Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Last updated
Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameWarner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
ArguedMarch 16, 1983
DecidedOctober 6 1983
Citation(s)720 F.2d 231; 222 U.S.P.Q. 101; 1983 Copr. L. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 25,584
Case history
Prior historyPreliminary injunction denied by District Court; affirmed on appeal at 654 F.2d 204; 211 U.S.P.Q. 97; 1981 Copr. L. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 25,284; 7 Media L. Rep. 1973 (2d. Cir. 1981)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Walter Roe Mansfield, Thomas Joseph Meskill, Jon O. Newman
Case opinions
MajorityNewman, joined by a unanimous court

Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983), [1] the case of Superman v. The Greatest American Hero , is the third case in a Second Circuit trilogy of 20th century copyright infringement cases in which the proprietors of Superman copyrights sued other companies for publishing fictional exploits of a cape-wearing superhero. Although the plaintiffs were successful in the first two cases, Superman v. Wonderman and Superman v. Captain Marvel , they were completely unsuccessful in Superman v. The Greatest American Hero. The court (in an opinion by Circuit Judge Newman) held that "as a matter of law . . . 'The Greatest American Hero' is not sufficiently similar to the fictional character Superman, the hero of comic books, television, and more recently films, so that claims of copyright infringement and unfair competition may be dismissed without consideration by a jury." [2]

Contents

Background

Facts giving rise to dispute

In January 1981, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) issued press releases and began to run promotional spots for the TV premiere of The Greatest American Hero, which had been created and produced by Stephen J. Cannell Productions. The protagonist of the TV show was Ralph Hinkley, a young Los Angeles high school teacher whose physical attributes are not those of a superhero: he is of medium height, has a scrawny build, has blond curls, and is clumsy. [3]

Hinkley does have similarities, however, to Superman in that, for example, both superheroes: perform feats of miraculous strength; wear tight acrobatic costumes; do battle with villains; fly with their arms extended in front of them and cape billowing behind; are impervious to bullets; have X-ray type vision; have fantastic hearing and sight; fly gracefully in the night sky past a city's lit skyscrapers; lift a car with one hand; lead a double life; benefit mankind by fighting evil-doing villains. [4]

But, in addition to Hinckley's scrawniness and clumsiness, he has other significant differences from Superman. For example: Hinkley derives his power exclusively from a magic suit that an alien gave him, but Superman's strength is a natural attribute of his extraterrestrial origin. Superman wears a blue leotard with red briefs, boots and cape, while Hinkley wears a red leotard, no boots, and a black cape. "Superman has mastered the art of self-propelled flight and accomplishes the feat with grace and verve. Ralph Hinkley, on the other hand, seems to be terrified when flying and each time, without fail, crash-lands. . . . As to the heroes' imperviousness to bullets, while the trait is shared, the expression of the concept differs dramatically. Ralph Hinkley cringes and cowers in the face of gunfire, whereas Superman boldly holds his ground when being fired upon." [5] When flying, Hinckley (unlike Superman) is quite inept: in the pilot episode he "has difficulty steering, barely avoids colliding with a fire escape, and finally crashes into a brick wall, knocking himself out." [6]

Proceedings in district court

Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Inc., Film Export, A.G., and DC Comics, Inc. sued defendants American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Stephen J. Cannell Productions for copyright infringement and unfair competition, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs moved for "a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin the defendant, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC), from (1) broadcasting certain promotional television spots relating to its series entitled 'The Greatest American Hero' (Hero); (2) broadcasting the premiere of Hero; and (3) broadcasting any episode of Hero prior to affording the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to examine the work and to seek appropriate relief." District Judge Constance Baker Motley denied the motion. She found that Superman and The Greatest American Hero were not substantially similar, and that even if they were, the latter was a parody of Superman and therefore protected under the fair use doctrine. The district court also determined that it was unlikely that the public would be confused as to the origin of the later work. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the denial or preliminary relief. The court acknowledged similarities, but said they fell within the scenes a faire doctrine. [4]

The case then returned to the district court. Judge Motley dismissed the claims on the merits by granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. [2] Plaintiffs then appealed to the Second Circuit.

