Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co.
330 F.3d 1170, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 5747, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4473 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection extends only to the specific expression of an idea, not to the idea itself, nor to expressions that are indispensable to or naturally associated with that idea under the doctrines of merger and scenes à faire.
Facts:
- In 1986, Robert E. Rice created and registered the copyright for a home video titled 'The Mystery Magician,' which showed a masked magician performing and then revealing the secrets to several well-known magic tricks.
- Between 1986 and 1999, approximately 17,000 copies of Rice's video were sold worldwide.
- Sometime between 1995 and 1997, Fox Broadcasting Company began developing a series of television specials with the premise of revealing the secrets behind famous magic illusions.
- Starting in November 1997, Fox aired four specials featuring a masked magician who performed and explained magic tricks to the television audience.
- Fox also sold video copies of its specials, inviting viewers to place orders over a toll-free number shown during the broadcasts.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert E. Rice sued Fox Broadcasting Company and other associated entities in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging copyright infringement and false advertising.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim, dismissing it.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the false advertising claims.
- Rice, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of his copyright claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The defendants, as cross-appellants, appealed the district court's refusal to dismiss the false advertising claims.
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 television special featuring a masked magician revealing magic secrets infringe on the copyright of a home video with the same premise, where the similarities between the works consist of unprotectable ideas, scenes à faire, and generic expressive elements?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Scannlain, Circuit Judge
No, the television specials do not infringe on the video's copyright. To establish infringement, a plaintiff must show substantial similarity in protectable elements, and here the similarities between the two works are based on unprotectable ideas and expressions dictated by those ideas. The core concept of a masked magician revealing secrets is an unprotectable idea. Elements like wearing a mask to hide one's identity from the magic community, or the sequence of performing a trick and then revealing its secret, are either merged with the idea or constitute scenes à faire—expressions indispensable to the theme—and are therefore not protectable. The magician character in Rice's video is not sufficiently distinctive to warrant copyright protection on its own, and other elements like plot, mood, and setting are too generic or dissimilar to support an infringement claim.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the idea-expression dichotomy and the crucial role of its limiting doctrines, merger and scenes à faire. It clarifies that copyright law does not grant a monopoly over a genre or a common premise, such as revealing magic secrets. The decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to win infringement cases based on similarities in stock elements, standard plot devices, or generic character types. Future courts will likely cite this case to filter out unprotectable scenes à faire and merged elements before comparing the works for substantial similarity, thereby protecting creators who independently develop works based on common themes.
