stevan mena v. fox

7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 1/37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

STEVAN MENA,

USDCSDNY

DOCUMENT

ELEcrRONICAU,Y FILED

DOC #: __ -.,.--.....,--_

ID/\I'E FILED: .rzat1Zp.P l a i n t i f f , 11 Civ. 5501 (BSJ) (RLE)

Memorandum & Order

v .

FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., FOX

BROADCASTING COMPANY, FOX

TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., DAVID

HUDGINS, HUDGINS PRODUCTIONS INC.,

CRAIG PERRY, PRACTICAL PICTURES

INC., JASON KOFFEMAN, LOU PITT, LOU PITT PRODUCTIONS, WARNER BROS.

TELEVISION INC., WARNER BROS.

TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC.,

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,

BONANZA PRODUCTIONS, INC., TOM LUSE,:

SCOTT SWANSON, DERAN SARAFIAN,

Defendants .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

BARBARA S. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P l a i n t i f f Stevan Mena (ftMena" or f tP la in t i f f" ) brought t h i s

ac t ion aga ins t Fox Enter ta inment Group, In c . , Fox Broadcas t ing

Company, Fox Telev i s ion Sta t ions , In c . , David Hudgins, Hudgins

Product ions Inc . , Craig Perry , P r ac t i c a l P ic tu res Inc . , Jason

Koffeman, Lou P i t t , Lou p i t t Product ions , Warner Bros.

Telev i s ion In c . , Warner Bros . Telev i s ion D is t r i b u t i o n Inc . ,

Warner Bros . Enter ta inment In c . , Bonanza Product ions , In c . , Tom

Luse, Sco t t Swanson, and Deran Saraf ian {co l lec t ive ly ftFox" o r

1

Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 of 37



"Defendants ll), a l leg ing v io la t ions of th e Copyright Act of 1976

(17 U.S.C. §§ 101 e t ~ ) . Pursuant to Federa l Rule of Civ i l

Procedure 12(b) (6), Fox moved to dismiss th e Amended Complaint

fo r f a i l u re to s t a t e a claim on which r e l i e f cou ld be gran ted .

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) . For the reasons exp la ined below,

Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss i s GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

I . Procedural History

P l a i n t i f f f i l ed h is Complaint on August 8, 2011. (Dkt. 1 .)

On October 12, 2011, th e pa r t i e s s t i pu l a t ed and agreed t h a t Mena

would be permi t t ed to f i l e and serve an Amended Complaint

pursuan t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2) . (Dkt. 21.) Mena f i l ed h is

Amended Complaint on October 17, 2011. (Dkt. 25.) On October 26,

2011, Defendants Bonanza Produc t ions , I nc . , Fox Enter ta inmen t

Group, Inc . , Fox Broadcas t ing Company, Fox Televis ion Sta t ions ,

Inc . , David Hudgins, Hudgins Product ions Inc . , Lou P i t t , Lou

P i t t Produc t ions , Warner Bros. Televis ion Inc . , Warner Bros.

Telev i s ion Dis t r ibu t ion Inc . , Warner Bros. Enter ta inment Inc . ,

Tom Luse, and Scot t Swanson f i l ed t h i s Motion to Dismiss th e

Amended Complaint . (Dkt. 28.) Defendants Craig Perry , Prac t i ca l

Pic tu re s Inc . , and Jason Koffeman jo ined th e Motion to Dismiss

on October 27, 2011. (Dkt. 30.) On January 6, 2012, Mena f i l ed

h is Opposi t ion to th e Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint .

2




(Dkt. 35.) Defendants f i l e d t h e i r Reply to P l a i n t i f f ' s

Opposi t ion on February 2, 2012. (Dkt. 37.)

I I . Nature of the Dispute

This case cen te r s on two works, Transience and Past Life ,

which add a recondi te tw i s t to t r a d i t i o n a l crime dramas by

merging th e mundane with the myst . Both t e l l the s to ry of

murder vic t ims who have been re inca rna ted fol lowing t h e i r deaths

but r e t a in fragmented memories t h a t hold e lus ive c lues to th e

i de n t i t y of t h e i r l l e r s . For th e sake of c la r i t y , the

e s se n t i a l aspec ts of the p a r t s ' respect ive works a re descr ibed

br i e f l y below.

A. Pla in t i f f ' s Transience

Transience i s a screenp lay fo r a f ea tu re - leng th fi lm t h a t

chronic les the e f f o r t s a gr izz led and despondent d e t ec t i v e ,

Jack Ridge, f igh t ing aga ins t t ime to solve a s e r i e s of

abduct ions and murders committ by a s e r i a l k i l l e r . (Am. Compl.

2 .) In th e course of s inves t iga t ion , Ridge i s con tac ted by

an o ld ps yc h ia t r i s t f r iend who has poss ib ly he lp fu l - though

high ly unusual - informat ion. One of the p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s

p a t i e n t s , a nine -yea r -o ld g i r l named Rebecca Lowell , su f

from severe nightmares depic t ing a b ru t a l crime. In the course

of t r ea t ing Rebecca through reg re ss ive hypnotherapy I the

psychia t s t comes to th e as tonishing r e a l i z a t i on tha t Rebecca

i s recount ing v iv id memories of her murder by th e s e r i a l k i l l e r .

3




The p sy c h i a t r i s t comes to be l ieve t h a t Rebecca i s in f ac t the

re inca rna t ion o f th e k i l 's previous vic t im - a shocking

hypothes is t h a t i s confirmed when recordings of Rebecca ' s

r eco l l e c t i o n s (or "regress ions") l ead Ridge to discover t h a t

v ic t im ' s remains .

As th e i n v es t i g a t i o n progresses , Rebecca ' s "regress ions"

eventua l ly provide the c lues necessary to loca te th e s e r i a l

k i l l e r ' s hideou t . This discovery in t u rn l eads th e rescu ing o f

th e v iI's

l a t e s t capt ive and the su rp r i s ing r eve la t ion of

th e k i l l e r ' s i de n t i t y . Spurred by these d iscover ies , Ridge

va l i a n t ly rushes to th e a id of Rebecca, who i s again danger

from th e k i l l e r . Arriving j u s t in t ime, Ridge i s ab le to save

Rebecca and h er mother b ut i s morta l ly wounded himsel f . With

Rebecca sa fe and th e mystery so lved a t l a s t , Ridge only to

be re inca rna ted himself as h is es t ranged bro the r ' s newborn

ch i ld .

Mena began work on Transience in 2002 and in July 2006

produced an i n i t d r a f t t h a t he reg i s t e red with the Wri ters

Guild of America. (Am. Compl. ~ ~ 34 35.) Mena con t inued to work

on th e d r a f t and produced seve ra l subsequent i t e ra t i ons wel l

in to 2008.1

Id . a t 36.) In September 2008, Mena submi t ted a

1 Mena inc luded as exh ib i t s to h is Amended Complaint dra f t s o f Transience

dated December 28, 2008 (Ex. 1 ) , September 2008 (Ex. 2 ) , and December 1 , 2008

(Ex. 3 ) . These d r a f t s d i f f e r in minor r espec t s from one another . Mena

concedes , however, t h a t n if Past L i f e i s no t subs tan t ia l ly s imi la r to the

December 28, 2008 d r a f t , then it i s a l so no t subs tan t ia l ly s i m i l a r to the

4




copy of Transience to Defendant Perry , who expressed i n t e r e s t in

the sc reenplay and worked with Mena make add i t iona l s ions .

(rd . a t 39.) Mena also reg i s t e red the sc reenplay wi th the U.S.

Copyright Off ice in September 2008, l a t e r submit t ing two o t h e r

vers ions whose r eg i s t r a t i on became e f ive August 9, 2011.2

(Am. Compl. I I . )

B. Defendants ' Past Life

Past Li fe was an hour-long t e l s ion s e r i e s t ha t f i r s t

appeared on Fox in 2010 and ran fo r a shor t t ime before

apparent ly being cance l l ed in June 2010. (Am. Compl. 3, 13;

Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 3, 5 .) The s e r i e s f ea tu red P r i ce Whatley, a

former New York Pol ice Department de tec t ive , and Dr. Kate

McGinn, a psych ia t s t , both of whom were employed by a pr iva t e

i n s t i t u t e dedicated to so lv ing myste r ies in the p a s t l i ves of

i t s pa t i en t s . The lo t episode, the a l l eged i n f r ing ing work in

the Amended Complaint, concerns a fou r t een -year -o ld s tuden t

named Noah Powell . Noah/s paren t s br ing him to the i n s t i t u t e in

New York City when he begins exper ienc ing f r igh ten ing and

i nexp l i cab l e f lashbacks . McGinn eager and ea rnes t , and Whatley,

skep t i ca l and r e l uc t a n t team up in order to dec ipher th e

fragmented c lues conta ined in Noah's vi s ions .

e a r l i e r dra f t s . " (P I . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 6 n .4 . ) Thus, the Court compares only

the December 28, 2008 dr a f t to Past L i f e . (See id .

