`
`17-cv-386 (JSR)
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`------------------------------------x
`PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC; SIMON &
`SCHUSTER,
`INC.; ALAN U. SCHWARTZ
`as trustee of THE TRUMAN CAPOTE
`LITERARY TRUST; JOHN SAMPAS as
`Literary Representative of THE
`ESTATE OF JACK KEROURAC; NANCY
`BUMP; ANTHONY M. SAMPAS; JOHN
`LASH, Executor of THE ESTATE OF
`JAN KEROUAC; THE DR. ARTHUR C.
`CLARKE TRUST; HEMINGWAY COPYRIGHTS,
`LLC; THE PATRICK HEMINGWAY AND
`CAROL T. HEMINGWAY REVOCABLE
`LIVING TRUST; and THE HEMINGWAY
`FAMILY TRUST,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-v-
`
`FREDERIK COLTING and MELISSA
`MEDINA, d/b/a MOPPET BOOKS,
`
`Defendants.
`------------------------------------x
`
`JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
`
`On Janua~y 19, 2017, Penguin Random House LLC, Simon &
`
`Schuster, Inc., Alan U. Schwartz as trustee of The Truman Capote
`
`Literary Trust, John Sampas as literary representative of The Estate
`
`of Jack Kerouac, Nancy Bump, Anthony M. Sampas, John Lash as
`
`executor of The Estate of Jan Kerouac, The Dr. Arthur C. Clarke
`
`Trust, Hemingway Copyrights, LLC, The Patrick Hemingway And Carol T.
`
`Hemingway Revocable Living Trust, and The Hemingway Family Trust
`
`(collectively "plaintiffs") brought this suit against Fredrik
`
`Colting and Melissa Medina (d/b/a Moppet Books) (collectively
`
`"defendants"), alleging nine counts of copyright infringement.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 2 of 31
`
`Plaintiffs are the owners and exclusive licensees of copyrights in
`
`four famous novels: Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Capote, The Old
`
`Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway, On the Road by Jack Kerouac,
`
`and 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke (collectively, the
`
`"Novels") Defendants have published "a series of illustrated
`
`children's books" "based on" these Novels (collectively, the
`
`"Guides"), which contain "condensed, simplified version[s] of
`
`the[ir] plot[s] ." See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Rule 56.l
`
`Statement of Material Facts (''Def. 56.1 St."), ECF No. 44 ~~ 65, 89.
`
`Following the completion of discovery, plaintiffs sought
`
`summary judgment in their favor on the issue of liability, and
`
`defendants cross-moved for summary judgment in their favor on the
`
`issue of liability and on the affirmative defense of fair use.
`
`Plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment on the issue of
`
`willfulness. In a bottom line order dated July 28, 2017, ECF No. 47,
`
`the CoJrt granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on all nine counts
`
`of copyright infringement -
`
`two for each of the four Novels and one
`
`for the character of Holly Golightly - and rejected the affirmative
`
`defense of fair use as a matter of law. On the issue of willfulness,
`
`the Court permitted defendants, based on representations made by
`
`their counsel in open court, see Transcript, dated July 24, 2017,
`
`ECF No. 48, to raise (somewhat belatedly) an advice of counsel
`
`defense and permitted additional discovery on that defense. As a
`
`consequence of that decision, plaintiffs no longer seek summary
`
`judgment on the issue of willfulness, and the Court has set the case
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 3 of 31
`
`down for trial on October 2, 2017 to resolve the remaining issues.
`
`See Order, ECF No. 51.
`
`This Opinion and Order sets forth the reasons for these
`
`rulings.
`
`The pertinent facts, either undisputed, or, where disputed,
`
`taken most favorably to the respective non-movant, are as follows:
`
`At all times here relevant, plaintiffs owned valid copyrights
`
`to Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Old Man and the Sea, On the Road, and
`
`2001: A Space Odyssey. Def. 56.l St. ~~ 1-13. Defendants'
`
`"colorfully illustrated story summaries," called "KinderGuides," are
`
`designed to "introduce" these works tc children. Id. ~ 68.
`
`On or about September 22, 2016, defendants published their four
`
`Guides (part of a planned 50-book series). Id. ~ 65. On their front
`
`covers, the Guides very prominently display the titles of
`
`plaintiffs' Novels and the names of the authors of plaintiffs'
`
`Novels, along with the words "KinderGuides," in large print and, in
`
`much smaller print, the words "Early Learning Guides to Culture
`
`Classics." Declaration of Marcia B. Paul, Esq. in Support of
`
`Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Paul Deel."), Exs. 49-52,
`
`ECF No. 35. The only other words are "Illustrations by
`
`" in
`
`very small print at the bottom.
