throbber
Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 41 Filed 12/13/11 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`---------------------------------------------x
`
`:
`JAIME KEELING,
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`Defendants.
`---------------------------------------------x
`
`
`
`This is an action for copyright infringement, breach of contract,
`
`and tortious interference with contractual relations. Plaintiff Jaime
`
`Keeling claims defendants staged live productions of “Point Break LIVE!,”
`
`an alleged parody that she wrote of the popular “Point Break” film,
`
`without her permission, in violation of her copyright in that parody and
`
`contractual rights owed to Keeling by defendants.
`
`Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing Keeling’s
`
`copyright claim and confirming their counterclaim for copyright
`
`invalidity. The motion is denied.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Defendants’ motion first reiterates an argument – that Keeling
`
`could not have obtained copyright in her script of “Point Break LIVE!”
`
`because she did not have the permission of the original copyright holder
`
`– that this court has already rejected on two occasions. The court again
`
`finds this argument unpersuasive, for the reasons discussed in its prior
`
`
`
`
`
`10 Civ. 9345 (TPG)
`
`OPINION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`– against –
`
`NEW ROCK THEATER PRODUCTIONS,
`LLC, et al.,
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 41 Filed 12/13/11 Page 2 of 4
`
`opinions in this case. See Keeling v. New Rock Theater Prods., LLC, No.
`
`10 Civ. 9345 (TPG), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52736, at *2-5 (S.D.N.Y. May
`
`17, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss); Keeling v. New Rock
`
`Theater Prods., LLC, No. 10 Civ. 9345 (TPG), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`61377, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion for
`
`reconsideration).
`
`Defendants also claim that Keeling’s “Point Break LIVE!” does not
`
`contain any original elements that are protectable by copyright, but
`
`merely makes use of “theatrical devices.” Although defendants are
`
`correct that theatrical devices cannot be copyrighted, Keeling is entitled
`
`to copyright for her original creative expression that makes use of
`
`theatrical devices. See Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S.
`
`539, 547 (1985).
`
`The remainder of the motion is denied because there are factual
`
`issues for trial.
`
`First, defendants claim Keeling is not entitled to copyright
`
`protection in her script because the original “Point Break” “pervades” her
`
`“Point Break LIVE!” script. See Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment
`
`Co., Inc., 697 F.2d 27, 34 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1982). Keeling argues “Point
`
`Break” does not pervade her script, and has set forth evidence
`
`demonstrating a number of original elements in her script. Based on the
`
`evidence Keeling has submitted and the differences between the original
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 41 Filed 12/13/11 Page 3 of 4
`
`“Point Break” and Keeling’s “Point Break LIVE!”, there are triable issues
`
`of fact.
`
`Second, defendants claim that they are entitled to judgment as a
`
`matter of law because “Point Break LIVE!” is not a parody of “Point
`
`Break,” but rather is just a more humorous stage version of “Point
`
`Break” that makes no critical commentary on “Point Break.” However,
`
`Keeling has set forth sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that
`
`“Point Break LIVE!” is a parody of “Point Break,” which criticizes and
`
`comments on the substance and style of “Point Break” by the use of
`
`humor and exaggeration.
`
`Third, there is a triable issue regarding the impact of Keeling’s
`
`“Point Break LIVE!” on the market for the original “Point Break” motion
`
`picture, which is an element of the fair use defense to copyright
`
`infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. Keeling seeks discovery regarding
`
`the impact of her script on the market for the original “Point Break”
`
`motion picture because she believes her version of “Point Break LIVE!”
`
`may actually enhance the market for the original “Point Break.” Such
`
`discovery is appropriate.
`
`Finally, defendants have not established conclusively that their
`
`performances of “Point Break LIVE!” were not substantially similar to
`
`plaintiff’s script. As a preliminary matter, defendants contend that the
`
`court should compare Keeling’s script to a script (“the NRTP script”) that
`
`defendants have attached to their motion papers. Defendants claim they
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-09345-TPG-GWG Document 41 Filed 12/13/11 Page 4 of 4
`
`utilized the NRTP script in their performances of "Point Break LIVE!."
`
`Keeling has produced a different script that she obtained in discovery,
`
`which she claims was used in defendants' performances of "Point Break
`
`LIVE!". Thus, there is an issue of fact with regard to which script or
`
`scripts defendants used in their live performances of "Point Break LIVE!".
`
`Moreover, due to a number of similarities between Keeling's script, the
`
`NRTP script, and defendants' live productions of "Point Break LIVE! ,"
`
`defendants have not shown that they are entitled to summary judgment
`
`on their claim that their performances of "Point Break LIVE!" were not
`
`substantially similar to Keeling's script.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. This opinion
`
`disposes of the motion listed as document number 25 on the docket.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`December 13, 2011
`
`U.S. District Judge
`
`- 4 ­

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