2 Regis t ra t ion i s no t required in orde r to ob ta in copyr ight pro tec t ion fo r an

or i g i na l work, but a ce r t i f i c a t e of r e g i s t r a t i on i s required to br ing an

ac t ion fo r inf r ingement . See 17 U.S.C. § 411{a) .

5




Over the course of t h e i r i n v es t i g a t i o n McGinn and Whatley

discover t h a t Noah i s ac tua l ly th e r e incarna t ion o f Rachel Bel l ,

an e igh t -year -o ld g i r l who disappeared along with her s i s t e r ,

Rebecca, be Noah was born . Following th e c lues from Noah 's

v is ions (a lso " regre ss ions" ) , McGinn, Whatley, and a team FBI

i n v es t i g a to r s eventua l ly t r ack down th e owner o f a myster ious

boa t with spec ia l s ign i f i cance fo r Rachel . Tracing the boat to

i t s or ig ina l owner, the s l eu th s loca te Rache l ' s k i l l e r and

discover s i s t e r , Rebecca,still

a l ive bu t brainwashed in to

be l i ev ing h e r abduc to r was ly her f a th e r . Rebecca i s

reun i t ed with h er family and Rachel ' s memories subside, leaving

Noah in peace to l i ve out h is new I i

I I I . Legal Standards

A. Motion to Dismiss

When cons ider ing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12{b) (6) th e Cour t accep t s as t rue a l l f ac tua l a l l ega t ions made

in th e compla int and draws a l l reasonab le infe rences in favor o f

the p l a i n t i f f . See ATSI Commcfns v. Shaar Fund, Ltd . , 493 F.3d

87, 98 (2d Cir . 2007). To survive the mot , th e compla must

a l lege "enough fac t s to s t a t e a cla im to r e l i e f t ha t i s

p laus ib le on i t s face ," Bel l At l . Corp. v . Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007) 1 meaning t h a t " the p l a i n t i f f pleads f ac tu a l

con ten t t h a t al lows the cour t to draw th e reasonable infe rence

t ha t th e defendant i s l i a b l e fo r th e misconduct a l leged ."

6




- - -

Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 55 6 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) . Conversely, a

pleading t ha t only "of ' l abe l s and conclus ions ' or ' a

formulaic r ec i t a t ion of the elements o f a cause of ac t ion ' " i s

not su f f i c i en t . Id . (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. a t 555).

B. Copyright Infringement

A ce r t i f i c a t e of r eg i s t r a t ion from th e U.S. Regis ter of

Copyrights i s i e evidence of a val id copyr ight . See 17

U.S.C. § 410(c) i accord Fol io Impress ions , Inc . v . Eyer

Cal i fo rn ia , 937 F.2d 759, 763 (2d Cir . 1991) Copyright

infr ingement may i n fe r red upon a showing (1 ) access to the

copyr ighted work and (2 ) s ubs t a n t i a l s imi l t i e s as to

p r o t ec t i b l e mate r i a l . See Fol io Impress ions , 937 F.2d a t 765.

"Even when [a ] p l a i n t i f f can show access , l S no

inf r ingement if s i m i l a r i t i e s between works are no t

s u f f i c i en t to prove copying. 11 Id . a t 765. Thus, in order to

surv ive Fox ' s Motion to Dismiss , Mena must be able to es t ab l i s h

each element a pr ima fac ie case of inf r ingement .

For th e purposes of t h i s motion, Defendants have assumed

s u f f i c i en t proof o f access .3 (Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 8 n.6 . )

Accordingly, the so le i ssue before t h i s Cour t i s whether a

subs t an t i s imi l a r i ty ex i s t s between the Pl a i n t i f f ' s screenplay

3 Thus, the Court does not cons ider a t t h i s s tage Mena's a b i l i t y o r i na b i l

to prove access , nor does it cons ider Fox's possib le defenses to

in f r ingement . As such, Mena's a l l ega t ions concerning evidence of ac tua l

copying are inappos i te to t h i s motion. Am. Compl. 36-52; Pl . ' s Opp

a t 5-6 . )

7




and th e Defendants ' a l leged ly in f r ing ing t e lev i s ion show. I t i s

wel l se t t l ed t h a t the Court can resolve ques t ions o f su b s t a n t i a l

s im i l a r i t y as a mat te r of law. 4 See, e . g . , Pe te r F. Gaito

~ A = r ~ c ~ h ~ i ~ t ~ e ~ c ~ t ~ u ~ r ~ e ~ ~ L ~ L ~ C ~ v ~ . ~ S ~ i ~ m _ o _ n _ e ~ ~ ~ ....~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 602 F.3d 57, 63-64 (2d

Cir . 2010). Where "the works in ques t ion a re a t tached to a

p l a i n t i f f ' s complain t , i s e n t i r e ly appropr i a t e fo r th e

d i s t r i c t cour t to cons ider the s im i l a r i t y between those works in

connect ion wi th a motion to dismiss , because the cour t has

before it a l l t h a t i s necessary in orde r to make such an

eva lua t ion . " Id . a t 64. Cf. Gordon v. McGinl ,11 CIV. 1001

RJS, 2011 WL 3648606 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) . I f th e Cour t

determines t ha t th e works are "not s ubs t a n t i a l l y s imi la r as a

mat te r of law," Kregos v. Associa ted Press , 3 F.3d 656, 664 (2d

Cir . 1993), the complain t does not "plaus ib ly give r i se to an

en t i t l ement to r e l i e f , " Iqba l , 556 U.S. a t 679, and the ac t ion

must be dismissed .

DISCUSSION

I . Protect ible Expression

Copyright pro tec t ion cannot be cla imed fo r mere ideas ,

concepts , o r pr inc ip les , which are permanent denizens of th e

publ ic domain. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) . The l i t e r a l words and

For t h i s reason , Mena's asse r t ion t h a t "the ques t ion of su b s t a n t i a l

s im i l a r i t y t y p i c a l l y presen ts a close f ac t quest ion t r ad i t i ona l l y reserved

fo r the t r i e r of f ac t " i s an i ncor r ec t s ta tement of th e law. (P l . ' s Opp'n.

Mem. a t 16. ) "[N]o discovery or f ac t - f ind ing i s typ ica l ly necessary ... . ff

Gaito , 602 F.3d a t 64 ( in t e rna l quota t ions omi t t ed) .

8

4




othe r express ive elements of a work, however, a re p ro t e c t i b l e .

Id . Copyright pro tec t ion may also extend to n o n - l i t e r a l elements

including the s t ru c t u re and organiza t ion of a work. See Nichols

v . Universa l Pic tu res , 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir . 1930)

(recognizing th e need to p r o t ec t l e s s concrete elements o f a

work to prevent a up lag ia r i s t [from] escap[ ing] l i a b i l i t y by

immater ia l v a r i a t i o n s" ) . The l i ne between unpro tec t ib le ideas

and copyr igh tab le embodiments i n o r ig ina l works, however, has

no t always been easy to draw. See id .

One major except ion to copyr igh tab le sub jec t mat te r

Usequences of events t h a t necessa r i ly r e s u l t from th e cho ice of

a se t t i n g or s i t ua t ion . " Will iams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 58 7

(2d Ci r . 1996) . nCopyrights . do no t p ro t e c t themat ic

concepts o r scenes which necessa r i ly must fo l low from c e r t a i n

s imi l a r p l o t s i t ua t ions . " v. Chi ld ren ' s Te lev i s ion

Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 91 (2d Cir . 1976) . These elements are

commonly ca l l ed scenes a fa ire . Courts have cons i s t en t ly held

t ha t scenes a fa i re are not copyr igh tab le as a mat te r o f law

U[b]ecause i s v i r t u a l l y imposs ib le to wr i t e about a

pa r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l e ra o r f i c t i o n a l theme withou t employing

c e r t a i n ' s t o c k ' o r s tandard l i t e r a r y devices ." Hoehl~ - - - - ~ ~ ~Universa l Ci ty S tud ios , I n c . , 618 F.2d 972, 979 (2d Cir . 1980) .

9




I I . Substant ial Similarity

Subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y i s eva lua ted with re spec t to

numerous aspec ts of a work, such as "the t o t a l concept and f e e l ,

theme, charac te r s , p l o t , sequence, pace, and s e t t i ng . " Will iams

84 F.3d a t 588. General ly , the Cour t eva lua tes su b s t a n t i a l

s im i l a r i t y according to th e "ord inary observer t e s t , " which asks

"whether an average lay observer would recognize the al leged

copy as having been appropr ia ted from the copyrighted work."

