Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group Inc.

Last updated
Castle Rock Entertainment Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group
United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit Seal.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameCastle Rock Entertainment Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group Inc.
DecidedJuly 10, 1998
Citation(s)150 F.3d 132
Case history
Prior action(s)955 F. Supp. 260 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) Granting summary judgment for Castle Rock Entertainment, awarding damages for copyright infringement and enjoining Carol Publishing from further publication of its book.
Subsequent action(s)none
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John M. Walker, Jr., and Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, circuit judges; and Jed S. Rakoff, district judge, S.D.N.Y., sitting by designation
Case opinions
Book containing Seinfeld trivia questions satisfied both quantitative and qualitative analysis to establish prima facie case of copyright infringement. Book did not constitute fair use of Seinfeld

Castle Rock Entertainment Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998), was a U.S. copyright infringement case involving the popular American sitcom Seinfeld. Some U.S. copyright law courses use the case to illustrate modern application of the fair use doctrine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court's summary judgment that the defendant had committed copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for classifying Seinfeld trivia not as unprotected facts, but as protectable expression. The court also rejected the defendant's fair use defense finding that any transformative purpose posse, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

Contents

Facts of the case

Castle Rock Entertainment is the copyright holder and producer of each episode of the sitcom Seinfeld . Beth Golub wrote SAT: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test a 132-page book containing 643 trivia questions and answers about the events and characters depicted in Seinfeld through her publisher, Carol Publishing Group. The book contained 211 multiple choice questions, in which only one out of three to five answers were correct; 93 matching questions; and a number of short-answer questions. The questions were divided into five levels of difficulty, labeled (in increasing order of difficulty) "Wuss Questions," "This, That, and the Other Questions," "Tough Monkey Questions," "Atomic Wedgie Questions," and "Master of Your Domain Questions." An example from the public record of one of the "Wuss Questions":

1. To impress a woman, George passes himself off as

a) a gynecologist
b) a geologist
c) a marine biologist
d) a meteorologist

The book drew from 84 Seinfeld episodes that had been broadcast as of the time that the Carol Group published The SAT. While Golub had created the incorrect answers, the questions and correct answers were grounded in some part to a Seinfeld episode. A significant number of questions contained dialogue from the show. The name "Seinfeld" was displayed prominently throughout the book, and it contained pictures of the show's actors on several pages. The back cover contained a disclaimer which read, "This book has not been approved or licensed by any entity involved in creating or producing Seinfeld."

At first publication, the book did not provoke a lawsuit. Instead, NBC requested several free copies and distributed them with promotions for the program. One of the show's executive producers exclaimed that The SAT was a "fun little book." Seinfeld's audience grew after The SAT was first published. Nevertheless, Castle Rock had been very selective in its licenses of Seinfeld merchandise, and had rejected numerous products previously to the publication of The SAT.

Procedural history

In November 1994, Castle Rock contacted Carol Publishing Group concerning its copyright and trademark infringement claims. Carol Publishing continued to publish The SAT and in February 1995, Castle Rock filed an action in Federal District Court alleging federal copyright and trademark infringement and state law unfair competition. Both defendant and plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

Castle Rock succeeded in its motion for summary judgment. In 1997, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Carol had infringed on Castle Rock's copyrights in Seinfeld and further that the copying was not fair use. The district court entered final judgment against Carol and awarded Castle Rock $403,000 with interest in damages. It permanently enjoined Carol from publishing or distributing The SAT, and ordered that all copies in Carol's possession be destroyed. Carol appealed.

Ruling of the appeals court

The appeals court noted that there was no dispute as to whether Castle Rock owned a valid copyright in Seinfeld nor was it disputed that Carol Publishing copied material from the shows. The question was only of misappropriation of protectable material.

The appeals court employed both a "qualitative vs. quantitative" method and a "total concept and feel" approach in determining if Carol Publishing had misappropriated Seinfeld.

The qualitative vs. quantitative approach sought to determine if the quality of the copied work was actionable in an infringement lawsuit and if the quantity of the copied work was enough to stake a claim. The court chose to take the Seinfeld series as a whole, rather than compare the quantity of copied work from each of the 84 episodes individually. Altogether, The SAT contained 643 fragments from the entire series. The court held that this was a sufficient quantity of copying to overcome the de minimis threshold alleged by Carol Publishing. When analyzing the quality of the copied material, the court rejected the defendant's position that Seinfeld trivia constituted facts and was therefore not covered by copyright protection. It reasoned that the "facts" portrayed in Seinfeld originated in the fictitious expression by the writers of the show. The court noted that the book did not quiz readers on such facts as the location of the Seinfeld set or the biographies of the actors, but on characters and events springing from the imagination of the show's authors. Normally, the court would have eliminated those elements that did not meet the quality requirements through the subtraction method in misappropriation analysis, but in finding nothing to subtract the court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case.

