Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.
900 F.Supp. 1287 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A visually-depicted character developed with sufficient specificity across a series of works is a copyrightable element, and a commercial can infringe on this copyright if it is substantially similar in both its constituent ideas and its total concept and feel. Using a copyrighted work in a commercial advertisement is unlikely to qualify as fair use, especially when it serves to attract attention rather than provide commentary.
Facts:
- In 1992, American Honda Motor Co.'s advertising agency, Rubin Postaer, conceived of a commercial for the Honda del Sol featuring a helicopter chase scene.
- The project was given working names, including 'James Bob,' which key personnel understood to be a pun on 'James Bond.'
- When the project was revived in 1994, the casting director was instructed to find 'James Bond'-type actors and actresses for the lead roles.
- The resulting commercial depicted a well-dressed couple in a Honda del Sol being pursued by a helicopter.
- A villain with metal-encased hands jumps from the helicopter onto the car's roof, threatening the couple.
- The hero, with a flirtatious look to his companion, detaches the car's roof, which ejects the villain, allowing the couple to escape.
- The commercial first aired in October 1994.
- After Plaintiffs complained, Defendants modified the commercial by changing the actors' accents from British to American and altering the music, but the visual elements remained the same.
Procedural Posture:
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Danjaq (Plaintiffs) sued American Honda Motor Co. and its advertising agency (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for copyright infringement.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from continuing to air the commercial.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor and dismiss the case as a matter of law.
- The District Court considered both motions simultaneously.
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 car commercial that features a suave hero, a beautiful companion, a grotesque villain, and a high-tech chase scene infringe on the copyrights of the James Bond films and the James Bond character as delineated in those films?
Opinions:
Majority - Kenyon, District Judge
Yes, the car commercial likely infringes on the copyrights of the James Bond films and the James Bond character. The court found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their copyright claim because they own the copyrights to the films and the James Bond character as expressed within them. The character is sufficiently delineated to be copyrightable under either the Ninth Circuit's 'story being told' test or the Second Circuit's more lenient 'character delineation' test, as audiences are drawn to the films specifically to see the unique, developed hero. The commercial is substantially similar to the Bond films, satisfying both prongs of the required test: it is extrinsically similar in its objective elements (plot, characters, mood, and specific scenes) and intrinsically similar in its 'total concept and feel' to an ordinary observer. Furthermore, the commercial's use of the Bond character and themes is not a protected fair use because it is primarily commercial in nature, does not offer parody or commentary, and harms the potential market for Plaintiffs' valuable licensing opportunities.
Analysis:
This case is significant for affirming that a sufficiently developed and visually depicted character, like James Bond, can be protected by copyright independently from the plots of the films in which he appears. The court's detailed application of the extrinsic/intrinsic substantial similarity test to an audiovisual advertisement provides a clear framework for analyzing infringement claims beyond literal copying. The decision also narrows the fair use defense in a commercial context, reinforcing that using a famous character to sell a product is typically viewed as market usurpation rather than protected parody or commentary.