`
`All four Guides share the same layout. The first four pages
`
`feature illustrations and one-line quotations taken from and
`
`attributed to the authors of the Novels (Capote, Hemingway, Kerouac,
`
`and Clarke). The fifth page contains publication information, and
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 4 of 31
`
`the sixth is a title page, stating, to take one example,
`
`''KinderGuides: Early Learning Guides to Culture Classics," "On the
`
`Road," "by Jack Kerouac," and, in smaller font, "Illustrations by
`
`Rose Forshall," "a division of Moppet Books/Los Angeles, CA." The
`
`seventh and eighth pages contain a "Table of Contents." The ninth
`
`displays an illustration of the original author of the Novel, and
`
`the tenth is a page "About the Author." Following these front-pages
`
`are "Story Summaries," which comprise a few dozen pages. Appended
`
`after these "Story Summaries" are a series of back-pages, two each
`
`devoted to "Main Characters," "Key Words," "Quiz Questions," and
`
`"Analysis." See Paul Deel., Exs. 4 9-52.
`
`Defendants admit that they had access to plaintiffs' Novels in
`
`preparing their Guides and that they relied on them. Def. 56.l St. ~
`
`73. Indeed, a side-by-side comparison of plaintiffs' and defendants'
`
`works reveals as much. Not only do the plots, settings, and
`
`characters of the Guides mirror the Novels, but the Guides also
`
`include many specific details from the Novels. For example, in both
`
`versions of Breakfast at Tiffany's, Holly Golightly's business card
`
`reads "Holly Golightly, Traveling," and in both versions Holly
`
`describes an experience she calls "the mean reds," or feeling afraid
`
`"but you don't know what you're afraid of." See Paul Deel., Ex. 46,
`
`Truman Capote, Breakfast at Tiffany's (2012 edition) at 32 ("the
`
`mean reds are horrible. You're afraid
`
`but you don't know what
`
`you're afraid of"); Id., Ex. 50, KinderGuides, Breakfast at
`
`Tiffany's (2016) at 11,
`
`(".
`
`. the mean reds. That means she is
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 5 of 31
`
`afraid but doesn't know what she is afraid of."). Similarly, in both
`
`versions of On the Road, Sal drives across the United States with
`
`$50 in his pocket and goes to see a blind jazz pianist named George
`
`Shearing; in both versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Heywood
`
`Floyd travels to Clavius Base, a space station on the moon, where
`
`there is a large monolith named "TMA-1" and a crater named "Tyco";
`
`and, in both versions of The Old Man and the Sea, Santiago has gone
`
`84 days without catching a fish and roots for the New York Yankees. 1
`
`See Paul Deel., Exs. 45-52. While, of course, many aspects of
`
`plaintiffs' Novels do not appear in defendants' shorter Guides, all
`
`of the plots, characters, and settings in defendants' Guides appear
`
`in plaintiffs' Novels.
`
`It is also undisputed that there is an established market for
`
`children's books based on adult novels, and that it is not unusual
`
`for copyright holders to publish, or license publication of,
`
`children's versions of works originally intended for adults. Def.
`
`56.l St. ~~ 95, 145 (noting that "Defendant Colting understood,
`
`prior to publishing the KinderGuides, that there was a market for
`
`children's editions of adult novels"). Defendants, however, never
`
`sought permission to prepare children's guides for plaintiffs'
`
`Novels. Id. ~ 150.
`
`It is further undisputed that plaintiffs have never authorized
`
`anyone to publish children's versions of their Novels, Def. 56.1 St.
`
`~ Admittedly, the Old Man of this Court shares the latter failing.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 6 of 31
`
`~ 97. The managers of Hemingway's literary estate altogether
`
`rejected requests to create children's versions of The Old Man and
`
`the Sea. Id. ~ 101. Penguin Random House considered authorizing a
`
`children's version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but decided against it.
`
`Id. ~ 105. The Capote estate did authorize the creation of an
`
`illustrated, stand-alone children's version of A Christmas Memory -
`
`a short story originally included in the same volume as Breakfast at
`
`Tiffany's - but did not authorize a children's version of Breakfast
`
`at Tiffany's. Id. ~ 108. Finally, Penguin Random House and the
`
`Clarke Estate have authorized the creation of an ESL ("English as a
`
`Second Language") version of 2001: A Space Odyssey - "a simplified
`
`version," which includes "inserted pages of exercises and notes,"
`
`but no children's versions. Id. ~ 114.
`
`Discussion
`
`When parties cross-move for summary judgment, the Court
`
`analyzes the motions separately, "in each case construing the
`
`evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."
