Yet Another 'Stranger Things' Copyright Suit Over A String Of Likely Non-Protectable Elements

from the idea-vs.-expression dept

As one of, if not the, largest player in the streaming platform wars, Netflix is oft the target of copyright infringement threats and lawsuits. These actions against it have by and large been found to be absolutely baseless. Whether it's estates of long-dead authors, private prisons, or the brother of dead drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, there are plenty of folks out there who see a wealthy company on the rise and try to get a piece of that cash for themselves by making dubious intellectual property claims.

But if Netflix is the biggest player in streaming, then certainly its hit show Stranger Things is its most notable contribution. And, so, it's no surprise that the show has faced copyright challenges in the past and is being sued once again by someone claiming the idea for the show was his first.

A lawsuit filed by Irish Rover Entertainment on Wednesday (July 15) in California federal court claims that Stranger Things has copied a number of things from Totem, a screenplay written by Jeffrey Kennedy (via TheWrap).

The suit alleges that the Netflix show lifted the “plot, sequence, characters, theme, dialogue, mood, and setting, as well as copyrighted concept art” from Totem.

The filing itself is embedded below, but it's exactly what one who follows this sort of thing would expect. Rather than alleging any concrete examples of directly copying Totem, the suit's allegations string together a zillion elements of supposed copying, none of which would be actionable on their own. This is a common tactic, with courts in the past having found that the composition of otherwise unprotectable elements can be afforded copyright protection if that composition on its own is creatively sufficient in a unique way. It's something roughly like how you can't copyright a single note from a guitar, but an original composition of notes can be protected.

But about those elements cited, well, have a look for yourself at some examples.

Some of the events in Totem take place in the woods where Agent Sam Miller, under Azrael’s control, chases Kimimela. Similarly, in Stranger Things, Eleven is also pursued by the “Bad Men” through the woods.

...okay, but...

Characters interact with Azrael in an alternate plane. The interaction is marked by Lightning. Characters interact with the Shadow Monster in an alternate plane is also marked by lightning.

Well, yeah, it's a creepy thriller movie about the supernatural, so you'd expect-

In Totem, the tag line “promise?” is used as a literary device in the dialogue throughout the script. Multiple characters use the word “promise” to either verbally ask or verbally commit to an agreement. This dialogue tag is used countless times in the story and often marks the end of a scene and creates a transition. In Stranger Things, the tag line “promise?” is used as a literary device in the dialogue throughout the series. Multiple characters use the word “promise” to either verbally ask or verbally commit to an agreement. This dialogue tag is used countless times in the story and often marks the end of a scene and creates a transition.

But putting "promise?" at the end of dialogue is really common in both fiction and in life, so-

Sam Miller is an FBI agent who is involved in a crash near an industrial area. This is when Azrael takes control of Sam. Billy Hargrove also is involved in an accident in an industrial area. This is when the Shadow Monster takes control of Billy’s mind and forces him to do his bidding.

Those don't actually seem that similar at all?

It can be easy to get fooled by this sort of thing. What the lawsuit is listing is a bunch of ideas, some of which have similarities between Totem and Stranger Things. But there is an idea/expression dichotomy in copyright. Thematic elements, generic settings, and even character traits aren't afforded copyright protection. Instead, the specific expression of those ideas is. So, when Stranger Things' character isn't an FBI agent and is instead a rogue thug of a lifeguard, you don't have a copyright claim there.

And yet I listed only a small sample of the accusations in the filing. The hope with this sort of thing is that if you string together enough vague similarities among the non-protected elements, you can convince the court or jury that copying of the composition had been committed and that composition is what gets copyright protection. It's a strategy that rarely works, however, as seen in a previous lawsuit over Stranger Things.

This isn’t the first time the Duffer Brothers have been sued over the creation of Stranger Things. In 2018, the pair were accused of stealing the show’s concept by filmmaker Charlie Kessler. Kessler produced a short film in 2012 called Montauk and alleged that he and his agents pitched the idea of turning it into a full series to the Duffer Brothers in April 2014.

Kessler dropped his lawsuit the day before it was set to go to trial.

Here's a hint: when several people can file lawsuits against a single work claiming copying of essentially the same elements, then you're suing over non-protectable things.

Besides, everyone knows Stranger Things got all its ideas from Dungeons & Dragons.

Filed Under: copyright, expression, idea, idea/expression dichotomy, jeffrey kennedy, stranger things, totem
Companies: netflix

U.S. Court Of Appeals Hears Arguments That Lawsuit Against Disney For 'Pirates' Shouldn't Have Been Dismissed

from the argh dept

Back in 2019, we wrote about a lawsuit filed against Disney by two writers that pitched a piratey movie to the company. The writers' screenplay about Davey Jones, they said, was so similar to Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean movies so as to constitute copyright infringement. Much of this appeared to stem from the fact that the two writers had pitched the screenplay to Disney a few years before the Pirates franchise began, but the similarities laid out in the lawsuit were classic idea/expression dichotomy stuff.

The writers and Laiter said the movies, like the screenplay, diverged from the traditional canon by portraying pirates as humorous, good men rather than terrifying brutes. They also claimed both works featured supernatural cursed, skull-faced pirates, and that actor Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow character was substantially similar to the screenplay’s Davy Jones.

But the “single purported similarity” between the widely varying plots—cursed pirates—was an idea that flows naturally from a basic plot premise and therefore unprotectable, the judge said. The dark mood driven by pirate battles and sea monsters also stemmed naturally from the pirate premise, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall said.

