Erickson v. Blake
839 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection does not extend to ideas or facts, such as the mathematical constant pi, nor does it protect an expression that is so intrinsically linked to an idea that it merges with it; protection is limited to the author's original, creative contributions added to those unprotectable elements.
Facts:
- In 1992, Lars Erickson composed and registered a copyright for an orchestral piece titled 'Pi Symphony'.
- The primary musical motif of 'Pi Symphony' was created by assigning each number from 0 to 9 to a musical note and then playing them in the order of the digits of the number pi.
- Erickson maintained a website to promote his work and, in May 2010, posted a YouTube video featuring a performance of 'Pi Symphony'.
- In February 2011, Michael John Blake published a YouTube video of his own musical work titled 'What Pi Sounds Like'.
- Blake's work was also constructed by assigning notes to numbers and creating a melody based on the sequence of digits in pi.
- Blake offered copies of his work, 'What Pi Sounds Like', for sale online.
Procedural Posture:
- Lars Erickson sued Michael John Blake for copyright infringement and unfair competition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.
- Blake filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction, venue was improper, and the complaint failed to state a claim.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska found it lacked personal jurisdiction over Blake and granted his request to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon is now ruling on the remaining part of Blake's motion to dismiss for failure to state a 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 musical work based on the idea of transcribing the digits of pi into a melody infringe upon an earlier copyrighted work based on the same idea, where the primary similarity between the two works is the unprotectable sequence of notes derived from the digits of pi?
Opinions:
Majority - Simon, District Judge.
No. The musical work does not infringe because copyright law does not protect the underlying idea of transcribing pi's digits into music, nor does it protect the resulting musical pattern which merges with that idea. To establish infringement, the similarity must exist in the protectable elements of the work, not in the unprotectable ideas or facts. The court applied the Ninth Circuit's two-part test for substantial similarity, focusing on the objective 'extrinsic test' which can be decided as a matter of law. This test requires the court to dissect the works and filter out unprotectable elements such as ideas, facts (like the number pi), and expressions that merge with ideas. The court found that the core idea of converting pi to music is unprotectable, and the resulting note sequence is an expression that merges with this idea, as there are only a finite number of ways to execute it. After filtering out this unprotectable element, the court compared the remaining original elements—rhythm, harmony, tempo, and phrasing—and found no substantial similarity between 'Pi Symphony' and 'What Pi Sounds Like'. Therefore, Erickson's copyright is 'thin,' protecting only against virtually identical copying, which was not present here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental copyright principle of the idea-expression dichotomy and the associated merger doctrine. It clarifies that courts must first filter out unprotectable elements—ideas, facts, and merged expression—before assessing substantial similarity. The ruling establishes that artists who create works based on public domain facts like mathematical constants receive only 'thin' copyright protection, limited to their unique creative additions rather than the underlying concept itself. This prevents the first person to execute a clever idea from monopolizing it, thereby ensuring that the public domain of ideas and facts remains open for all creators to build upon.