`
`Victorinox AG v. B & F Sys., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 132, 135
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2015)
`
`(quoting Novella v. Westchester Cnty., 661 F.3d 128,
`
`139 (2d Cir. 2011)). "Summary judgment is appropriate only if the
`
`moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact
`
`and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law." Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d
`
`Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). The court "must draw all
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 7 of 31
`
`reasonable inferences and resolve all ambiguities in favor of the
`
`non-moving party." Castle Rock Entm't, Inc. v. Carol Pub. Grp.,
`
`Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 137
`
`(2d Cir. 1998) ("Castle Rock")
`
`(quoting
`
`Garza v. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc., 861 F.2d 23, 26 (2d Cir.
`
`198 8) ) .
`
`A. Infringement
`
`The Copyright Act of 1976 (the "Copyright Act"), 17 U.S.C. §§
`
`101-805, grants copyright owners a bundle of exclusive rights,
`
`including the exclusive right to "reproduce the copyrighted work"
`
`and the exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based upon the
`
`copyrighted work." Id. § 106; Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 137. Here,
`
`plaintiffs allege that defendants' Guides infringe both those
`
`rights. See Amended Complaint, ECF No. 11 ~~ 108-178.
`
`To prevail on either ground, plaintiffs must prove that:
`
`(1)
`
`they hold a valid ownership interest in the relevant copyrights,
`
`(2)
`
`defendants have "actually copied" their works, and (3) defendants'
`
`"copying is illegal" because of a "substantial similarity" between
`
`defendants' works and the "protectable elements" of their
`
`copyrighted works. Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 137. To prevail on the
`
`second ground, plaintiffs must further prove that (4) defendants'
`
`works are unauthorized derivatives under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). 2
`
`2 With respect to the first ground, the question of whether
`defendants' Guides are derivative works is "completely superfluous,"
`as "infringement of the adaptation right necessarily infringes the
`reproduction right." Twin Peaks Prods., Inc. v. Publications Int'l,
`Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366, 1373 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing 2 Nimmer§ 8.09[A]
`at 8-114)).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 8 of 31
`
`(1) Valid Ownership
`
`As noted, plaintiffs allege, and defendants do not dispute,
`
`that plaintiffs hold valid and subsisting copyrights (and licenses)
`
`in the Novels at issue in this case. Def. 56.1 St. ~~ 6-12. Further,
`
`plaintiffs have produced registration certificates and applicable
`
`renewals for these copyrights. See Amended Complaint, Exs. A-0. Such
`
`documents constitute prima facie evidence of valid ownership. See 17
`
`U.S.C. § 410(c); Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabric Corp.,
`
`558 F.2d 1090, 1092, n.l (2d Cir. 1977). Such registrations also
`
`protect the Novels' fictional characters, including Holly Golightly,
`
`the protagonist of Breakfast at Tiffany's. See Salinger v. Colting,
`
`641 F. Supp. 2d 250, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
`
`(finding that a novel's
`
`protagonist is protected by the author's copyright in the novel),
`
`vacated and remanded on other grounds, 607 F.3d 68
`
`(2d Cir. 2010)
`
`(2) Actual Copying
`
`Having therefore carried their burden with respect to copyright
`
`ownership, plaintiffs must next show that their "work was actually
`
`copied." Actual copying may be established (a) "by direct evidence
`
`of copying" or (b) "by indirect evidence, including access to the
`
`copyrighted work, similarities that are probative of copying between
`
`the works, and expert testimony." Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc.,
`
`964 F.2d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 1992). The question of "actual copying"
`
`is distinct from, and precedes, the question of infringement and
`
`"substantial similarity." To prove actual copying, however,
`
`plaintiffs need only show "probative" similarity ~ that the creators
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 9 of 31
`
`of the allegedly infringing works drew from the copyrighted works.
`
`See Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 137; Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony, 351 F.3d
`
`46, 54-57 (2d Cir. 2003).
`
`Here, the undisputed facts easily establish actual copying.
`
`Defendants admit that, in preparing their Guides, they read
`
`plaintiffs' Novels. Def. 56.1 St. ~ 73. Further, defendants display
`
`the actual titles of plaintiffs' Novels on the front covers of their
`
`Guides and concede that their Guides are "based on the novels." Id.
