King v. Innovation Books
976 F.2d 824 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessory credit (e.g., 'Author's Film') is a literally false designation of origin under the Lanham Act if the named person had no creative involvement or approval of the work. However, a 'based upon' credit is not misleading so long as the derivative work draws upon the original work in material respects, both quantitatively and qualitatively, even if substantial new elements are added.
Facts:
- In 1970, Stephen King wrote a short story titled 'The Lawnmower Man' about a pagan agent who uses psychokinetic powers to murder a homeowner with a lawnmower.
- In 1978, King assigned the motion picture rights to Great Fantastic Picture Corporation, granting broad rights to 'add to, take from, use, alter, adapt... and change' the story and its elements.
- In 1990, Allied Vision, Ltd. acquired these rights and commissioned a screenplay for a feature film, also titled 'The Lawnmower Man'.
- The resulting film's plot primarily focused on a scientist using virtual reality to enhance the intelligence of a simple-minded gardener, Jobe, which leads to Jobe developing superhuman powers and becoming hostile.
- King had no involvement in, and gave no approval of, the screenplay or the production of the film.
- The film incorporates what King described as the 'core' of his short story: a scene where a character uses psychokinetic powers to chase a man named Harold Parkette through his house with a running lawnmower and kill him.
- In both the story and the film, the victim's remains are discovered by police in a birdbath.
- Allied Vision and distributor New Line Cinema marketed the film using a possessory credit ('Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man') and a 'based upon' credit.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen King sued Allied Vision, Ltd. and New Line Cinema Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- King's complaint alleged violations of the Lanham Act and New York state laws, seeking damages and an injunction.
- King filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the defendants from using his name in connection with the film.
- The district court granted the preliminary injunction in full, concluding the possessory credit was false and the 'based upon' credit was misleading, and prohibiting the use of both.
- Allied Vision and New Line Cinema (appellants) appealed the district court's order granting the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where King was the appellee.
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 using a possessory credit ('Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man') and a 'based upon' credit for a film that significantly deviates from the original short story, and for which the author had no creative involvement, constitute a false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Miner, Circuit Judge
Yes, as to the possessory credit; No, as to the 'based upon' credit. A possessory credit is a false designation of origin when the named author had no involvement in or approval of the film, but a 'based upon' credit is not misleading if the film materially draws from the source work, even if significant new plot elements are added. The court reasoned that a possessory credit falsely implies a high level of creative involvement, approval, or control, which King did not have. As this attribution was literally false, no evidence of public confusion was necessary to find a Lanham Act violation. In contrast, the 'based upon' credit was not misleading because the film did draw upon the short story in both quantitative and qualitative respects by using its 'core' climactic scene, character names, and thematic elements. The district court erred by focusing on the proportion of the film attributable to the story, rather than the proper standard: the proportion of the story that appears in the film. Given that the assignment agreement contemplated substantial alterations, this use fell within the 'leeway' afforded by a 'based upon' credit.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important distinction in entertainment law between the legal standards for possessory credits and 'based upon' credits under the Lanham Act. It sets a high bar for using a possessory credit, effectively requiring an author or creator's direct involvement or approval, thereby protecting their reputation from being falsely associated with works they did not create or endorse. Conversely, the ruling provides significant creative latitude to filmmakers adapting literary works, affirming that a 'based upon' credit is legally sound even after substantial alteration, so long as a material and recognizable portion of the original work is retained. This precedent clarifies how courts should analyze such claims, shifting the focus from how much of the new work is original to how much of the original work is present in the new one.