Hamil Am. Inc. v. GFI, 193 F.3d 92, 10 0 (2d Cir . 1999) i accord

Pete r F. Gaito Arch i t ec tu re , LLC v . Simone Dev. Corp. , 602 F.3d

57, 66 (2d r . 2 0 1 0 ) .

Where a work i s not "wholly or ig ina l" because it

incorpora tes elements from th e publ ic domain, "[w]hat must be

shown i s subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y between those elements , and only

those elements , t h a t provide copyr igh tab i l i ty to the a l leged ly

inf r inged compi la t ion ." Key Publ 'ns , Inc. v . Chinatown Today

Publ 'g Ente r s . , Inc . , 945 F.2d 509, 514 (2d r . 1991) ; see a l so

Boisson v. Banian, Ltd, 273 F.3d 262, 272 (2d r . 2001);

Wil l iams, 84 F.3d a t 587. "In apply ing t h i s t e s t , " however, "a

co u r t i s not to d i s se c t the works a t i s sue in to sepa ra t e

components and compare only the copyrightable e lements ."

Boisson, 273 F.3d a t 272. Excessive sp l i n t e r i n g of th e elements

of a work "would be to take th e 'more d isce rn ing ' t e s t to an

extreme" and would " re su l t in a lmost nothing being copyr igh tab le

10




because or ig ina l works broken down i n to t h e i r composi te p a r t s

would usual ly be little more than bas ic unpro tec t ib le elements ."

( Id . )

Therefore th e Court also cons iders the " t o t a l concept and

feel l of a work. Knitwaves, Inc . v. Lol ly togs Ltd. (Inc .) I 71

F.3d 996, 1003 (2d Cir . 1995) ( c i t ing . v.

Marshal l Fie ld & CO' 675 F.2d 498, 500 (2d Cir . 1 9 8 2 » .

Reconci l ing these mandates i s not always s t r a igh t fo rward . See

e . g . , Gordon v. McGinleYI 11 CIV. 1001 RJS, 2011 WL 3648606 1 a t

*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) ("Cour ts have noted th e apparent

t ens ion between a copyright t e s t t h a t embraces th e h o l i s t i c

impress ion of the lay observer and one t h a t imposes th e p a r t i a l

f i l t e r of the 'more di sce rn ing ' observer . II ) i ~ a n a l + Image UK

Ltd. v . Lutvak, 773 F. Supp. 2d 419, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("On

i t s face , disavowing th e not ion t h a t cour t s should compare only

those ements which are in themselves copyr igh tab le seems hard

IIto square with the more discerning observer t e s t .

( in te rna l c i t a t i ons om i t t e d» .

Mena argues t ha t "the Second C i r cu i t has c l a r i f i e d t ha t

cour t s should not engage in the f i l t r a t i o n process t h a t th e

discerning observer t e s t seems to requ i re ll and in s tead should be

"pr inc ipa l ly guided by comparing th e contes ted work 's ' t o t a l

concept and overa l l f e e l ' with t h a t th e l egedly in f r ing ing

work.1I (P I . ' s Opp/n. Mem. a t 17.) Foxi

on the o th e r hand, urges

11




t ha t the Cour t conf ine i t s focus narrowly to the ind iv idua l

protec t ib le elements of Mena's work, " ignoring those aspec ts of

[his] work t ha t are unpro tec t ib le in making th e comparison."

(Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 9 (c i t ing Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc . ,

964 F.2d 131, 141 (2 d Cir . 1992).) Nei ther p a r t y ' s pos i t ion

accura te ly descr ibes the s t a t e o f law.

Fi r s t , Mena urges t h i s Court to dispense with th e "more

discerning observer" t e s t , something it i s n e i t h e r f ree nor

inc l ined to do. See P I . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 17. ) Second, contrary to

Fox ' s asse r t ions (Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 3 n .3 ) , th e " t o t a l

concept and fee l" inqui ry not conf ined to cases involving

v isua l works. __ ~ __ ~ ~ , Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures , Inc . v.

Eins te in Moomjy, Inc . , 33 8 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir . 2003) ( t rac ing

the evolut ion of th e " t o t a l concept and fee l" ana lys i s ) ; Reyher,

533 F.2d a t 91-92 (apply ing th e " to t a l concept and fee l"

ana lys i s in the context chi ldren ' s books) . But see Canal+

Image UK Ltd . , 792 F. Supp. 2d a t 684 (observ ing tha t "[o]ne

e x p l a n a t i o n . i s t ha t the Second C i r c u i t ' s emphasis on th e

t o t a l concept and i nqu i ry i s th e r e su l t of applying to

v isua l works a copyr ight doctr ine developed with to

works cons i s t ing d i sc re te e lements") . Moreover, even a work

t ha t i s ent a compi la t ion of unpro tec t ib le elements may be

copyrightable under ce r ta in c i rcumstances . See Fei s t

Publ ica t ions , Inc . v. Rural Tel . Servo Co., 499 U.S. 340, 362

12




(1991) (holding t h a t compila t ions of unor ig ina l da ta may be

copyr igh tab le i f se lec ted o r arranged in an o r i g i n a l way) i

Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1003-04.

Both th e "more discerning observer" t e s t and the " t o t a l

concept and " ana lys i s can and should be appl ied when

eva lua t ing subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y . For any i nqu i ry concerning a

work t h a t con ta ins both p ro t e c t i b l e and unpro tec t ib le elements ,

th e "more discerning observer t e s t " i s always the s t a r t i ng

po in t . Tufenkian l 338 F.3d a t 134 ( s t a t ing t ha t su b s t a n t i a l

s im i l a r i t y ana lys i s "must begin by d i ssec t ing the copyrighted

work in to i t s component p a r t s in orde r to c l fy p re c i s e l y what

i s not or ig ina l " ) . When conduct ing t h i s ana lys i s th e Cour t

"must a t tempt to e x t r a c t the unpro tec t ib le elements from [ i t s ]

cons ide ra t ion and ask whether th e pro t ec t i b l e ements, s tanding

alone, a re s ubs t a n t i a l l y l a r . " DiTocco v. Riordan, 11-4438

CV 1 2012 WL 4016898, a t *1 (2d Cir . Sept . 131 2012) (quoting

Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1002 (emphasis in o r i g i n a l ) ) .

Yet it i s also apparen t t ha t "[b]y fac to r ing out

simi t i e s based on non copyr igh tab le elements , a cour t runs

the sk of overlooking wholesale usurpa t o f a p r i o r au thor ' s

express ion . 1I Hoehling 618 F.2d a t 979-80. A piecemeal

comparison the re fo re i s not independent ly f i c i en t because

"copyr igh t holder [s ] must be pro tec t ed not only from l i t e r a l

copying but also from infr ingement t ha t i s apparent only by

13




comparing the aes the t i c import o f th e works in t h e i r e n t i r e ty . "

DiTocco, 2012 WL 4016898, a t *1; Gai to , 602 F.3d a t 66. Thus,

th e Court must a l so look to the " to t a l concept and fee l" o f the

works being compared. Gai to , 602 F.3d a t 66; c f . Canal+ Image UK

Ltd. t 773 F.Supp.2d a t 435 ("[C]omparison by d i s s ec t i o n i s no t

the end of the mat t e r . The Cour t must a lso cons ider whether

t he re i s a su b s t a n t i a l s im i l a r i t y between th e t o t a l concept and

of the tw o works . " ) . This " to t a l concept and " ana lys i s

i s guided bycommon

sense. Boisson t 273 F.3d a t 273; Hamil t 193

F.3d a t 102.

The " to t a l concept and fee l " inqui rYt however, i s no t ca r t e

blanche to r e s t f ind ings o f in f r ingement on vague o r amorphous

dete rmina t ions . Such an approach would " inv i te [ ] an abd ica t ion

of ana lys is" or "end up er roneous ly pro tec t ing ' i d e a s . t "

Tufenkian, 338 F.3d a t 134 ( in te rna l c i t a t i ons omi t t ed ) . Thus t

"[w]here [courts ] have descr ibed poss ib l e in f r ingement in terms

of whether two designs have o r do no t have a s ubs t a n t i a l l y

s imi l a r ' t o t a l concept and fee l t ' [ they] genera l ly have t aken

care to i den t i fy prec i se ly th e p a r t i a e s t h e t i c dec i s ions -

o r ig in a l t o th e p l a i n t i f f and copied by th e defendant t ha t

might be thought to make th e des igns s imi l a r in the aggregate . 1I

Id .

