Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
720 F.2d 231 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A character that parodies a copyrighted character is not substantially similar and does not infringe the copyright if the totality of its attributes and traits, its 'total concept and feel,' are profoundly different from the original, even if it shares general traits or makes explicit references to the original for comedic contrast.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Warner Bros., Inc. and DC Comics, Inc. own the copyrights to the character Superman, who is portrayed as a brave, handsome, and highly competent hero with superhuman powers and a strong moral code.
- Defendant American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC) sought a license from the plaintiffs to create a 'Superboy' television series but was denied.
- Following the denial, ABC commissioned Stephen J. Cannell to create a new superhero series, which became 'The Greatest American Hero.'
- The protagonist of this series, Ralph Hinkley, is an ordinary high school teacher who is given a super-powered suit by aliens.
- Hinkley loses the suit's instruction manual and consequently uses his powers in a clumsy, awkward, and fearful manner, often resulting in comical failures like crash-landings.
- Hinkley's physical appearance is that of an average man, not an imposing hero, and his character is portrayed as reluctant and timid.
- The series and its promotional materials contain direct references to Superman, such as Hinkley paraphrasing the famous line, 'It's a bird... it's a plane... it's Ralph Hinkley,' in order to contrast the two characters for humorous effect.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Warner Bros., Inc., et al., sued defendant American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the broadcast of the television series.
- This denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on a prior appeal.
- Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment to dismiss the entire complaint.
- After conducting an extensive pretrial conference and reviewing the evidence, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims.
- Plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 character Ralph Hinkley, as portrayed in the television series 'The Greatest American Hero,' infringe upon the copyright of the character Superman by being substantially similar to it?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, J.
No. The character Ralph Hinkley is not substantially similar to Superman and therefore does not infringe upon the plaintiffs' copyright. To determine infringement, courts assess the 'total concept and feel' of the characters, not just isolated similarities in their abilities. While both characters possess superpowers like flight and strength, their expressions are fundamentally different; Superman is a paragon of skill and bravery, whereas Hinkley is a bumbling, comical, and reluctant hero. The court reasoned that Hinkley is a parody of Superman and the superhero genre, comparing the relationship to that of Inspector Clouseau and Sherlock Holmes. The explicit references to Superman in 'The Greatest American Hero' serve to highlight the contrast between the characters, which is a form of commentary protected as fair use, rather than an attempt to copy. Therefore, no reasonable jury could find the works substantially similar, and summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standing of parody as a defense against copyright infringement, particularly concerning fictional characters. It affirms that a work can reference and even borrow traits from a copyrighted character without infringing, provided the overall portrayal is transformative and serves a critical or comedic purpose. The court's focus on the 'total concept and feel' rather than a checklist of similarities provides greater protection for satirists and prevents copyright holders from using their rights to stifle commentary on their works. This ruling empowers courts to grant summary judgment in clear cases of non-infringement, preventing costly trials where a parody is readily apparent and no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity.
Unlock the full brief for Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.