Second Circuit ruling

The court began its analysis by noting "[T]he similarity to be assessed must concern the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves." [7] The court reviewed the similarities and dissimilarities of Superman and The Greatest American Hero. It found the two "profoundly different":

Superman looks and acts like a brave, proud hero, who has dedicated his life to combating the forces of evil. Hinkley looks and acts like a timid, reluctant hero, who accepts his missions grudgingly and prefers to get on with his normal life. Superman performs his superhuman feats with skill, verve, and dash, clearly the master of his own destiny. Hinkley is perplexed by the superhuman powers his costume confers and uses them in a bumbling, comical fashion. In the genre of superheroes, Hinkley follows Superman as, in the genre of detectives, Inspector Clouseau follows Sherlock Holmes. . . . The overall perception of the way Hinkley looks and acts marks him as a different, non-infringing character who simply has some of the superhuman traits popularized by the Superman character and now widely shared within the superhero genre. [8]

The plaintiffs sought to (but were not allowed to) offer expert testimony that children would be confused because they would not notice the negative language in such phrases as Hinkley: "may be unable to leap tall buildings in a single bound," "may be slower than a speeding bullet," and "may be less powerful than a locomotive." The court dismissed such evidence as immaterial:

We do not doubt that some viewers may miss the point, but their misunderstanding does not establish infringement. Perhaps if [The Greatest American] Hero were a children's series, aired on Saturday mornings among the cartoon programs, we would have greater concern for the risk that lines intended to contrast Hinkley with Superman might be mistakenly understood to suggest that Hero was a Superman program. But when a work is presented to a general audience of evening television viewers, the possible misperception of some young viewers cannot prevent that audience from seeing a program that will readily be recognized by the "average lay observer" as poking fun at, rather than copying, a copyrighted work. [9]

As for the unfair competition claims, so far as they relied on confusion, the court said, there was no misrepresentation and no likelihood of confusion as to source. [10] As to "state law claims that rely on the misappropriation branch of unfair competition [they] are preempted." [11] As to the "dilution" claim, "no reasonable jury could find that the . . . series or promos blurred or tarnished those marks." [12]

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on all points.

Subsequent developments

The last episode of The Greatest American Hero aired in February 1983, approximately one month before the Second Circuit issued its affirmance of the dismissal of this case.

In an interview with TVparty after the TV show had been cancelled, the creator-producer Cannell was asked whether he "lost sleep over the lawsuit." He said he did because:

The show looked like it was going to be a hit and all of a sudden Warner Bros. comes in there and tells us that they own the entire super hero genre, that no one else could ever create another superhero with a cape. ...[T]hey believed they owned it and we won that suit and in fact redefined copyright law. That's a landmark suit. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries with a British legal history, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Superboy</span> Fictional character in the DC Comics pantheon

Superboy is the name of several fictional superheroes appearing in American comicbooks published by DC Comics. These characters have been featured in several eponymous comic series, in addition to Adventure Comics and other series featuring teenage superhero groups.

<i>The Greatest American Hero</i> Television series

The Greatest American Hero is an American comedy-drama superhero television series that aired on ABC. Created by producer Stephen J. Cannell, it premiered as a two-hour pilot movie on March 18, 1981, and ran until February 2, 1983. The series features William Katt as teacher Ralph Hinkley, Robert Culp as FBI agent Bill Maxwell, and Connie Sellecca as lawyer Pam Davidson. The lead character's surname was changed from "Hinkley" to "Hanley" for the latter part of the first season, immediately after President Ronald Reagan and three others were shot and wounded by John Hinckley Jr. on March 30, 1981. The character's name was reverted to "Hinkley" after a few months had passed.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law—that a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.

<i>National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.</i> American legal case

National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications, 191 F.2d 594. was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a twelve-year legal battle between National Comics and the Fawcett Comics division of Fawcett Publications, concerning Fawcett's Captain Marvel character being an infringement on the copyright of National's Superman comic book character. The litigation is notable as one of the longest-running legal battles in comic book publication history.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

<i>Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha</i> American legal case

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 640 F.3d 497, was a case in which United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had granted American Buddha's motion to dismiss Penguin Group (USA) Inc. ("Penguin")'s copyright infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings.

