Price v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.
2007 WL 1259101, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31453, 499 F. Supp. 2d 382 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish copyright infringement under the theory of 'striking similarity' without direct proof of access, the similarities between two works must be so extensive and striking that they preclude the possibility of independent creation, coincidence, or common source. Significant dissimilarities in plot, character motivation, and theme can defeat a claim of striking similarity as a matter of law.
Facts:
- In 2001, plaintiffs authored a screenplay titled 'Dodgeball: The Movie'.
- The plaintiffs' screenplay centers on a main character, Matt, whose primary motivation for playing dodgeball is to win the affection of a cheerleader from his rival, a popular high school jock.
- In the plaintiffs' screenplay, dodgeball is depicted as a major, established sport within the story's community.
- In June 2004, defendants released a film titled 'Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story'.
- The defendants' film features a main character, Peter, whose sole motivation is to win a dodgeball tournament to save his gym from being taken over by a corporate competitor.
- In the defendants' film, the characters are new to organized dodgeball, discovering it as an obscure sport in a magazine.
- Both the screenplay and the film contain a common factual error, referencing dodgeball's ancient roots in China.
- This same factual error had previously appeared in other media, including an episode of the television show 'South Park'.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement.
- The court had previously ruled on three other motions for summary judgment concerning copyright ownership and affirmative defenses.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, their movie is not strikingly similar to the plaintiffs' screenplay.
- Defendants also filed a Daubert motion to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness, Ken Dancyger.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do significant dissimilarities between two creative works in plot, character motivation, and context preclude a finding of 'striking similarity' as a matter of law, even when the works share a common premise and some plot elements?
Opinions:
Majority - Scheindlin, District Judge
Yes. Significant dissimilarities between two works can preclude a finding of striking similarity as a matter of law. Although similarities exist between the plaintiffs' screenplay and the defendants' movie, they are insufficient to meet the high standard for striking similarity because the differences in character motivation, plot development, and the context of the central sport are substantial. The court found that in the screenplay, the motivation was romantic rivalry and dodgeball was an established local sport, whereas in the movie, the motivation was financial survival and dodgeball was an obscure, newly discovered sport. These differences are significant enough that a reasonable juror could not conclude that copying was the only possible explanation. Furthermore, the alleged 'common error' regarding dodgeball's origins is not distinctive enough to prove copying, as it has appeared in other works. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot rely on the doctrine of striking similarity and must prove copyright infringement through evidence of the defendants' access to their screenplay and probative similarities between the works.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the high threshold required to prove copyright infringement through 'striking similarity.' It clarifies that courts can grant summary judgment against such a claim when significant dissimilarities in core creative elements like plot and character motivation exist, even if the works share a general premise. The decision underscores that the striking similarity doctrine is reserved for cases where the works are so alike that independent creation is virtually impossible. Additionally, the court's exclusion of expert testimony on topics a jury can assess for itself (like probative similarity) highlights the 'gatekeeper' role of judges under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, preventing experts from opining on lay matters or ultimate legal conclusions.
