throbber
Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 132 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`JAIME KEELING,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NEW ROCK THEATER PRODUCTIONS,
`LLC, EVE HARS, and ETHAN GARBER,
`
`Defendants.
`
`..
`
`
`USDCSDNY
`DOCUMENT
`ELBCfRONlCALLY FILED
`OOC#:_~---
`DATE. t1LED: t:'-th \\, 1ftg::
`
`10 Civ. 9345
`
`OPINION
`
`Ibis is a copyright dispute between plaintiff Jaime Keelmg and defendants Eve Hars,
`
`Ethan Garber, and their production company, New Rock Theater Productions, LLC. The
`
`work at issue is a theater production called Point Break LIVE!
`
`A jury trial was concluded in this case on December 7,2012. The jury found in
`
`Keeling's favor, and concluded that defendants infringed K(~eling's copyright in the work.
`
`'I'he jury also found, as a prerequisite to its finding of infringement, that Point Break LIVE!
`
`made fair use of the film Point Break. OnJanuary 10,201:3, the court permanently
`
`enjoined defendants from staging additional infringing performances of the work.
`
`Hars now moves to stay the enforcement of that injunc1jon pending her appeal to the
`
`Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion is denied. 1
`
`I
`
`It should be mentioned that, though Hars is correct that her request for additional time to oppose plaintiffs motion
`for a permanent injunction was never ofiicially filed due to some confusion regarding her representation. the court
`nonetheless did receive and review it. And, per Hars' request, the court considered the arguments she presented in
`-1­
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 132 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2 of 5
`
`Whether to stay enforcement of an injunction pending appeal is left to the discretion
`
`of the court. It is the movant's - Hal's' - burden, however, to demonstrate that the
`
`circumstances justify dIe court's exercising this discretion to grant a stay. Nken v. Holder,
`
`556 U.S. 418,434 (2009).
`
`In determining wheilier ilie movant has met dlls burden, ilie court considers "0)
`
`wheilier ilie stay applicant has made a strong showing iliat he is likely to succeed on ilie
`
`merits; (2) wheilier ilie applicant will be irreparably il1jured absent a stay; (3) whether
`
`issuance of dle stay will substantially injure dIe oilier parties interested in the proceeding;
`
`and (4) where the public interest lies." S.E.C. v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 673 F.3d
`
`158, 162 (2d Cif. 2012).
`
`In iliis case, the court is cognizant of dle fact that ilie permanent injunction may cause
`
`significant hardship for Hars and ilie many oilier individuals employed by productions of
`
`Point Break LIVE!. This, combined wiili Keeling's apparent lack of interest in putting on
`
`productions of Point Break LIVE! herself - except as expr,~ssed in her opposition to iliis
`
`motion - lead ilie court to conclude that, all iliings being equal, ilie public interest would
`
`be better served by granting a stay. It seems clear iliat Hars would be more greatly harmed
`
`by an erroneous decision by iliis court to deny her ilie stay than Keeling would be by an
`
`erroneous decision to grant it.
`
`that:md other letters in opposition to plaintiffs motion. The court granted plaintiff's motion, not because it never
`receIved Hars' opposition and request for additional time, but for the same substantive reason it now denies the
`motion to stay enforcement of that injunction.
`
`-2­
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 132 Filed 03/11/13 Page 3 of 5
`
`Nonetheless, however, the importance of these considerations is conditioned upon
`
`Hars' likelihood of success on appeal, a possibility that the court regards as extremely
`
`remote.
`
`The essence of Hars' argument on appeal will, she says, be the following. Though she
`
`agrees that a work of parody may be entided to copyright protection, that protection, she
`
`points out, only extends to the original contributions of the parodist. But Keeling's script,
`
`she contends, consists only of dialogue original to the film Point Break combined with such
`
`non-copyrightable elements such as stage direction and theatrical devices. Thus, she
`
`argues, there is no residue of copyrightable material in Point Break LIVE!
`
`Hars' legal argument is correct, as far as it goes. But Hal'S errs in her assessment that
`
`Point Break LIVE/has no copyrightable content. Her asse;sment is that, because it
`
`consists only of un-protectable elements the total work itself cannot be copyrightable. But
`
`this overlooks the fact that copyright law protects not just th,~ elements themselves, but the
`
`creative decisions made by an author in choosing how to ar~ange even un-protectable
`
`elements.
`
`The compilation author typically chooses which facti to include, in what
`order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may
`be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and
`arrangement, so long as they are made independent1y by the compiler and
`entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiendy original that Congress
`may protect such compilations through the copyright laws.
`
`Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Servo Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 348 (1991). It is worth
`
`noting that, in the Feist decision, the court made clear that even a telephone directory
`
`-3­
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 132 Filed 03/11/13 Page 4 of 5
`
`could be copyrightable if the un-protectable factual elements were arranged "vith a
`
`"minimal degree" of creativity. Thus, regardless of whether the Point Break LIVE! script
`
`is, in fact, exclusively composed of un-protectable elements, Keeling's creative contribution,
`
`and thus her copyright, is in "the original way in which the author has 'selected,
`
`coordinated, and arranged' the elements of his or her work." Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs
`
`Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1004 (2d Cir. 1995).
`
`It is therefore well established in this Circuit that Keeling's script, even if it does
`
`consist only of a creative arrangement of un-protectable elements, is entitled to copyright
`
`protection.
`
`Hars also suggests that there is no case in this Circuit in which fair use has been used
`
`as a "sword" instead of a "shield." And therefore, she contends, this case presents serious
`
`legal issues that the Court of Appeals might resolve in her favor. The court agrees that
`
`there is no such case, but it does not follow from this that the legal principle at issue is
`
`undecided and requires further, serious deliberation by the Court of Appeals. That an
`
`author may create a parody of another work and then enforce her copyright in dlat work
`
`against others follows straightfonvardly from the text of the copyright act. The concept of
`
`"fair use" is a legal principle employed to determine the extent and manner in which a
`
`work is permitted to copy from anodler. 17 U.S.c. § 107. A work that makes fair use of
`
`another is, therefore, a derivative work. 17 U.S.c. § 101. The original material added to a
`
`derivative work is unambiguously entitled to copyright protection, so long at tlle material it
`
`reuses is not reused unlawfully (e.g., if that reuse counts as a fair use). 17 U.S.c. § 103.
`
`-4­
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 132 Filed 03/11/13 Page 5 of 5
`
`And again, in this case, Keeling's work contains, at the very least, a creative arrangement of
`
`un-protectable elements, an arrangement which itself constitutes a creative contribution
`
`entitled to copyright protection. Knitwaves, Inc., 71 F.3d at 1004.
`
`The court concludes, therefore, that Hars' likelihood of success on appeal is very
`
`small. Accordingly, given the court, the public, and the parties' interest in bringing this
`
`litigation to its ultimate conclusion, as well as Keeling's legitimate interest in vindicating her
`
`copyright, Hars' motion to stay enforcement of the permanent injunction is denied.
`
`So ordered.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`March 11, 2013
`
`-
`
`--~~~--~~~~----~-----
`
`Thomas P. Griesa
`United States DistrictJudge
`
`-5­

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket