Sachiko Muromura v. Rubin Postaer and Associates
2:12-cv-09263
| C.D. Cal. | Sep 16, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Sachiko Muromura (with co-plaintiff Minako Takeno) created and registered an audiovisual ferrofluid work titled “Protrude, Flow, 2001” and registered certain still photographs.
- RPA (an ad agency) contracted with Honda; RPA viewed Muromura’s online materials, rented one of her works in 2009 for $10,000, and later offered a $10,000 creative consultant fee when asked about alleged use of her imagery in Honda ads.
- Plaintiffs sued RPA and Honda for copyright infringement, alleging Defendants copied visual elements from Protrude, Flow in an Acura commercial and other advertising.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to plead protectable original elements and substantial similarity.
- The FAC described ferrofluid features (spikes, pools, columns, flow, reflective properties) and higher-level elements (mood, lighting, pace, sequence) but did not clearly distinguish protectable expression from unprotectable natural or idea-based elements.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, concluding Plaintiffs failed to plead protectable, substantially similar expressive elements beyond unprotectable natural properties of ferrofluid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs alleged ownership of a valid copyright | Muromura asserted registration of the audiovisual work and certain stills | Defendants did not dispute registration as to the identified works | Ownership alleged (registration claimed); not dispositive of dismissal issue |
| Whether FAC pleaded copying of original, protectable elements | Muromura claimed Defendants copied visual elements (spikes, flow, mood, lighting, pace, shapes) | RPA/Honda argued those elements are natural properties of ferrofluid or unprotectable ideas and that remaining expressive choices are not substantially similar | Court held most alleged elements are unprotectable (natural behavior of ferrofluid); remaining choices not substantially similar |
| Whether the works are substantially similar in protected expression | Plaintiff relied on overall similarity in mood, sequence, and specific ferrofluid appearances | Defendants argued differing settings, framing, presence of visible magnet, lighting, and cuts demonstrate dissimilarity | Court found no substantial similarity or virtual identity after filtering out unprotectable elements |
| Pleading sufficiency under Twombly/Iqbal for copyright claims | Plaintiff argued factual issues remain and alleged specific elements copied | Defendants argued the complaint offered labels/conclusions without distinguishing protectable elements | Court applied Iqbal/Twombly and dismissed for failure to plead plausible claim; granted leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility required beyond legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and rise-above-speculation standard for complaints)
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (elements of copyright infringement: ownership and copying of original elements)
- Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (extrinsic test; filter out nonprotectable elements in similarity analysis)
- Dream Games of Arizona, Inc. v. PV Onsite, 561 F.3d 983 (expression that necessarily follows from an idea is not protected)
- Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (natural or standard features of a subject matter are unprotectable; thin protection for particular combinations)
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (rule on accepting factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)