Nevertheless, Carol Publishing urged the court to consider the "total concept and feel" approach rather than the subtraction method. The court noted that because the two works were of different genres, other approaches would be less helpful. An "ordinary observer", the intended audience, might be misguided in the differences between a book and television program to accurately compare each work's total concept. The book contained no theme or plot, but only a random and scattered collection of questions, its only concept being a test of Seinfeld trivia. From this analysis, the court justified its approach and illustrated the possible different outcome it may have reached had it accepted the defendant's proposed analysis.

Defendant's infringement does not constitute fair use

The court provided a substantial analysis of Carol Publishing's fair use defense. Of particular interest was its handling of the "transformative use" standard established in the Supreme Court's opinion in Campbell. [1] The court noted that the fundamental purpose of the fair use doctrine is "promoting the Progress of Science and Useful Arts." [2]

Transformative use under the purpose and character standard

The court held that the book's intended commercial use weighed against a finding of fair use. In citing Campbell, "no man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." [3] But the court further held that the more critical inquiry was whether The SAT merely supplanted the Seinfeld episodes or rather if it added something new, providing new insights, new aesthetics in the manner that the fair use doctrine was meant to enrich society.

The defendants claimed two arguments of transformative qualities in The SAT: first that the subject matter of the work did not bar a finding of fair use, and second that the book was a critique of the show. Specifically, the defendants stylized The SAT as a work "decoding the obsession with and mystique that surrounds Seinfeld by critically restructuring Seinfeld's mystique into a system complete with varying levels of 'mastery' that relate the reader's control of the show's trivia to knowledge of and identification with their hero, Jerry Seinfeld." [4] In response, Castle Rock retorted that "had defendants been half as creative in creating The SAT as were their lawyers in crafting these arguments about transformation, defendants might have a colorable fair use claim." [5]

The court rejected the defendants' arguments holding that any transformative purpose posed by the book was slight or non-existent. It concluded that the purpose of the book was to entertain the Seinfeld audience with a book about Seinfeld, much the same purpose as the television show. Finally, the court noted a potential source of confusion between the "transformative use" doctrine and derivative works. The court emphasized that derivative works were based upon preexisting works. They transformed an original work into a new mode of expression, but unlike a work of fair use expression, a derivative work's purpose was not transformed. In addition, when a derivative work transformed an original work into a new mode of expression such that little similarity remained, it would not infringe the copyright of the original work.

Nature of the copyrighted work

The court looked to the second statutory factor under the Copyright Act of 1976: the nature of the copyrighted work. A work's nature "calls for recognition that some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others, with consequence that fair use is more difficult to establish when the former works are copied." [6] The court held that the nature of Seinfeld was fictional, and the second factor tends to favor works based on fact. Works of fiction generally enjoy greater copyright protection because of their higher content of protectible material. However, the court noted that transformative use can lessen the importance of the nature of the copyrighted work, but since The SAT held slight or non-existent transformative purpose, the fictional nature of Seinfeld disfavored a finding a fair use.

Amount and substantiality of the portion taken

The third factor analyzed by the court was whether the portion of copying furthered the purpose and character of use or whether it went beyond what was necessary. Here again, the transformative use affected the court's analysis. Use of a substantial part or the "heart" of a protected work is justified when the character of the work is criticism or parody, because these expressions necessarily demand a greater quantity to be useful. [7] The court reasoned that a greater degree of material from Seinfeld would be necessary for an accurate critique of the show's "nothingness", but because the court found little transformative use for the purposes of critique, this weighed against defendants. Indeed, the court reasoned that the 643 copied elements in the trivia questions was a substantial portion taken for the rather "straight forward" commentary of Seinfeld's meaninglessness, and this weighed against fair use.

Effect of use on the market

The court noted that the fourth factor was not to be given the greatest weight, but to be taken equally with the other three in a determination of fair use. [8] The analysis for market effect does not look to whether the secondary work detracts from market of the copyrighted work, but rather does it substitute the market of the original (the nature of copyright as a monopoly on publication does not permit a substitution). The court held that the differences in form between The SAT and Seinfeld and the lack of transformative purpose made the book a derivative work in a derivative market. Because the SAT was the only Seinfeld trivia book in existence, it completely substituted this derivative market for the show. The court further reasoned that even though Castle Rock did not intend to enter the trivia book market, the existence of The SAT effectively usurped its right to do so. If the derivative market was one that the copyright holder would generally develop or license, a secondary author would be barred from entering it. On the other hand, if the market was one generally protected by fair use, such as criticism, parody, or academic scholarship, the copyright holder could not enter those markets and attempt to preclude secondary authors from entering.