While " [ t ]he s tandard of o r i g i n a l i t y i s low, . it does

exist . / I F e i s t Publ i ca t ions , 499 U.S. a t 362. Unpro tec t ib le

14


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/F.Supp.2d




elements a re ex t rac ted complete ly from th e ca lcu lus only when

t h e i r use i s "so mechanica l or rou t ine as to r equ i re no

c r e a t i v i t y whatsoever ." rd . ; see a l so Fol io Impress ions 937

F.2d a t 765-66; Knitwaves 71 F.3d a t 1009. Aesthe t ic dec is ions

llre l evan t to the " t o t a l concept and f ee l o f a work must

themselves be o r i g i n a l and p ro t e c t i b l e i merely assembling s tock

e lements o r scenes a fa ire without o r i g i n a l "se lec t ion l

coord ina t ion l and ar rangement" cannot sweep under th e mant le o f

copyr igh t pro tec t ion what was once in th e publ i c domain. F e i s t

Publ ica t ions 499 U.S. a t 362.

I I I . Appl icat ion

Applying th e ru les discussed above th e Cour t f inds t h a t

Transience i s a work compr ised o f or ig ina l combinat ions o f ideas

and concepts as well as components drawn from th e publ i c

domain. Thus Mena/s work i s composed o f both p ro t e c t i b l e and

unpro tec t ib l e e lements and the Court app l i e s th e "more

discerning observer t e s t " to the indiv idua l pro t e c t ib l e e lements

o f Mena/s work. The Cour t then employs the " t o t a l concept and

fee lH

ana lys i s to cons ider the work as a whole. UltimatelYI th e

Cour t f inds t h a t Past Li f e does not in f r inge Transience under

these t e s t s .

15




A. "More Discern ing Observer" Test

1 . Set t ing , Mood, and Themes

Transience i s s e t in a smal l Midwestern community, with a l l

of th e ac t ion in the s to ry occurr ing in o r around th e same town.

In Past L i f e , the pro tagon i s t s t rave l in and among Connect icu t ,

New York City , Washington, D.C., and more ru ra l loca t ions in

Virgin ia and North Caro l ina . Past L i f e a lso makes ample use of

sweeping urban v i s t a s and s tock images of well-known loca les

t h a t are absen t fromTransience .

I t i s thus read i ly apparen t

t h a t the se t t i n g s of the two works are s ign i f i c a n t ly d i f f e r e n t .

Simi la r ly , the mood of Transience i s qu i te unl ike from t h a t

of Past L i f e . Mena's screenp lay i s rep le t e with brooding

cha rac te r s , blood, and b r u t a l i t y , while Past L i f e i s c l e a r ly

in tended to appeal to a more genera l audience. The cha rac te r s in

Transience s t rugg le with fa i l ed r e l a t i o n s h ip s , acc iden ta l

deaths , es t ranged family members, g u i l t , vio lence , and t e rmina l

i l l ness . In co n t r a s t , the cha rac te r s in Past L i f e are l ikeab le

and l e ss developed, of t en engaging in humorous ban te r and

revea l ing little out s ide of t h a t necessary t o d r ive th e p l o t .

Moreover, while Transience con ta ins c h i l l i ng imagery and seve ra l

v io l en t scenes , a few br i e f f lashbacks t ha t imply drowning are

the only h in t s of vio lence in Past L i f e . In shor t , Transience

has a l l th e hal lmarks of a dark crime drama while Past L i f e was

16




in tended to be a more l igh thear ted inves t iga to ry adven ture . The

moods of the two works a re not su b s t a n t i a l l y s i mi l a r .

The themes of th e works a re a l so qu i te d i s s i mi l a r . Whi

Mena a l l eg e s t ha t both works incorpora te re l ig ious re fe rences

(Am. Compl. " 94, 118-19) , it i s obvious t ha t Past fe does

not conta in any s ign i f i can t re l ig ious symbolism a t a l l . Mena's

asse r t ion r e s t s e n t i r e on one re fe rence - th e use of th e name

"Maria" as a c lue - and i s t aken completely out of context . See

id . ) Fox cor rec t ly po in t s out t h a t th e only meanings eve r

ascr ibed to "Maria" in Past L i f e a re th e name of Noah's

g i r l f r i e n d , Noah 's poss e name in h is pas t I i ,a witness to

Noah's murder, th e name of a counse lo r a t a s a i l i ng camp, and

th e name of a boa t . See Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 20 n.16. ) Mena's

claim t h a t both works incorpora te re l ig ious imagery i s simply

incor rec t .

Mena a l so argues t ha t r e incarna t ion i s a prominent theme in

both Transience and Past Li fe . (Am. Compl. , S.) Fox i n s i s t s

t h a t "Transience and Past fe t r e a t th e sub jec t of pas t Ii

regress ion qu i te d i f f e r e n t ly . " (Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 20.) In

fac t , Fox urges t ha t "Past Li i s not a r e incarna t ion s to ry so

much as it i s a ghos t s tory.1f Id . a t 21.) The Cour t i s not

persuaded, however, t h a t r e incarna t ion i s of so little impor t in

Past Li fe . The d i s t i nc t i ve fea tu re of Fox ' s s e r i e s was prec i se ly

t h a t it fea tured c lues gleaned from p as t l i ve s - not from ghosts

17


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/story.1f

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/story.1f



or o the r appar i t ions . Fur ther , t he re i s little suppor t fo r Fox ' s

cla im t h a t "Noah [ i s ] temporar i ly channel ing the s p i r i t of the

drowned g i r l . " ( Id . )

The genera l concept of re inca rna t ion , however, i s no t

p ro t e c t i b l e and to acknowledge t ha t r e incarna t ion i s a prominent

theme in both works i s no t to say t h a t t h e i r t rea tments of the

theme are su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r . Transience examines th e na tu re

and impl ica t ions o f re inca rna t ion a t l eng th , delving in to th e

mechanics and impl ica t ions of a s ou l ' s " t ransmigra t ion . " (Am.

Compl., Ex. 1 a t 47.) Past L i f e , however, o f fe r s only cursory

and conclusory exp lana t ions fo r what would otherwise be a r a t h e r

f a n t a s t i c phenomenon. I t i s qu i te c l e a r t h a t r e incarna t ion ,

though a prominent theme and p l o t dev ice in both Transience and

Past L i f e , i s viewed and presen ted very d i f f e r e n t ly in each

work.

2. Narrat ive and Plot

Mena a lso a l l eg es t h a t , " [ i ] n add i t ion to being

re inca rna t ion s to r i e s , Transience and Past Li fe are a l so ' c r ime

procedura ls ' in which th e de tec t ive so lves an abduct ion/murder

t ha t took place more than a decade e a r l i e r " (Am. Compl.

5 .) Both Transience and Past Li fe are inves t iga to ry

procedura l s with th e d i s t i nc t ive tw is t t h a t crimes a re so lved

using c lues ex t rac ted from p a s t l i f e f lashbacks . The p l o t s of

both works re ly on th e process of inducing and i n t e rp re t ing

18




" regre ss ions , " iden t i fy ing " t r i g g e r s , " and dec ipher ing

d i s jo in ted c lues . Both works are also concerned pr imar i ly with

deducing what t rauma be fe l l a re inca rna ted ind iv idua l in a p r i o r

l i f e in to resolve a contemporary problem.

Fox and Mena c o r re c t l y recognize , however, t h a t t h i s

genera l n a r ra t i s no t i t s e l f p ro t e c t i b l e . (See pl.'s Opp'n.

Mem. a t 23 ("Anyone may wri te about a d e t ec t i v e who uses c lues

from a re inca rna ted murder vic t im to so lve a cr ime as long as

they express t h i s d i f f e r e n t ly . ") ; Defs . ' Reply Mem. a t 13-

14.) Orig ina l though they may be, ideas and concepts remain ever

open to publ ic appropr ia t ion . See 17 U.S.C. § 10 2 (b ) (2012) i

Nichols , 45 F.2d a t 121. Mena argues in s tead t h a t " v i r tua l ly

every s i g n i f i c a n t scene and p lo t poin t in Past L i f e i s th e same

o r d i s t i n c t l y s imi la r to analogous por t ion o f Transience."

(P l . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 2 .) Fox responds t h a t th e major mot iva t ion

in Past L i f e i s t he the rapeu t i c r eso lu t ion of i s sues stemming

from a pas t l i f e occurrence , whi Transience i s dr iven pure ly

by a law enforcement miss ion . s.' Supp. Mem. a t 13.) While

t rue t h a t Past L i f e ' s Whatley and McGinn a re no t as s ingu la r ly

focused on so lv ing a cr ime as Trans ience ' s , it i s no t

cor rec t t h a t t h i s purpose i s e n t i r e ly absen t . s Any review of th e

works must recognize th e obvious p a r a l l e l s between th e p l o t s .

