Reilly v. Wozniak
2:18-cv-03775
D. Ariz.Mar 2, 2021Background:
- In 2010 Reilly emailed Steve Wozniak proposing the "Woz Institute of Technology;" Wozniak responded encouragingly but said he was "too busy" and would only endorse or later get involved.
- Reilly created a website, logo, and other graphic materials for the Woz Institute and registered copyrights for those materials.
- Reilly and Wozniak met in March 2011 (handshake photo); Reilly introduced Wozniak to Charter Oak and claims Wozniak entered into related arrangements; Wozniak denies recall of such dealings.
- Wozniak’s manager ordered Reilly to take down the site in April 2013; in 2017 Wozniak partnered with Southern Careers Institute to form "Woz U," prompting Reilly’s lawsuit.
- Reilly sued for breach of implied-in-fact contract (Desny claim), copyright infringement, declaratory relief, and other claims; prior dismissal eliminated money-had-and-received and accounting claims.
- On summary judgment the court: granted defense judgment on the implied-in-fact contract claim; denied summary judgment as to copyright infringement and declaratory relief (except the "to account" language); denied fee award at this stage.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of implied-in-fact contract (Desny) | Reilly contends he disclosed creative work to Wozniak under circumstances that create an implied promise to pay. | Wozniak says Reilly only sought endorsement/use of Woz’s name, not a sale; no expectation of payment or offer/acceptance. | Summary judgment for Wozniak: no reasonable juror could find Reilly disclosed the work "for sale" or that Wozniak accepted it with a reasonable expectation to pay. |
| Copyright infringement | Reilly asserts he owns valid registrations for the website/logos and Defendants’ Woz U materials are substantially similar and derived from his work. | Defendants argue there is no direct evidence of copying or that they had access to Reilly’s registered materials. | Summary judgment denied: registrations create presumption of validity and genuine disputes exist on access/copying and extrinsic substantial similarity. |
| Declaratory relief | Reilly seeks declaration that Woz U embodies his work and that Defendants owe him fair compensation. | Defendants contend declaratory relief depends on other claims and should fail if the underlying claims fail. | Denied in part: declaratory relief survives insofar as it tracks the surviving copyright claim; language requiring Defendants "to account" was dismissed as duplicative of the prior accounting claim. |
| Attorneys' fees (Copyright Act § 505) | N/A (Reilly seeks relief; Defendants seek fees if prevailing). | Defendants request fees as prevailing party on copyright claim. | Court declined to award fees at summary-judgment stage because copyright claim was not resolved for Defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Desny v. Wilder, [citation="46 Cal.2d 715"] (Cal. 1956) (recognizes implied-in-fact contract for idea disclosures under certain circumstances)
- Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., [citation="383 F.3d 965"] (9th Cir. 2004) (applies Desny standard in Ninth Circuit for implied-in-fact claims)
- Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., [citation="499 U.S. 340"] (U.S. 1991) (originality requirement for copyright: minimal creativity suffices)
- Skidmore as Tr. for Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led Zeppelin, [citation="952 F.3d 1051"] (9th Cir. 2020) (discusses access and extrinsic/intrinsic substantial-similarity framework)
- Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., [citation="297 F.3d 815"] (9th Cir. 2002) (framework for substantial similarity analysis)
- Entm't Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., [citation="122 F.3d 1211"] (9th Cir. 1997) (copyright registration shifts burden to defendant to prove invalidity)
- Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., [citation="649 F.3d 975"] (9th Cir. 2011) (Desny rights differ qualitatively from federal copyright rights)