Zambito v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
613 F. Supp. 1107, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17669, 227 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 649 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Similarities between two works that are based on unprotectable elements, such as general ideas, themes, or stock scenes common to a genre (scenes a faire), are insufficient to establish substantial similarity for a copyright infringement claim.
Facts:
- Zeke Banarro, a 'renegade' archaeologist, finances a 'bootleg' expedition to the Andes in Peru to find pre-Columbian gold artifacts.
- Zeke's expedition is funded by a cocaine dealer, for whom Zeke agrees to smuggle cocaine from Peru.
- During the expedition, Zeke's party engages with prostitutes and uses cocaine; Zeke also confronts exploitation within his group.
- Zeke finds a treasure-filled cave by observing the sun's reflection off a cliff, fights off giant anaconda snakes with molotov cocktails, and retrieves the treasure.
- Zeke's party is confronted by the antagonist, Von Stroessner, who was hired by a museum to steal the treasure from Zeke.
- After a violent confrontation, Zeke kills Von Stroessner, and later his own partner Alvarado, before hiking back to civilization alone with the remaining gold.
- Indiana Jones ('Indy'), an archaeologist, is hired by the U.S. Army in 1936 to find the lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis acquire it for its supernatural powers.
- Indy partners with his former lover, Marion Ravenwood, who possesses a headpiece that is key to locating the Ark.
- In Cairo, they use the headpiece in a map room where sunlight reveals the location of the Well of Souls, where the Ark is hidden.
- Indy enters the Well, which is filled with asps and a cobra, fends them off with burning fuel oil, and retrieves the Ark, only to be trapped inside by his rival Belloq and the Nazis.
- After escaping and a lengthy chase, the Nazis capture the Ark and open it in a ritual, which unleashes spirits that kill them; Indy and Marion survive by closing their eyes.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Zambito filed a copyright infringement action against the defendants in the U.S. District Court.
- For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, the defendants conceded the validity of Zambito's copyright and their access to his screenplay.
- Both the plaintiff and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule on the issue of substantial similarity as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the movie 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and the screenplay 'Black Rainbow' substantially similar in their copyrightable expression, such that the movie infringes upon the screenplay's copyright?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, District Judge
No. The works are not substantially similar in their copyrightable expression because any similarities exist only at a level of unprotectable ideas or scenes a faire. The court reasoned that copyright law protects an author's specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself, such as an archaeologist searching for artifacts. The court found the 'mood and feel' of the two works to be completely different, with 'Rainbow' being a 'somber, vulgar script' and 'Raiders' being a 'tongue-in-cheek, action-packed... adventure story.' Furthermore, the protagonists (a self-interested anti-hero vs. a loyal matinee idol), antagonists, and settings were fundamentally dissimilar. Other alleged similarities, like caves with snakes or using sunlight to find treasure, are unprotectable 'scenes a faire'—stock elements indispensable to the adventure genre—and were given dissimilar treatment in each work.
Analysis:
This case serves as a clear illustration of the idea/expression dichotomy and the scenes a faire doctrine in copyright law, particularly at the summary judgment stage. It establishes that a collection of similarities regarding plot points, characters, and settings will not support an infringement claim if those elements are unprotectable ideas or standard genre tropes. The decision reinforces that courts will look beyond a simple list of similarities to compare the total concept and feel of the works, emphasizing that a difference in mood, character development, and specific expression can defeat a claim of substantial similarity. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on infringement claims where the works share a common genre but diverge significantly in their creative expression.