5 For example, both Whatley and McGinn are employed by a organ iza t ion

dedica ted to so lv ing pas t l i f e myster ies . Moreover, both Past L i f e

protagonis ts have la w enforcement connections; Whatley i s a former de tec t ive

19




The commonal i t ies , however, a re i n s u f f i c i e n t to suppor t a

f inding of subs tan t i a l s i m i l a r i t y . The main p l o t poin t s Mena

i de n t i f i e s inc lude : an i n i t i a l f lashback ; a concerned p a ren t

meeting with a ps yc h ia t r i s t ; at tempts to induce f lashbacks to

ga the r more c lues ; th e s t rugg le to decode a d i f f i c u l t clue

obtained from a f lashback ; an i nc iden t t h a t i nc rea se s th e sense

of urgency fo r th e pro tagon i s t s ; a c l imac t i c moment in which the

re incarna ted person buck les under th e s t r a i n of the pas t l i f e

memories; an event t h a t prompts th e re inca rna ted person to

disappear and the search t h a t ensues; and an emot ional reunion

with members of th e re incarna ted person ' s family from h is o r her

pas t l i f e . ( P l . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 6-16.) Each of these scenes in

Transience i s expressed d i f f e r e n t ly in Past L i f e . More

important ly , these p lo t poin t s flow from the idea o f a crime

procedura l invo lv ing re inca rna t ion and are l i ke ly to be found in

any s to ry involving an i nd iv idua l with p a s t l i f e memories of a

crime. To hold t h a t th e use of such elements i s copyr igh tab le

would be to depr ive t h i s unique genre of veh ic l e s necessary to

advance th e p lo t , e f f e c t i v e l y prevent ing othe rs from penning

s imi l a r s t o r i e s . These a re p r ec i s e ly th e kinds of scenes a fa ire

t ha t are outs ide th e purview of copyr igh t pro tec t ion .

with the NYPD and McGinn r e l i e s both on Whatley and on her connec t ions in th e

FBI to d iscover the p a s t i den t i t i e s of her pa t ien ts and to apprehend Rachel ' s

murderer .

20




Absent s u b s t an t i a l s i mi l a r i t i e s between sp e c i f i c scenes o r

sequences t th e p ro t e c t i b l e e lements th e p l o t s in Transience

and Past L i f e a re s u f f i c i e n t ly d i f to prec lude a f ind ing

of in f r ingement .

3. Speci f i c Allegat ions of Infr inging Scenes

Mena does a l l ege t h a t seve ra l scenes from Past a re

d i r e c t ly drawn from h is work.6

F i r s t t Mena argues t h a t the

opening sequence o f Transience i s su b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to th a t

of Past Li . According to Mena t ~ [ i ] n both works t an opening

v isua l sequence dep ic t s a c of l i g h t on a black screen"

t h a t s h i f t s t grows t and eventua l ly encompasses th e whole screen

in such as way as to crea te th e impress ion t h a t ~ t h e viewer

passe[d] through th e l i g h t and emerge[d] ." (Am. Compl. 56.)

Fox argues t h a t th e opening sequences a re n ot su b s t a n t i a l l y

s imi l a r because ~ t h e l i g h t in Past L i f e t ak es th e shape of a

face t h a t cons tan t ly evolves in to faces of d i f

i nd iv idua l s t one a f t e r ano ther . " (Defs . t Supp. Mem. a t 30 App.

A 1 .)

use of a white l i g h t on a black background i s hard ly a

concept t h a t can be c la imed by a s ing le c r ea to r . Simi lar lYt the

idea of pass ing through t h a t l i g h t and emerging on th e o t h e r

The Amended Complaint conta ins more a l l ega t ions of d i sc r e t e in s tances of

copying than the sequences l i s t ed here . (See Am. Compl. 53-136) . Many of

the se purpor ted " s i mi l a r i t i e s , " however, a re t r i v i a l , exaggera ted , o r c l a s s i c

scenes a fa i r e . The sequences cons idered by the Court a re those fo r which

subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y could most p laus ib ly be argued.

21

6




s ide i s too genera l to be copyr ightable . Mena argues in s tead

t ha t the ac tua l express ion of t h i s concept in both works i s

su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r . (P I . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 6-7 . ) Fox c o r re c t l y

po in t s out , however, t h a t \\ I we know of th e opening sequence"

i s th ree l i nes con s t i tu t ing abs t rac t s tage d i rec t ions and "[h]ow

exac t the concept of a f lashing l i g h t would have been

expressed i s unc lea r . " (Defs . ' Reply Opp. a t 12. ) concept

Mena seeks to claim i s simply too gene ra l to be r e s t r i c t e d to

h is work and h is work a lone . Whi th e opening sequence of Past

L i f e may be s imi l a r t o t h a t contemplated by the sc reenplay fo r

Transience, t h i s s im i l a r i t y i s too a b s t r a c t - and too

specula t ive - to amount to inf r ingement .

Second, Mena a l l eges t h a t the scene fol lowing the opening

sequence, in both works a f lashback exper ienced by th e

re inca rna ted v i c tim, i s subs t an t l y s imi l a r i n Transience and

Past Li fe . (Am. Compl. , 57.) Spec i f i c scenes o r unique

progress ions using s imi l a r elements may sometimes be

p ro t e c t i b l e , but a review of th e tw o scenes quickly revea l s t ha t

they are ac tua l ly qu i te d i f f e r e n t . Though Mena a s s e r t s t ha t the

re incarna ted v ic t im in both works has a " t e r r i f y ing v is ion

which an un iden t i f i ed person i s chased, a t tacked, bea ten , and

presumably k i l l e d , " t h i s i s simply i nco r rec t . (Am. Compl. , 57.)

In Transience t h i s a l t e r c a t i on i s l inea r , occurs in a dark

fo res t , and impl s the v ic t im i s s t r ang led not bea ten . The

22




corresponding sequence in Pas t Li fe shows a confused jumble of

images inc lud ing a house, a body of wate r , shaky views of a

backyard, and an i r a t e man with a baseba l l b a t . The Past Li fe

progress ion t akes p lace during th e day and i s markedly l e s s

" te r r i fy ing" than th e scene descr ibed in Transience. ( Id . )

Addi t iona l ly , in Transience the vict im experiences t h i s v is ion

as a dream while Past Li fe pre sen t s th e event as a f lashback

experienced in the midst of a baske tba l l game. These scenes a re

simply too divergen t to suppor t a f ind ing o f su b s t a n t i a l

s i m i l a r i t y . See Denker v. Uhry, 820 F. Supp. 722, 732 (S.D.N.Y.

1992) a f f ' d , 996 F.2d 301 (2d Cir . 1993) ( " P la in t i f f poin t s ou t

t ha t each of th e works opens with an ' a cc iden t ' b e fa l l i n g the

main cha rac te r . [. .] [T] 0 cla im t h a t the even ts are s imi l a r

in t ha t both are "accidents" i s l e s s an argument than a pun; th e

even ts a re d i s t i n c t not only as express ion but a l so in the ideas

they express . " ) .

Third , Mena a l leges t ha t Pas t L i f e i s su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r

to Transience because it imports a scene in which th e

re incarna ted v ic t im runs away and i s l a t e r loca ted by th e

pro tagon i s t s . (Am. CompI. ~ ~ 81-83; P I . ' s Opp'n . Mem. a t 12.)

The development of a pa r t i c u l a r p lo t device " i s p ro t e c t i b l e , bu t

only a t a l eve l t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i z e s t h i s genera l theme in to

cha rac te r s , de ta i l s , and events ." Smith v . Weinste in , 578 F.

Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) , a f f ' d , 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir .

23




1984) ( r e jec t ing a claim of in f r ingement where two works used

pr ison rodeos as th e s e t t i ng an escape) . The "use o f a p lo t

device t h a t d i f f e r s as t o cha rac t e r s , d e t a i l s , and even t s does

not amount to in f r ingement . " Denker, 82 0 F.Supp. a t 732

( in te rna l quota t ions omit ted) .

The re l evan t sequences in Transience and Past L i f e a re very

f e ren t i n t h a t they involve d if charac te r s and conta in

f f e r en t de t a i l s . 7 J u s t as a "[p] I i f f i s n ot en t i t l ed to

copyr igh t pro tec t ion fo r a l l ins tances of misfor tune t h a t b e fa l l

th e de r ly o r a l l demonstra t ions o f dedica t ion by a servan t o r

he lpe r , " n e i th e r i s Mena en t i t l ed to so le use a sequence in

which a young person, haunted by unexplained s ions of the

pas t , runs o ff to a s t range loca t ion and i s l a t e r found and

quest ioned. Id . Many works employ sudden depar tures to dr ive th e

p l o t and quicken th e pace . Most would be fa r shor t e r i f main

cha rac te r s t h a t made such has ty e x i t s were never rewoven in to

th e s to ry .

