Arnstein v. Porter
154 F.2d 464 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment is improper when witness credibility is a central issue, as a litigant has the right to a trial to cross-examine adverse witnesses in open court. A claim of copyright infringement requires proof of two separate elements: (1) that the defendant copied the plaintiff's work, and (2) that the copying constituted improper appropriation.
Facts:
- Ira Arnstein, a songwriter, composed numerous musical works, including 'A Mother's Prayer' and 'A Modern Messiah.'
- Arnstein's compositions were published, with over a million copies of one song being sold.
- Copies of his other works were distributed to radio stations, band leaders, publishers, or were publicly performed.
- Cole Porter, another songwriter, composed works including 'Don't Fence Me In.'
- Arnstein alleged that Porter's compositions contained substantial similarities to his own copyrighted works.
- Porter, in a deposition, denied ever seeing or hearing any of Arnstein's compositions.
- Arnstein claimed that Porter had access to his work through widespread dissemination and also alleged that Porter employed 'stooges' to steal his music.
Procedural Posture:
- Ira Arnstein filed a complaint against Cole Porter for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Arnstein made a demand for a jury trial.
- Porter filed a motion for summary judgment, submitting affidavits and his deposition testimony in support.
- The district court judge granted Porter's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Arnstein's action.
- Arnstein, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is summary judgment appropriate in a copyright infringement action where the defendant denies access and copying, but there are some similarities between the works, thereby making the defendant's credibility a central issue?
Opinions:
Majority - Frank, J.
No. Summary judgment is inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the defendant's access to the plaintiff's work, which hinges on witness credibility. To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must first establish 'copying' and then 'improper appropriation.' The issue of copying—whether the defendant in fact copied the plaintiff's work—can be proven by showing access and similarities sufficient to infer copying; expert analysis is relevant here. The issue of improper appropriation—whether the copying was unlawful—is determined by the 'response of the ordinary lay hearer,' and expert analysis is irrelevant. In this case, while the similarities are not striking enough to prove copying on their own, they are sufficient that a jury, if it found evidence of access, could reasonably infer copying. Since access depends on the credibility of the parties' conflicting accounts, and credibility cannot be determined by affidavits, the plaintiff is entitled to a trial where he can cross-examine the defendant in front of a jury.
Dissenting - Clark, J.
Yes. Summary judgment is appropriate because no genuine issue of material fact exists. The alleged similarities between the compositions are so minimal, trivial, and common in popular music that no reasonable jury could find plagiarism. The plaintiff has offered no credible evidence of access, relying instead on 'vague and reckless' charges, while the defendant has categorically denied it. The majority's holding misapplies the summary judgment rule, creating a 'procedural mountain' out of a simple issue and inviting 'strike suits.' The court should not abdicate its judicial duty to decide clear legal issues and should reject claims based on such trifling similarities without subjecting the defendant to a needless and expensive trial.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent limiting the use of summary judgment in litigation where a party's state of mind or credibility is a dispositive issue. It champions the importance of live testimony and cross-examination over a 'trial by affidavits.' The decision's most lasting impact is its formulation of the two-part test for copyright infringement—copying and improper appropriation—which separates the factual inquiry (access and similarity) from the normative judgment (the reaction of the ordinary observer). This framework continues to be a cornerstone of copyright infringement analysis, making it more difficult for defendants to win such cases before trial.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Arnstein v. Porter (1946)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"