`
`~ 74. This constitutes actual copying as a matter of law. See
`
`Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub. Grp., Inc., F. Supp. 2d 329,
`
`332-3 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff'd sub nom. 181 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1999)
`
`("Star Trek")
`
`(arguing that "it would be absurd to suggest that"
`
`actual copying did not occur in a case where defendant's work "is
`
`devoted to telling a large portion" of the story in plaintiff's
`
`work)
`
`( 3) Substantial Similarity
`
`After ''actual copying is established," plaintiffs must
`
`"demonstrate that the copying was improper or unlawful by showing
`
`that the second work bears 'substantial similarity' to protected
`
`expression in the earlier work." Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 137
`
`(quoting Repp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882, 889 (2d Cir. 1997);
`
`Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 1992)).
`
`Specifically, plaintiffs must prove that the copying is
`
`"quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the legal
`
`conclusion that infringement (actionable copying) has occurred."
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 10 of 31
`
`Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 138 (quoting Ringgold v. Black
`
`Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70, 75 (2d Cir. 1997)). The
`
`qualitative prong regards the nature of the copied expression - it
`
`must be "protected." The quantitative prong regards the amount of
`
`such copying - it must be more than de minimis. Id.
`
`There are a variety of special tests that courts sometimes
`
`apply to assess substantial similarity. These tests are designed to
`
`assist courts in determining whether protectable expression has been
`
`copied, particularly in situations where the relevant works are, at
`
`least superficially, distinct from each other. For example, for non(cid:173)
`
`textual works, courts often employ Learned Hand's "ordinary
`
`observer" test, which he first used to compare two dress designs.
`
`Peter ?an Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489
`
`(2d Cir. 1960)
`
`(Hand, J.). For textual works, where two otherwise
`
`dissimilar pieces include similar sentences and wording, courts
`
`frequently apply the "fragmented literal similarity test," which
`
`"focuses upon copying of direct quotations or close paraphrasing."
`
`Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 140. By contrast, when two works do not
`
`have literal, word-for-word similarity, courts sometimes apply the
`
`"comprehensive non-literal similarity 11 test, weighing the "total
`
`concept and feel" of the works including their "theme, characters,
`
`plot, sequence, pace, and setting." Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 140
`
`(citing 4 Melville B. Nimmer and David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §
`
`13. 03
`
`[A] [l] at 13-24 (1997)). The "comprehensive non-literal
`
`similarity" test allows a plaintiff to enforce its copyright in a
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 11 of 31
`
`case where, though there is little or no word-for-word similarity,
`
`the defendant has nonetheless appropriated "the fundamental essence
`
`or structure" of plaintiffs' work. Id.
`
`In the instant case, however, none of these special tests is
`
`even needed to establish substantial similarity, as defendants'
`
`Guides are not even superficially distinct from the respective
`
`Novels. Instead, they are explicitly based on plaintiffs' Novels,
`
`and seek in defendant's words, to "introduce" them to children
`
`"through colorfully illustrated story summaries and kid-friendly
`
`analyses." Def. 56.1 St. ~~ 68, 74-76.
`
`To avoid, therefore, this obvious similarity, defendants would
`
`have the Court, in effect, subtract from defendants' Guides the
`
`characters, plots, and settings that were directly lifted from
`
`plaintiffs' Novels, on the ground that these elements do not
`
`consti~ute protectable expression. See Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs
`
`Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir. 1995)
`
`(noting that a court must
`
`limit its infringement inquiry to whether "the protectable elements,
`
`standing alone, are substantially similar").
`
`Defendants make several arguments in support of this approach.
`
`First, defendants claim that the characters, plots, and settings in
`
`plaintiffs' Novels are merely "a collection of made-up facts" or
`
`''fictional facts," and, since (historical or independently-existing)
`
`facts are not protected, these elements are not aspects of "an
`
`author's original expression" subject to copyright. Defendants'
`
`Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment ("Def. Mem.") at 4-
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 12 of 31
`
`5. As defendants put it, their Guide to 2001: A Space Odyssey
`
`"merely summarized some of the facts of the book and the characters,
`
`not the creative expression that makes Dr. David Bowman and HAL [the
`
`characters] memorable." Def. Mem. at 9 (emphasis added). In other
`
`words, the aspects of plaintiffs' Novels that appear in defendants'
`
`Guides, such as the character of Holly Golightly, her place of
`
`residence, her trips to the prison, her relationship to Sally
`
`Tomato, are not protected expression but, according to defendants,
`
`"fictional facts."
