910 F. Supp. 2d 681
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Webb sues Stallone and related entities for copying The Cordoba Caper in The Expendables (2010).
- Callaham had a pre-Cordoba draft Barrow, which Stallone used as a starting point for Expendables.
- Cordoba was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2006; Callaham’s Barrow draft preceded Expendables’ writing.
- Stallone asserts Expendables was independently created, largely drawn from Barrow, and denies seeing Cordoba.
- Webb argues Stallone accessed Cordoba and that the works share striking similarities suggesting copying.
- Court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling no reasonable juror could find copying or striking similarity sufficient to defeat independent creation defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Webb proves copying of protectable elements. | Webb asserts copying via access and similarities. | Stallone/Barrow independent creation; Cordoba not copied. | No genuine copying; independent creation supported by record. |
| Whether Webb showed access to Cordoba by Stallone. | Cordoba was disseminated; possible viewing through competitions and agents. | No sufficient evidence of a reasonable possibility Stallone viewed Cordoba. | Access not proven; no link to Cordoba shown. |
| Whether the similarities are striking enough to negate independent creation. | Cordoba and Expendables share striking similarities. | Similarities are stock elements and not striking; not probative of copying. | No striking similarity; not enough to imply copying. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copying requires original elements)
- Muller v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 794 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (copying requires probative evidence)
- Dimmie v. Carey, 88 F. Supp. 2d 142 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (independent creation defense; summary judgment possible)
- Repp v. Webber (Repp II), 132 F.3d 882 (2d Cir.1997) (strength of independent creation is for factfinder)
- Repp v. Webber (Repp I), 892 F. Supp. 552 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (evidence required to support defense)
- Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony, 351 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.2003) (access and similarity considerations)
- Nicholls v. Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (probative similarity standard)
- Gal v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (striking similarity standard and access links)
- Silberstein v. Fox Entm’t Group, 424 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (access and substantial similarity considerations)
- Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir.1986) (scenes a faire concept in genre)