Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.
297 F.3d 815 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While general ideas, themes, and scenes-a-faire are not protectable by copyright, the specific, expressive details of individual artistic elements within a larger work are protectable. A claim for copyright infringement can be sustained based on the substantial similarity of these discrete elements, even if the works as a whole are not substantially similar in plot, theme, or feel.
Facts:
- Wanda and Christopher Cavalier created and copyrighted children's stories featuring a character named Nicky Moonbeam, which included specific illustrations and story concepts.
- One of the Cavaliers' key concepts was a board book with a 'moon night light' built into the extended back cover, featuring a smiling moon face and a star-shaped 'on' button.
- Their submissions also included specific illustrations, such as one depicting stars wearing woolen hats while relaxing and sleeping on clouds.
- From 1995 through 1998, the Cavaliers submitted over 280 pages of these materials, including their stories, illustrations, and the night light concept, to Random House and Children's Television Workshop (CTW).
- The Cavaliers had face-to-face meetings with executives at Random House and CTW to pitch their Nicky Moonbeam project.
- Random House and CTW ultimately rejected the Cavaliers' works for publication.
- Shortly after the rejection, Random House and CTW jointly published 'Good Night, Ernie' and 'Good Night, Elmo'.
- These board books featured a built-in night light on the extended back cover with a similar design and 'on' button, and 'Good Night, Ernie' included an illustration of stars wearing winter hats resting on clouds.
Procedural Posture:
- Wanda and Christopher Cavalier filed a complaint for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin against Random House, Inc. and CTW in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no substantial similarity between the works.
- The Cavaliers (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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:
Under copyright law, are children's books that incorporate a specific built-in nightlight design and particular illustrations of anthropomorphic stars substantially similar to an author's submitted works containing those same expressive elements, creating a triable issue of fact for infringement, even if the overall stories and characters are different?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge W. Fletcher
Yes, a triable issue of fact for substantial similarity exists for specific expressive elements even when the works as a whole differ. The court applies a two-part test for substantial similarity: an objective extrinsic test and a subjective intrinsic test. In its extrinsic analysis, the court first filters out unprotectable elements such as general ideas (a child's journey through the night sky), stock characters (a talking moon), and scenes-a-faire (a night-sky setting). Comparing the literary works as a whole, the court found no substantial similarity because the plots, themes, and moods were markedly different; the Cavaliers' works were longer and instructional, while the defendants' were short and lighthearted. However, the court found that infringement can be based on copying discrete, protected parts of a work. Analyzing individual artistic elements, the court held that a reasonable juror could find substantial similarity between the Cavaliers' 'moon night light' design and the one used in the defendants' books due to the specific combination of a smiling face, surrounding stars, placement, and the identical 'on' button design. Similarly, the illustration of 'stars relaxing on clouds' was strikingly similar in its expressive details, including the stars wearing red and green woolen winter caps. Therefore, summary judgment was improper as to these specific copyright claims.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the substantial similarity test, emphasizing that copyright analysis can be granular. It establishes that even if a work is not infringing as a whole, liability can arise from copying discrete, yet highly expressive, components like a cover design or a single illustration. The decision reinforces the 'analytic dissection' requirement, where courts must filter out unprotectable ideas but then carefully examine the remaining protectable expression. This precedent provides stronger protection for creators against the partial appropriation of their unique artistic contributions, even when those contributions are placed in a new or different overall context.
Unlock the full brief for Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.