Crane v. Poetic Products Ltd.
89 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1942, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 993, 593 F. Supp. 2d 585 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection for factual works extends only to the original expression, selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts, not to the facts themselves, historical theories, common metaphors, or scenes a faire. Alleged infringement must demonstrate substantial similarity between only the protectable elements of the works.
Facts:
- Roger R. Crane, Jr. authored and owns the U.S. copyright for 'The Last Confession' (TLC), a fictional two-act play.
- TLC is based on the historic events surrounding the succession and death of Pope John Paul I, with Cardinal Giovanni Benelli as the protagonist narrating the story in flashbacks.
- Poetic Products Limited (PPL) owns the U.S. and U.K. copyrights for 'In God’s Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I' (IGN), a factual investigative book authored by David A. Yallop.
- IGN documents the financial and political corruption in the Vatican during the 1970s and concludes that Pope John Paul I was murdered by a faction of powerful men.
- Crane had access to IGN when writing TLC.
- PPL identified several passages in TLC that it alleged were substantially similar to IGN, presenting them as line-by-line comparisons to support its infringement claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger R. Crane, Jr. filed an action against Poetic Products Limited (PPL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment that his play, 'The Last Confession,' does not infringe PPL's copyright to 'In God’s Name' under U.S. and U.K. law.
- PPL filed counterclaims against Crane in the same court, alleging U.S. copyright infringement and common law unfair competition.
- Crane moved for summary judgment on his declaratory judgment claim.
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 fictional play, based on historical events and a murder theory presented in a non-fiction book, infringe the copyright of that non-fiction book when the similarities are primarily limited to unprotectable historical facts, common metaphors, and an unoriginal chronological timeline, rather than the original expression, selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Barbara S. Jones
No, a fictional play does not infringe the copyright of a non-fiction book based on the same historical events and murder theory if the similarities are limited to unprotectable historical facts, common metaphors, and an unoriginal timeline, rather than the original expression, selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts. The Court held that ordinary historical facts, interpretations of historical facts (including theories or plots), and scenes a faire are not protectable under the Copyright Act, citing Rosemont Enters., Inc. v. Random House, Inc. and Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc. While a 'thin' copyright protection exists for an original selection or arrangement of facts as established by Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., this protection is limited to that specific expression. Applying the substantial similarity test, the court determined that no reasonable lay observer would find the two works substantially similar in their protectable elements. The court examined PPL's specific claims of similarity and found them to concern either unprotectable historical facts (e.g., Pope Luciani's boat, open door policy), direct quotations presented as historical documents (e.g., a CREP advertisement, actual statements by real people), common metaphors ('open the windows'), or biblical paraphrases, none of which are copyrightable. The single instance of virtually identical expression regarding the Holy Spirit in papal conclaves was deemed an 'infinitesimal portion' insufficient to constitute copyright infringement. The court further noted that a non-fiction work's 'plot, theme, and total concept and feel' are interpretations of historical events and thus unprotectable. Even comparing these elements, the court found significant differences, such as IGN being an investigation concluding murder, while TLC is a fictional play that leaves the conclusion ambiguous, and the protagonist of TLC (Cardinal Benelli) being a minor character in IGN. The court also dismissed the U.K. copyright infringement claim, declining to grant a declaratory judgment on foreign law as no foreign action had been brought, deeming such relief premature and an offense to international comity. Finally, PPL's common law unfair competition counterclaim was dismissed as preempted by the federal Copyright Act because it was solely based on the alleged copying of protected expression, meeting the 'subject matter' and 'general scope' requirements for preemption under Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc. and Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai Inc.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction in copyright law between unprotectable facts and theories, and protectable original expression, particularly within non-fiction works or works based on historical events. It clarifies that merely using the same historical facts, even if arranged chronologically or dramatized, does not constitute infringement unless there is substantial similarity in the unique selection, coordination, and arrangement of those facts or other original creative elements. The ruling highlights the high bar for proving substantial similarity in such cases, especially when the defendant's work is in a different medium or focuses on a different narrative perspective, thereby limiting the scope of 'thin' copyright protection established by Feist. It also affirms federal preemption of state unfair competition claims that are functionally equivalent to copyright infringement claims.
