Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.
297 F.3d 815, 2002 WL 1042182 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Even if two works are not substantially similar as a whole, a copyright infringement claim can be sustained if specific, protected artistic elements within the works are objectively similar in their expressive detail.
Facts:
- Wanda and Christopher Cavalier created and copyrighted children's stories and characters, including 'Nicky Moonbeam,' an anthropomorphic moon.
- From 1995 to 1998, the Cavaliers submitted over 280 pages of their creative materials to publishers Random House and CTW for consideration.
- These submissions included a design for a children's board book with a functioning 'moon night light' built into the extended back cover.
- The materials also contained specific illustrations, such as stars wearing woolen hats while relaxing on clouds and stars being polished by other stars.
- The Cavaliers had face-to-face meetings with representatives from Random House and CTW regarding their submissions.
- After these meetings, Random House and CTW officially rejected the Cavaliers' works.
- Shortly thereafter, in 1999, Random House and CTW jointly published the books 'Good Night, Ernie' and 'Good Night, Elmo'.
- The defendants' books were board books that featured built-in night lights (a star and a moon, respectively) and contained illustrations of stars on clouds and a star being polished.
Procedural Posture:
- Wanda and Christopher Cavalier filed a complaint against Random House, Inc. and CTW in U.S. District Court.
- The complaint included claims for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court (trial court) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact as to substantial similarity and dismissing the Cavaliers' claims.
- The Cavaliers (appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment 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:
Does a defendant's work infringe on a plaintiff's copyright when, although the literary works as a whole are not substantially similar, specific artistic elements within the works share objective similarities in their protectable expression?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge William A. Fletcher
Yes, a defendant's work can infringe on a plaintiff's copyright where specific, protected artistic elements are substantially similar, even if the works as a whole are not. The court applied a two-part extrinsic/intrinsic test to determine substantial similarity, filtering out unprotectable elements like general ideas, stock characters, and scenes-a-faire. In comparing the literary works as a whole, the court found no substantial similarity; the Cavaliers' stories were long and instructional, while the defendants' books were short, simple, and lighthearted, differing in plot, pace, theme, and 'total concept and feel.' However, the court found that a claim for copyright infringement could proceed based on individual artistic elements. It concluded that triable issues of fact existed as to the substantial similarity of two specific elements: 1) the 'moon night light' design, because the specific expression (a smiling moon face with pink cheeks, surrounding stars, and the configuration of the 'on' button) was protectable and objectively similar to the Cavaliers' design, and 2) the illustration of 'stars relaxing on clouds,' due to striking similarities in subject matter, the stars' dress (wearing woolen winter caps), and the accompanying theme. The court found no substantial similarity in another illustration (stars being polished) or in the 'Dragon Tales' series, as the shared elements were either unprotectable ideas or the protectable expressions were significantly different.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying that a copyright infringement analysis is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It establishes that a plaintiff can fail to prove infringement of a work as a whole (e.g., a story) but still succeed by demonstrating that discrete, protectable components (e.g., specific illustrations) were copied. The decision reinforces the importance of the 'extrinsic' test's filtering function, dissecting works to compare only the protectable expression of ideas. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to escape liability by embedding copied artistic elements within an otherwise non-infringing work.