Fourth , Mena urges t h a t the s ign i f i cance of the "tower" in

both s to r i e s i s also evidence of subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y . (Am.

Compl. 95 96; .'s Opp. Mem. a t 14.) Both Transience and Past

Li fe do fea tu re tower- l ike s t ru c t u re s t h a t f igure prominen t ly

th e p l o t . In Transience, a water tower with the phrase "Find

7 In Past Life, for , th i s "runaway" sequence coincides with thediscovery tha t Noah's was di f ferent in h i s pas t l i f e - a de ta i l and

plo t twis t whol absent from Transience.

24




Jesus H serves as an important landmark t h a t l eads th e de tec t ive

to the s e r i a l k i l l e r ' s l a i r . In Past L i f e , th e re inca rna ted

v ic t im ' s preoccupat ion wi th a f lashing red l i g h t a top a water

tower helps th e de tec t ives discover the Noah's former i de n t i t y

by revea l ing he could see the washington Monument from h is

bedroom window.

S t i l l , these elements a re s ign i f i c a n t ly d i f f e r e n t each

work. The water tower in Transience does not appear u n t i l th e

end of th e work, func t ion ing as one o f th e l a s t c lues l ead ing to

the rescue of a kidnapped vic t im. In Past fe , however, th e

s f i cance th e f lashing l i g h t i s an i n i t i a l c lue t h a t

al lows th e de tec t ive to discover th e v i c t i m ' s i de n t i t y .

Moreover, th e s ign i f i cance of these landmarks in each s to ry

arguably t u rns no t on th e natu re o f tower it f , but on an

add i t iona l element of each tower . In Transience , the phrase

"Find Jesus" - an of t - r epea ted phrase throughout th e s to ry used

s imul taneous ly as foreshadowing and l us ion - i s the key

landmark, not th e water tower f . Simi la r ly , in Past L i f e it

i s not the water tower but th e f lashing red l i g h t a t its apex, a

c ha ra c t e r i s t i c of s t ru c t u re s t a l l enough to requ i re a i r t r a f f i c

ind ica to r s - l i ke Washington Monument - t h a t prov ides th e

v i t a l c lue . Given t he i r d i f f e r e n t express ion and func t ions ,

these e lements a re not su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r .

25




Fina l ly , Mena a l l eg es t ha t " [ t ]he re i s a fa l se l ead in each

work (a man bel i eved to be th e k i l l e r t u rns o ut to be innocen t ) ,

but th e s to r i e s conclude soon a f t e r th e mystery o f th e c h i l d ' s

cryp t ic New Testament Reference i s solved. H (Am. Compl. , 7;

p l . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 14-15.) As an i n i t i a l mat te r , a " fa l s e lead H

- or , to use th e l i t e r a r y term, a red he r r ing - i s a rou t ine

element of any iv e s to ry . Thus, th e use t h i s element i s

not p ro t e c t i b l e . To th e ex ten t t h a t Mena suggests t h a t any

se lead" i s in f r ingement , h is argument necessa r i ly f a i l s .

Likewise, t he re i s no bas i s fo r f ind ing su b s t a n t i a l

s im i l a r i t y between the red he r r ings in each work. Cer ta in ly th e

f ac t t h a t th e red he r r ing in both s t o r i e s resu l t ed in suspic ion

of the wrong person cannot reasonab ly be unders tood as a

meaningful s im i l a r i t y . The func t ion o f a red he r r ing , a l l ,

i s to l ead the de tec t ive a s t r ay . Nor i s the element expressed in

the same way o r in t roduced a t the same p o i n t in both works. In

Transience , the red he r r ing i s a fa l se confess ion and Ridge does

no t dec ipher f i n a l cruc r idd le u n t i l a f t e r th e wrong

p e r p e t r a to r has been a r res t ed and everyone bu t Ridge i s

convinced the mystery i s solved. Converse ly , in Past th e

red he r r ing i s th e ownership of a suspic ious boat and i s

in t roduced a f t e r th e f i n a l c r u c i a l r idd le has a l ready

26




cracked. B Fina l ly , the Cour t i s unable to c re d i t Mena's

l ega t ion t h a t both red he r r ings c o n s t i t u t e "cryp t New

Testament re fe rence[s] ," (Am. Compl. 7 .) As a ined above,

t he re i s simply no ind ica t ion in Past Li t h a t any re l ig ious

overtone i s in tended.

With re spec t to those copyr igh tab le elements of these

sequences , th e Cour t concludes t h a t no observer would assume

Past L i f e had copied any p ro t e c t i b l e e lements from Transience.

Thus, a f t e r comparing th e works in ques t ion the Cour t f inds t h a t

the re l evan t sequences i de n t i f i e d in Past L i f e a re not

subs tan t i ly s imi l a r t o Transience under th e "more discerning

observer" s tandard .

4. Characters and Character Development

Mena a l so a l l eges t ha t Past fe i n f r i n g es h i s work because

it appropr i a t e s seve ra l important charac te r s .9 "The bar fo r

8 The Court must view th e f ac t s a l leged in the Amended Complaint in th e l i gh t

most favorable to Mena and so accepts the claim t h a t th e "Maria" re fe rence in

Past Li fe i s a red her r ing . While th e re fe rence does l ead th e i nves t iga to r s

i n i t i a l l y to suspec t the owner of a boat with t h a t name, h i s r eve la t ion tha t

he d id not own t he boa t a t the r e levan t t ime quickly s h i f t s susp ic ion to th e

prev ious owner who i s , in f ac t , the cor r ec t suspec t . The re fe rence in Pas t

Li fe could more proper ly be c l a s s i f i e d as one c lue in a se r ie s t h a t l eads to

the r eso lu t ion of the mystery , while the re fe rence in Transience i s a t rue

red her r ing des igned t o d e t e r o r d e r a i l the de tec t ive .9 Th e Court addresses in depth only those main charac te r s cen t r a l t o th e p lo t

in Transience and Pas t Li fe . Mena's a l l ega t ions regarding o t h e r suppor t ing

charac te r s f a i l as a mat te r o f la w because "[nJo charac te r in f r ingement claimcan succeed unless p l a i n t i f f ' s o r i g i n a l concept ion s u f f i c i e n t l y developed th e

charac te r , and defendants have copied th i s development and not merely the

broader o u t l i n e s . " Smith v . Weinstein, 57 8 F. Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.N.Y.

1984), 'd 73 8 F.2d 419 (2d Cir . 1984); Williams, 84 F.3d a t 58 9 ("[TJhe

l e s s developed th e charac te r s , th e l e ss they can be copyr ighted. ") i see a l so

Sheldon Abend Revocable T r us t v . Spie lberg , 748 F. Supp. 2d 200, 20 8

(S.D.N.Y. 2010).

27




subs tan t i a l s imi la r i in a cha rac te r i s s e t qu i te high ."

Sheldon Abend Revocable Trus t v. Spie lberg , 748 F. Supp. 2d 200,

208 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); v . Riordan, 815 F. Supp. 2d 655,

658 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) , f ld , 11-4438-CV, 2012 WL 4016898, a t *1

(2d r . Sept . 13, 2012) ( f inding no subs t an t s l a r i t y

between two teenaged who fought crea tu res from Greek

mythology) ; Arden v . Columbia Pic tu re s I n d u s t r i e s , Inc . , 908

F.Supp. 1248, 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ( f inding no su b s t a n t i a l

s im i l a r i t y between two middle-aged, s e l f - cen t e r ed bache lo rs t h a t

became t rapped in a repea t day while pursu ing love) .

Fi r s t , Mena argues t h a t th e re inca rna ted murder vic t ims who

provide th e c lues to so lve the murders a re subs t an t ly th e

same each work. (Am. Compl. " 59-60; P I . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t

26 27.) The re incarna ted v ic t im in Transience i s named Rebecca

Lowell , while the corresponding cha rac te r in Past Li i s Noah

Powell . Rebecca i s a nine o ld a r t i s t i c prod igy , whi Noah

i s an otherwise normal four teen-year old boy. Mena urges t h a t

these cha rac te r s a re su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi la r because both were a

young10

a p as t l i f e , murdered and re inca rna ted , so c i a l l y

o s t r a c i , a r t i s t i c , and i nc rea s ing ly burdened by f lashbacks to

10 I t i s worth not ing tha t the purpor ted Slm1 between the past

ident i t i es of Rebecca and Noah is a b i t exaggerated. While both were female

in t he i r l ives , Rebecca was a Hispanic teenage col lege s tudent while

Noah was a Caucasian eight-year-o ld g i r l .