And so the court dismissed the suit, laying out a reasoned argument that all of the similarities the plaintiffs had brought before the court were pirate tropes of the sort one would find in pretty much every pirate movie. Any minor deviations from those tropes, even if shared by both screenplays, were not protectable. Meanwhile, there were marked differences in the screenplay and characters, with one notable exception being that the plaintiff's Davey Jones gives up pirating to work in an orphanage, while Disney's Jack Sparrow very much does nothing of the sort.

Well, those writers appealed the decision and recently argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals that, basically, there are lots of other similarities that they forgot to mention in the first go around.

Creators of a pirate-themed screenplay argued Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a lower court dismissal merely filtered unprotectable elements from the allegedly infringing movie franchise without considering their protectable arrangement. The appeals court panel seemed receptive to the idea that the case against Walt Disney Co. should have at least survived a quick dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Those creators are pointing to the recent ruling in the The Shape of Water case, which similarly was dismissed early on, only to be revived on appeal when it was argued that expert testimony during the trial could have made a difference in the outcome. But, as Disney has argued in response, that case contained far more allegations of similarity than exists here. That, according to the plaintiffs in this case, is because the court didn't hear their new argument that these piratey tropes were protectable because of their specific combined arrangement.

U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget Shelton Bade noted that section and arrangement wasn’t mentioned in the decision and asked if it was argued. Lowe acknowledged the prior legal team was denied the chance to amend its complaint a second time to add it. Bade pushed back and said the court concluded the similarities were just pirate tropes “one would expect in any pirate movie.”

Lowe pointed to the opening brief, which laid out various alleged character, dialogue, plot, theme, and pacing similarities showing an architecture “identical for all intents and purposes” to the screenplay. He also said there are always “slight differences” between works, but that literary works were afforded “very thick protection.”

Disney attorney Melinda Eades LeMoine of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP said the court didn’t err by skipping the arrangement analysis because it wasn’t presented—and wasn’t present—in the case. Many of the alleged similarities could be found in various pirate tales as well as Disney’s own Pirates of the Caribbean ride, which opened in 1967 at California’s Disneyland theme park and includes alleged similarities such as a port town, skeletons, and treasure, she said.

Hard as it may be to back Disney in a copyright lawsuit, its position makes sense. There are instances where an arrangement of unprotectable elements can qualify for copyright protection due to the originality of that arrangement, but nothing the plaintiffs point out here seems to move beyond a mashed together list of pirate tropes. That, combined with the stark differences that are present in the screenplay's story and characters, really does put this back into the idea/expression dichotomy territory.

And, yet, it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see the court decide that those are arguments best made at trial.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez said district courts can dismiss cases based on a lack of similarity, “But I think it’s difficult.” Not letting questions about arrangement and what elements were generic at least get to the summary judgment phase “just strikes me as odd,” he said.

“It does seem that you’ve got to be very careful when you do that, you’ve got to be sure. What you’re saying is there’s no plausible claim,” Paez said.

To be clear, this is the court hinting that it will err on the side of caution, not any sort of affirmation that the plaintiffs have an actual case. Still, it's annoying that any creator, even Disney, would have to go through a trial over this sort of thing.

Filed Under: copyright, expression, idea, idea/expression dichotomy, pirates, pirates of the caribbean
Companies: disney

Supreme Court Declines To Hear Batmobile Copyright Case

from the holy-copyright,-batman dept

We wrote last year about a copyright dispute between DC Comics and guy by the name of Mark Towle, who had been custom producing Batmobiles for Batman fans. Mike's analysis in that post is wonderfully detailed and you should read it if you want a deep dive into the specifics of how the court ruled, but I will summarize it here for you as well. The 9th Circuit ruled that the Batmobile was deserving of the same copyright protections as other fictional characters, despite it being a depiction of an inanimate object, and it completely ignored the entire expression/idea dichotomy that is supposed to govern copyright law. That dichotomy can be explained as giving copyright protection to specific expressions of an idea without protecting the idea itself. For instance, the depiction of HAL the homicidal computer in 2001 A Space Odyssey may be covered under copyright, but the idea of a homicidal artificial intelligence is not.

Yet, despite the Batmobile's ever-changing appearance and functionality, and despite its expression in comic and film form not being identical to custom real-life productions by a car enthusiast, the court ruled against Towle and essentially claimed the very idea of the Batmobile was deserving of copyright protection. The last remaining opportunity to have the courts specifically weigh the idea/expression dichotomy in this case would have been the Supreme Court, but SCOTUS has apparently declined to take the case up.

The Supreme Court is staying out of a copyright dispute involving a California man who produced replicas of the Batmobile for car-collecting fans of the caped crusader. The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the Batmobile's bat-like appearance and high-tech gadgets make it a character that can't be duplicated without permission from DC Comics, the copyright holder.

It's cases like this in which the Supreme Court refuses to weigh in that allows courts like the 9th Circuit to seemingly specialize in wacky copyright and intellectual property rulings. One hopes that other cases in other circuits will raise similar issues enough that SCOTUS decides to step in at a later date, rather than let this be the last word on this issue. I would have thought that a court ruling that fails to even mention the idea/expression dichotomy would have been one that SCOTUS would have found ripe for comment, but apparently not. All hail the Batmobile, a character on par with Batman himself, apparently.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, batmobile, copyright, idea/expression dichotomy, supreme court