Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.
210 F. Supp. 2d 552 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law claim is not preempted by the federal Copyright Act if it requires proof of an 'extra element' beyond the mere acts of reproduction, distribution, performance, or display that makes the claim qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim.
Facts:
- Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. (BVHE) manufactures, distributes, and sells home video versions of copyrighted motion pictures as the exclusive licensee of Walt Disney Pictures and Television.
- Video Pipeline, Inc. compiles and organizes movie previews for its home video wholesaler and retailer customers.
- On November 7, 1998, BVHE and Video Pipeline entered into a Master Clip License Agreement, permitting Video Pipeline to use certain promotional previews provided by BVHE.
- Video Pipeline made these BVHE-provided previews available on the internet websites of its retailer clients.
- Subsequently, Video Pipeline returned BVHE's promotional materials and began creating its own 'clip previews' by editing copies of movies sold by BVHE.
- These self-made clip previews, which were streamed on Video Pipeline's website, were preceded by the display of a Disney or Miramax trademark.
- On May 9, 2001, Video Pipeline discontinued streaming the clip previews it had created.
Procedural Posture:
- Video Pipeline, Inc. filed a complaint against Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. (BVHE) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment.
- Video Pipeline amended its complaint.
- BVHE and counterclaim co-plaintiff Miramax Film Corporation filed amended counterclaims alleging copyright infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and replevin.
- Video Pipeline filed a motion to dismiss BVHE's counterclaims for unfair competition, breach of contract, conversion, replevin, and unjust enrichment, arguing they fail to state a claim and are preempted by the federal Copyright Act.
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 the federal Copyright Act preempt state law claims for unfair competition, breach of contract, conversion, replevin, and unjust enrichment when those claims arise from the unauthorized use of copyrighted movie previews?
Opinions:
Majority - Simandle, District Judge
No as to the unfair competition, breach of contract, conversion, and replevin claims; Yes as to the unjust enrichment claim. State law claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act if they contain an 'extra element' that renders them qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim; however, claims that are merely equivalent to rights protected by copyright are preempted. The court applied a two-part preemption test: (1) whether the work falls within the subject matter of copyright, and (2) whether the state law rights are equivalent to the exclusive rights protected by the Copyright Act. The court determined the movie previews fall within the subject matter of copyright. It then applied the 'extra element' test to determine equivalency. The unfair competition claim for 'passing off' was not preempted because it requires the extra element of deception or misrepresentation. The breach of contract claim was not preempted because it requires the extra element of a contractual promise between the parties. The conversion and replevin claims were not preempted because they involve interference with tangible physical property (the video tapes), which is an extra element distinct from the intangible rights protected by copyright. In contrast, the unjust enrichment claim was preempted because it was based solely on the unauthorized use and exploitation of BVHE's intellectual property, making it equivalent to a copyright infringement claim without any extra element.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a clear application of the Copyright Act's preemption doctrine, specifically the 'extra element' test. It reinforces the principle that while the Copyright Act is the exclusive remedy for unauthorized reproduction and distribution, it does not extinguish state law claims that protect different legal interests, such as the enforcement of contracts or the prevention of public deception. The case serves as a crucial guide for pleading, demonstrating that by carefully framing claims around distinct legal duties (like a promise or deception), litigants can pursue state law remedies alongside copyright infringement claims. The dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim highlights the court's unwillingness to allow claims that are merely repackaged copyright infringement allegations.