28




h is o r her former l i f e . 11 (Am. Compl. ~ ~ 59-60; PI . ' s Opp'n. Mem.

a t 26-27. )

Fox argues t ha t a "vic t im with pas t l i f e memories" i s a

"scene a fa ire t h a t f lows from the idea of a po l i ce procedura l . "

(Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 18-19 n.14 . ) Fox a l so urges t ha t the

Rebecca and Noah a re not subs tan t i a l ly s i m i l a r because t h e i r

ages , genders , and backgrounds are not the same. (Defs . ' Reply

Mem. a t 5.) The Cour t also notes t ha t the manner of dea th of

each charac te r in h is o r her previous l i f e d i f f e r s . In

Transience, th e vic t im was raped, bea ten , and s t r ang led , while

in Past L i f e the v ic t im could not swim and was l e f t to drown.

Care must be taken to di s t ingui sh an unlawful ly copied

charac te r from "a somewhat s imi l a r though non- in f r ing ing

charac te r whose appearance , behavior , or t r a i t s , and espec ia l ly

t h e i r combinat ion, s ign i f i can t l y d i f f e r from those of a

copyr ighted charac te r , even though th e second charac te r i s

reminiscent of th e f i r s t one." Warner Bros. Inc . v . Am. Broad.

Companies, Inc . , 720 F.2d 231, 242 (2d Cir . 1983) . Admit tedly

both Rebecca and Noah embody the concept o f r e inca rna t ion and

t h e i r " regress ions" se rve as a source of c lues . This alone

cannot sus t a in a f ind ing of s ubs t a n t i a l s imi l a r i t y , however.

11 Mena also a l l eges s i m i l a r i t y because \ \ [ i ]n Transience, th e murderer bur ied

the [the vict im] near a r iver" and " in Past L i f e , the murderer threw the

[v ict im] in to the ocean." (Am. Compl. 60.) Equating the tw o scenar ios

obscures an impor tant d i f fe rence , however, as the former descr ibes the

k i l l e r ' s d isposa l of the vic t im ' s body while the l a t t e r descr ibes the manner

of dea th .

29




See, e . g . , Arden, 90B F.Supp. a t 1261 ( " P la in t i f f also argues

t h a t th e use of s imi l a r p lo t devices , such as each p ro t a g o n i s t ' s

sole knowledge of th e repea t ing day and the underdevelopment of

othe r charac te r s , cons t i tu t es s u b s t an t i a l s im i l a r i t y . Li te ra ry

devices , however, cannot be copyrighted .") .

In add i t ion to th e d i s t i n c t i o n s noted above, these

cha rac te r s also play very d i f f e r e n t ro les in t h e i r re spec t ive

works. Noah i s a f l a t cha rac te r with a pass ive ro le in the Past

Li fe s t o ry l i n e . Rebecca, on th e o t h e r hand, i s more fu l l y

developed and imbued with a degree of omniscience t h a t guides

othe r cha rac t e r s a t c r i t i c a l j unc tu re s .12 Given th e s i g n i f i c a n t

di f fe rences between Rebecca and Noah, th e Cour t concludes t h a t

these cha rac te r s a re no t s u f f i c i e n t ly s imi l a r t o suppor t a

f inding of infr ingement .

Second, Mena a l leges t ha t the de tec t ive charac te r s - Jack

Ridge and Price Whatley - a re su b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r. (Am. Compl.

~ ~ 6B ; P I . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 26-2B.) Both Transience and Past

Li fe fea tu re th e f ami l i a r f igure of a tough, capab le , determined

de tec t ive who fo l lows c lues and f a c t s . In both works, the

de tec t ive has l o s t h is wife , i s pra c t i c a l , and di sp lays

skept ic ism with regard t o re inca rna t ion . (Pl . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t

12 For example, Rebecca i s descr ibed as "except ional ly br igh t" and "[aJ t rue

prodigy" when it comes to a r t . (Am. Compl., Ex. 1 a t 13, 17.) Addi t iona l ly ,

throughout Transience Rebecca demonstra tes knowledge beyond her years ,

inexpl icably speaks f l u e n t Spanish, consoles her mother from he r p r io r l i f e ,

and sub t ly encourages a romance between Ridge and her cur ren t mother. ( Id . ,

Ex. 1 a t 16, 52, 94-95, 101.)

30




10.) The " d i f f i c u l t y in t h i s regard i s t h a t any two devices

purpor t ing to rep re sen t a na tu ra l prototype o r arche type are

l i ke ly to be s imi la r , qu i te a p a r t from any copying ." r s t Am.

A r t i f i c i a l Flowers, Inc. v . Joseph Markovits In c . , 34 2 F. Supp.

178, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) . The image of the hardscrabb le

de tec t ive i s , a f t e r I , a recur ren t f igure throughout

l i t e r a t u r e and serves as a s tock charac te r in myriad genres .

Life Films I n c ' l 784 F.2d 44, 50 (2d

Cir . 1986) ("Foot chases and th e morale problems of policemen,

no t to mention th e f ami l i a r f igure o f I r i sh cop, a re

venerab le and of ten - recur r ing themes o f po l ice f i c t i o n . " ) .

Likewise th e mot ivat ion of a l o s t loved one a despa i r

mit iga ted only by th e t h r i l l of the chase, and th e promise

love renewed a re a l l f ami l i a r p lo t dev ices . Mena/s "purported

list of common a t t r i b u t e s . . evokes only a genera l ske tch of

a charac te r ( i . e . , an unpro tec t ib l e idea) 1 r a t h e r than a

recognizab le i de n t i t y t h a t can be l inked to a p a r t i c u l a r f igure

( i . e . , a pro tec t ed express ion o f t h a t idea ) . " Allen v .

Scholas t ic Inc . , 739 F. Supp. 2d 642 1 660 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). To

th e ex ten t t ha t Mena seeks to cla im a copyr igh t in these

aspec ts , th e de tec t ive persona i s not pro t e c t ib l e .

1urthermore though they occupy s imi la r pos ions in t h e i r

re spec t ive p lo t l i ne s , Ridge and Whatley a re very d i f f e r e n t

dramat ic charac te r s . Ridge i s tough, hard -nosed , miserable , and

31




s ick ly . A paragon of s t rugg le and s t r i f e , he embodies th e

preva len t themes of t ragedy , redemption, g r i e f , hope, and

t y t h a t permeate Transience. In con t ras t , Whatley i s

suave, handsorne t c lever t and fu l l of v i t a l i t y . With l e s s

dramat deptht he i s a charac te r with whom th e audience w i l l

i den t i fy someone easy to roo t fo r from episode to episode as

he pursues both j u s t i c e and love . "S t i r r ing onet s memory o f a

copyr igh ted charac te r i s not th e same as appear ing to be

subs tant ly s i m i l a r t o t h a t charac te r t and only th e l a t t e r i s

infr ingement . II Warner Bros . Inc . , 720 F. 2d a t 242. S th e

de tec t ives in Transience and Past L i f e are s imi la r as s tock

cha rac te r s but d i ss imi la r otherwise t t he re i s no subs tan t i a l

s im i l a r i t y here .

Third t Mena a l l eg es t h a t th e ps yc h ia t r i s t charac te r s , Dr.

Leonard Hellerman and Dr. Kate McGinn, a re su b s t a n t i a l l y

s imi la r .13

(Am. Compl. ~ ~ 63-64, 67, 69 74; P I . t s Opp'n. Mem. a t

26-27.) Spec i f ica l lYt Mena urges t h a t these charac te r s i n t e r a c t

with the re inca rna ted vic t ims and th e de tec t ive i n s imi la r ways

13 In h is Amended Complaint , Mena t r ea t s th e ro le of th e p s y c h ia t r i s t and th e

charac te r Dr. McGinn separa te ly . Ins tead of comparing McGinn as th e

psych ia t r i s t to th e charac te r s in Transience, Mena in s tead l abe l s McGinn " the

Female Lead" and compares h e r to Rebecca 's mother . Th e Court i s no t persuaded

t h a t t h i s comparison i s va l id given t h a t , unl ike Rebecca 's mother, McGinn i s

in t imate ly involved in each phase of the i nves t iga t ion , plays a prominent

ro le in th e s to ry , and does n ot func t ion in the same care tak ing capac i ty with

r espec t to the r e incarna ted v ic t im . Th e Court a l so dec l ines to adopt Mena's

more a b s t r a c t nomenclature fo r th e purpose of making compar isons as many of

h is i den t i f i e r s inc luding "Female Lead," "Detec t ive , " and "Murder Vict im" -

would "cons t i tu t e [] gene r a l prototype[s] too i nd i s t i nc t to mer i t copyr ight

pro tec t ion ." 73 9 F.Supp.2d a t 660.