<i>Wright v. Warner Books, Inc.</i> American legal case

Wright v. Warner Books (1991) was a case in which the widow of the author Richard Wright (1908–1960) claimed that his biographer, the poet and writer Margaret Walker (1915–1998), had infringed copyright by using content from some of Wright's unpublished letters and journals. The court took into account the recent ruling in Salinger v. Random House, Inc. (1987), which had found that a copyright owner had the right to control first publication, but found in favor of Walker after weighing all factors. The case had broad implications by allowing the use of library special collections for academic research.

Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems is a 2011 copyright infringement case decided in United States District Court, C.D. California.

<i>Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc.</i>

Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., is a case where an appeals court found that although the plaintiff apparently deserved to prevail, it reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case for retrial because it found reversible error in the trial judges' instructions to the jury. The appellate court found that the judge's jury instructions, which included the statement that the labor of research by an author is protected by copyright, had been given in error. The court noted that plaintiff, over the objection of the defense, had urged the district court judge to include this instruction.

<i>Mandeville-Anthony v. Walt Disney Co.</i>

Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company, 11-56441, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Court evaluated whether defendants Pixar, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Walt Disney Pictures infringed on Jake Mandeville-Anthony's copyrighted works. Plaintiff Mandeville-Anthony's claim for copyright infringement was first dismissed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, because the court found that the parties’ works were not substantially similar. Mandeville-Anthony made copyright infringement claims with regards to his works Cookie & Co. and Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos, an animated television show and movie, that he believed Disney copied in order to make their own films, Cars and Cars 2, both of which were very successful, and the animated television show Cars Toons: Mater's Tall Tales. He also made breach of contract claims stating that he and Disney signed a contract barring Disney from using the ideas contained in his works. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Marc Toberoff is an intellectual property attorney specializing in copyright and entertainment litigation.

<i>Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc.</i>

Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., 111 F.2d 432, the case of Superman v. Wonderman, is a 1940 decision of the Second Circuit in which the court held that the archetype of a comic book hero, in this case a cape-wearing benevolent-Hercules figure (Superman), is an idea, which the copyright in the comic strips does not protect against copying; only the specific details of the strips, their particular expression, enjoy legal protection. The author of the court's opinion was Judge Augustus N. Hand and the panel of Second Circuit judges included Judge Learned Hand.

The misappropriation doctrine is a U.S. legal theory conferring a "quasi-property right" on a person who invests "labor, skill, and money" to create an intangible asset. The right operates against another person "endeavoring to reap where it has not sown" by "misappropriating" the value of the asset. The quoted language and the legal principle come from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case.

In the early 1930s, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster developed the fictional comic book character of Superman. In 1938, they sold the character to Detective Comics, Inc.. After Superman became an unexpected success, the pair attempted to recover the rights to the character. This began a long chain of legal battles over ownership, royalties, and credit that would continue after their deaths.

Copyright protection is available to the creators of a range of works including literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works. Recognition of fictional characters as works eligible for copyright protection has come about with the understanding that characters can be separated from the original works they were embodied in and acquire a new life by featuring in subsequent works.

DC Comics v. Mark Towle was a copyright case heard in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in September 2015. The case concerned defendant Mark Towle, who built and sold replicas of the Batmobile in his garage named 'Garage Gotham'. DC Comics initially filed a lawsuit, in May 2011, in the federal district court alleging causes of action for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of Mark's manufacture and sale of replicas. The plaintiffs, DC Comics, claimed the infringement of their copyright as the replicas sold by Mark were similar to the ones that appeared in 1966 television show Batman and the 1989 film Batman. The issue discussed by the court was "whether a character in a comic book, television program or motion picture is entitled to copyright protection". The ninth circuit followed the precedents and came up with a three-part test to determine the protection given to such characters.

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ↑ Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 720F.2d231 (2d Cir.1983).
  2. 1 2 720 F.2d at 235.
  3. ↑ See The Greatest American Hero; 720 F.2d at 236.
  4. 1 2 Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 654F.2d204 (2d Cir.1981).
  5. ↑ See 654 F.2d at 207.
  6. ↑ 720 F.2d at 237.
  7. ↑ 720 F.2d at 239.
  8. ↑ 720 F.2d at 243.
  9. ↑ 720 F.2d at 244 (citations omitted).
  10. ↑ 720 F.2d at 246-47.
  11. ↑ 720 F.2d at 247.
  12. ↑ 720 F.2d at 248.
  13. ↑ Believe it or not I'm walking on air.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.