Other factors affecting fair use

The court noted that the four factors enumerated in the fair use statute are not exclusive, but are only a guide in the analysis. The court held that it was irrelevant whether Carol Publishing continued to distribute The SAT after Castle Rock notified it of its infringement claim, because such distribution would have been justified if the book was a fair use of Seinfeld. The court concluded that other considerations affecting fair use such as the 1st Amendment and the public interest were not relevant to the case. When taking all factors together, the court held that the book was not fair use. In a final footnote, the opinion provided an answer key to all trivia questions contained therein.

Notes

  1. ↑ see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 510 U.S. 569, (1994).
  2. ↑ U.S. Const., art. I sec. 8 cl. 8.
  3. ↑ Campbell at 584.
  4. ↑ Castle Rock at 142.
  5. ↑ Id.
  6. ↑ Campbell at 586.
  7. ↑ quoting Campbell at 588-89.
  8. ↑ see Campbell at 578.

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 that were part of the British Empire in the 20th century, 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.

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

A copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work. Original work refers to every production in the literary, scientific, and artistic domains. The Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) is the leading agency responsible for handling the registration and conflict resolution of intellectual property rights and to enforce the copyright laws. IPOPHL was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, under the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal issues with fan fiction</span>

Fanfiction has encountered problems with intellectual property law due to usage of copyrighted characters without the original creator or copyright owner's consent.

In United States copyright law, transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright. Transformation is an important issue in deciding whether a use meets the first factor of the fair-use test, and is generally critical for determining whether a use is in fact fair, although no one factor is dispositive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Concept in copyright law

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

<i>NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute</i> 2004 US Federal Court of Appeals decision

NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision that held that the defendant's critical analysis of material obtained in bad faith, i.e., in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, was fair use since the secondary use was transformative as criticism and was not a potential replacement for the original on the market, regardless of how the material was obtained.

Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events. More limited than the United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing originates in Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and requires the infringer to show not only that their copying falls into one of the three fair dealing categories, but also that it is "fair" and, in some cases, that it contains sufficient acknowledgement for the original author. Factors when deciding the "fairness" of the copying can include the quantity of the work taken, whether it was previously published, the motives of the infringer and what the consequences of the infringement on the original author's returns for the copyrighted work will be.

<i>Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust</i> American legal case

Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, is a United States copyright decision finding search and accessibility uses of digitized books to be fair use.

<i>Cariou v. Prince</i> American copyright law case

Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 is a copyright case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the question of whether artist Richard Prince's appropriation art treatment of Patrick Cariou's photographs was copyright infringement or fair use. The Second Circuit held in 2013 that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use, and that a number of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs. The Court remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for reconsideration of five of Prince's works. The Supreme Court denied Cariou's petition for a writ of certiorari, and the case settled in 2014.

<i>American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.</i> 1995 American copyright infringement case

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913, was a 1995 U.S. copyright case holding that a private, for-profit corporate library could not rely on fair use in systematically making copies of articles in academic journals for its employees. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a ruling by Judge Pierre Leval of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in favor of the academic publishers who had filed the lawsuit. The case was the first heard by the Second Circuit to consider the question of transformative use, a concept Leval had introduced, in evaluating a fair use claim.

<i>Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma</i>

Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma is a landmark case in Indian copyright law decided by Kerala High Court in which the judgment held that even substantial copying of copyrighted work is permissible under the fair dealing exception; if the copying is in public interest.

Carol Publishing Group was an American publishing company. Lyle Stuart founded its predecessor around 1955. Steven Schragis bought Stuart's publishing business in early 1989, renaming it to Carol Publishing. Carol was a going concern from its 1989 sale to its bankruptcy in 2000; Kensington Books bought its assets after Carol liquidated. It was mainly known for salacious titles about celebrities.

Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 was a copyright infringement lawsuit where the court evaluated if commenting on humorous videos in a transformative manner is fair use or exploiting videos for their humor without paying for their use.

<i>Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.</i>

Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. 109 F.3d 1394 is a copyright lawsuit where the court determined if a copy of an original work’s artistic style, plot, themes, and certain key character elements qualified as fair use. Penguin Books published a book titled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice that use the artistic style, themes and characteristics of Dr. Seuss books to tell the story of the O. J. Simpson murder case. Dr. Seuss Enterprises accuse the publisher of copyright and trademark infringement.

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with transformative use, a component of fair use, under U.S. copyright law. At issue was the Prince Series created by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of the musician Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. It held Warhol's changes were insufficiently transformative to fall within fair use for commercial purposes, resolving an issue arising from a split between the Second and Ninth circuits among others.

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.