32






in both works. ( Id . ) But s i s not qu i te cor rec t . Though Mena

a l leges t ha t u[ t ]he [p ]sych ia t r i s t in each work reaches the same

conclus ion : th e [ c ]h i ld i s a re incarna ted murder v ic t im," th e

route to t ha t r e a l i z a t i on d i f fe r s g re a t l y i n Transience and Past

fe . ( Id . ) In th e former, lerman i s s t a r t l e d , f r ightened,

and f i na l ly awed and exc i ted by h is discovery t ha t Rebecca i s

re l iv ing memories from a pr io r l i f e . In con t ras t , McGinn i s

employed by th e Talmadge Center , a pr iva te organ iza t ion t ha t

spec ia l i zes in p as t l i f e therapy, and never doubts th e

s ign i f i cance o r verac i ty of Noah's f l ashbacks .

The most s t king d i s t i nc t ion , however, i s seen in th e

ionship between the ps yc h ia t r i s t and th e d e t ec t i v e in each

work. Mena a s s e r t s t ha t uin each work a homicide d e t ec t i v e

i s i s t e d to decipher the [ r ]e inca rna ted [ c ]h i ld ' s c ryp t i c

c lues , " but t h i s ignores major charac te r d i f f e rences . ( Id . ) In

Transience, Hellerman e n l i s t s Ridge ' s help by v i o l a t i n g the

doc to r -pa t ien t pr iv i l ege and en t ic ing Ridge with the informat ion

he gleaned from s sess ions with Rebecca. In Past Li fe ,

what ley i s ac tua l ly employed by the same i n s t i t u t ion as McGinn

and ready a member of the team seeking to help Noah.

Simi la r ly , Hellerman i s never more than a per iphera l charac te r ,

appearing in few scenes and func t ion ing pr imar i ly as a veh ic l e

fo r Ridge to access Rebecca ' s f l ashbacks . McGinn, on th e o ther

hand, i s a pro tagon is t in h e r own r i gh t , pa r tne red with the

33




de tec t ive and foreshadowed as a p o t e n t i a l love i n t e r e s t . Beyond

th e f ac t of t h e i r profe ss ion , few s i mi l a r i t e x i s t between the

ps yc h ia t r i s t s in Transience and Past Li fe .

Mena further aims that Fox infringed by ~ t [ a k i n g ] certain

c ha ra c t e r i s t i c s of th e Female Lead from Transience and

t rans [ ing] them to the female P sy c h i a t r i s t , who i s th e

Female Lead in Past fe ." (Am. Compl. 78.) This argument i s

also unava i l ing because the modi f ica t ion o r fus ion of charac te r

a t t r i bu t e s i s s u f f i c i e n t to d i s t ingu ish McGinn from Hellerman.

Cf. Hogan v . DC Comics, 48 F . Supp. 2d 298, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

( f inding no subs t an t s im i l a r i t y even though both charac te r s

were white males named Nicholas Gaunt; in t h e i r ea r ly twent ies ;

half-human, ha l f vampire; and had " thin-to-medium bu i lds , pa le

skin , dark messy h a i r and a s loven ly appearance") . Moreover,

while "no p l a g i a r i s t can excuse the wrong by showing how much of

h is work he d id not p i r a t e , a defendant may l eg i t ima te ly avoid

in f r ingement by i n t e n t i o n a l l y making s u f f i c i e n t changes in a

work which would otherwise be regarded as s u b s t an t i ly s imi la r

." Warner Bros Inc. v. American Broadcast , 654

F.2d 204, 211 (2d Cir . 1981) (c i t a t ions and i n t e rn a l quota t ions

omi t ted) ; c f . Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1002. Thus, Mena's

a l l ega t ions concerning Fox 's copying and a l t e ra t i on of th e

"Female Lead" and the "Psych ia t r i s t , " even i f cor rec t , f a i l to

show subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y .

34




With respec t to those charac te r e lements t h a t a re

copyr igh tab le , the Cour t concludes t h a t no observer would assume

Past fe had copied any p ro t e c t i b l e e lements from th e above

cha rac te r s found in Transience. Therefore , th e Cour t f inds t h a t

th e cha rac te r s and charac te r development Past fe i s not

su b s t a n t i a l ly s i m i l a r to Transience under th e "more discerning

observer" s tandard .

B. "Total Concept and Feel" Analysis

Fina l ly , th e Cour t looks a t Mena's " o r ig in a l con t r ibu t ions"

in terms of how he "se l ec t ed , coordinated , and arranged" th e

e lements of h is work to determine whether Transience and Past

Li fe are su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r under th e " t o t a l concept and

fee l" ana lys i s . Fe i s t Publ ica t ions , 499 U.S. a t 350, 358;

Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1004. The Cour t i s guided in t h i s

assessment by common sense . Boisson, 273 F.3d a t 273. However,

th e Cour t must poin t to "pa r t a r a e s t h e t i c dec i s ions" made by

Mena and copied by Fox in orde r to sus ta in a f ind ing of

subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y with re spec t to " t o t a l concept and fee l . "

Tufenkian, 338 F.3d a t 134 ( in te rna l c i t a t i o n s omit ted) .

The Cour t ' s review th e works in t h i s case compels th e

conclus ion t h a t th e " to t a l concept and fee l" o f Past L i f e i s

s u f f i c i e n t ly d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of Transience. Though Mena

contends "[b]oth [w]orks are unapologe t ica l ly dramat ic , i n t ense ,

and emot ional t h r i l l e r s with little comic r e l i e f and hopeful

35




end ings ," t h i s appra i sa l i s only accura te with re spec t to

fe does, in f a c t ,Transience. (P l . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 28.) Past

con ta in many i ns t ances of comic r epar tee designed to make th e

charac te rs appeal to a wider audience. Addi t iona l ly , while some

of th e ac t ion in Past Li fe can be descr ibed as ex c i t i n g ,

Transience i s f a r more "dramat ic , i n t ense , and emot ional"

because it employs elements t h a t a re f a r more gruesome and

suspensefu l .

The se lec t ion , coord ina t ion , and ar rangement of scenes and

elements also d i f f e r su b s t a n t i a l l y i n both works. Both

Transience and Past Li fe con ta in subp lo t s and tw i s t s not found

in th e o ther . Arguably s imi l a r scenes occur a t d i f f e r e n t t imes ,

important c lues a re cracked by d i f f e r e n t people and a t d i f f e r e n t

s tages in th e inves t iga t ion , and analogous charac te r s a re

developed to d i f f e r e n t degrees . Transience i s w r i t t en as a

fea ture length f i lm, s tandalone and se l f - con ta ined , while Past

L i f e i s c l e a r l y s t r u c tu r ed as a s e r i a l program in tended to

proceed in an episodic fashion. Exercis ing common sense and

reasonab le judgment, th e Cour t i s unable to pinpo in t any

s u f f i c i e n t ly or ig ina l aes the t i c dec is ions t ha t appear to have

been copied by Fox. Consequent ly , th e Cour t concludes t h a t

Transience and Past Li fe a re not su b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r under

" to t a l concept and ana lys i s .I

36




CONCLUSION

In l i g h t of the above discuss ion , th e Cour t f inds t h a t no

discerning observer would conclude t h a t Past L i f e had

appropr ia ted pro tec t ed e lements from Transience. The Cour t

fu r the r f inds t h a t Transience and Past L i f e are not

su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r with re spec t to " to t a l concept and fee l . "

As such, th e Cour t concludes t h a t "no reasonable ju ry , proper ly

in s t ruc ted , could f ind t h a t th e tw o works are s ubs t a n t i a l l y

s imi la r , " Warner Bros . , 720 F.2d a t 240; Durham I n d u s t r i e s , Inc .

v . Tomy Corp. , 630 F.2d 90S, 918 (2d Cir . 1980) , and f inds t h a t

th e works a re no t su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r as a mat t e r o f law. Since

th e Amended Complaint does not "p laus ib ly give r i s e to an

en t i t l ement to r e l i e f , " Iqba l , 556 U.S. a t 679, t h i s ac t ion must

be d ismissed .

For th e foregoing reasons , Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss

th e Amended Complaint i s hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Cour t

i s d i rec ted to t e rmina te the motion (Dkt. 28) and to c lose t h i s

case .

SO ORDERED:

ARBARA S. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: New York, New York

September 27, 2012

37


stevan mena v. fox

Documents