avatar and that the works are substantially similar.
- Access theories include intermediaries (Gibson, Lancto) in 1994–1996 and Moore’s 2003–2005 submissions to Lightstorm; Pollination artwork submitted in 2005.
- Moore seeks substantial damages, injunction, accounting, and other relief; Defendants move for summary judgment on access and similarity.
- Court analyzes access and substantial similarity via extrinsic/intrinsic tests and grants Defendants’ summary judgment on both, denying Moore’s cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access to Moore’s works before Avatar | Moore: access via intermediaries and submissions. | Lightstorm defendants deny passing scripts; no cross-fact material. | Defendants; no genuine dispute on access. |
| Substantial similarity (extrinsic) | Moore: similarities in plot/setting/dialogue show copying. | No substantial similarities beyond non-protectable elements. | Defendants; no substantial similarity. |
| Substantial similarity (intrinsic) | Moore: total concept/feel similar. | Differences in mood/feel; not substantially similar. | Defendants; no intrinsic similarity. |
| Fragmented literal similarities | Eight alleged literal similarities show copying. | Arguments rely on scenes a faire; not qualitatively crucial. | Defendants; not sufficient to show infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579 (4th Cir.1996) (extrinsic similarity framework; actions require substantial similarity of protectable elements)
- Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454 (11th Cir.1994) (intrinsic similarity considerations; general traits not protected)
- Muller v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 794 F.Supp.2d 429 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (stock themes not protectable; plots must be analyzed for protectable similarity)
- Jones v. Blige, 558 F.3d 485 (6th Cir.2009) (corporate receipt/possibility of access; mere receipt is insufficient)
- Comins v. Discovery Communications, Inc., 200 F.Supp.2d 512 (D.Md.2002) (two-part extrinsic/intrinsic test for substantial similarity)
- Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267 (6th Cir.2009) (fragmented literal similarity not automatically sufficient)