`
`This exercise in sophistry, however, which confuses the
`
`difference between historical or independently-existing facts and
`
`fictional details created by a novelist, finds no support in
`
`applicable law. As the Second Circuit has clearly stated,
`
`"characters and events" that "spring from the imagination" of
`
`authors are copyrightable, creative expression. See Castle Rock, 150
`
`F.3d at 139. Thus, the Copyright Act protects both the literal text
`
`describing, for example, Dr. Bowman and HAL, and the "made-up facts"
`
`about Dr. Bowman and HAL. "Unlike the facts in a phone book, which
`
`do not owe their origin to an act of authorship," each "fact" in
`
`defendants' Guides is really "fictitious expression" created by
`
`plaintiffs' authors. Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 139. Because the
`
`"characters and events" in defendants' Guides "spring from the
`
`imagination o=" Capote, Hemingway, Kerouac, and Clarke, each Guide
`
`"plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression." Id. (citing
`
`Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 13 of 31
`
`(1991)) (discussing the distinction between "discovered facts,"
`
`which do not "owe their origin to an act of authorship" and thus are
`
`not protected by copyright, and "created facts," which constitute
`
`original, protected expression).
`
`Second, defendants argue that the characters in plaintiffs'
`
`works are unprotectable ''stock characters." For example, Breakfast
`
`at Tiffany's is, according to defendants, just the story of "a small
`
`town girl with a tough past who has come to the big city." Dean, in
`
`On the Road, is just "a stereotypical womanizing, wild guy and Sal,
`
`our narrator, is portrayed as a young writer." Thus, defendants
`
`argue, Sal and Dean are simply "stock characters and do not warrant
`
`copyright protection." Def. Mem. at 10.
`
`Defendants again misstate the law. While copyright law does not
`
`protect basic characters and stock figures, see Nichols v. Universal
`
`Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1930), copyright law does
`
`protect characters who are sufficiently delineated to be original.
`
`As the Seventh Circuit points out, in the very case defendants cite,
`
`a knowledgeable old wino is not a copyrightable character per se,
`
`but one named Cagliostro with an obviously phony title ("Count") and
`
`faintly Mosaic facial features is protected. "No more is required
`
`for a character copyright." Gaiman, 360 F.3d at 660. See also
`
`Detective Comics v. Bruns Publications, 111 F.2d 432, 433
`
`(2d Cir.
`
`1940) (finding that "Wonderman," a superhero with only superficial
`
`differences from ''Superman" is infringing, even though both are
`
`drawn from the same basic Herculean character type)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 14 of 31
`
`The general rule is that, where defendants' works use "more
`
`than general types and ideas and have appropriated the pictorial and
`
`literary details embodied in the complainant's copyrights,"
`
`defendants' works are infringing. Detective Comics, 111 F.2d at 433.
`
`Here, defendants do not even attempt to conceal their copying.
`
`Indeed, their explicit intention was to lift plaintiffs' characters
`
`to "introduce" them to children. Thus, for example, defendants'
`
`versio~ of Breakfast at Tiffany's does not tell the story of just
`
`any "small town girl with a tough past," but the story of the very
`
`distinctive Holly Golightly. And, as noted, defendants make a point
`
`of copying the very expression of that distinctiveness, such as the
`
`text on Holly's business card and her original idiom "the mean
`
`reds." Similarly, defendants' Guide to On the Road is not just about
`
`a
`
`''womanizing wild guy," but a distinctive womanizing wild guy named
`
`Dean who travels across the country having particular adventures
`
`with his equally distinctive friend Sal.
`
`Third, defendants argue in that latter regard that the plots of
`
`plaintiffs' Novels, which defendants reproduce in their Guides, are
`
`merely unprotectable "scenes A faire," or "incidents, characters or
`
`settings which are as a practical matter indispensable, or at least
`
`standard, in the treatment of a given topic." Hoehling v. Universal
`
`City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 979 (2d Cir. 1980). For example,
`
`defendants argue that The Old Man and the Sea is a classic "man
`
`versus nature" story for which "a trip in nature, the struggle
`
`against the f~sh, reflecting on nature, triumph and defeat" are
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 15 of 31
`
`unprotected. 2001: A Space Odyssey, defendants say, is simply a "man
`
`versus technology" plot, hence the elements which naturally arise
`
`from it ("a space station, space shuttle, an intelligent machine,
`
`tragedy in space, overcoming technology") are not protected.
`
`Similarly, Breakfast at Tiffany's is a "man versus himself plot,"
`
`and On the Road is "a man versus society" plot. Def. Mem. at 7.
`
`On defendants' absurd theory, the plot of Don Quixote is simply
`
`Cervantes' hackneyed version of The Odyssey. Defendants totally
`
`ignore the we~l-developed distinction that while general plot ideas
`
`are no~ copyrightable, specific ones are. See Stodart v. Mut. Film
`
`Corp., 249 F. 507, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), aff'd, 249 F. 513 (2d Cir.
`
`1918)
`
`(comparing two plots and finding them substantially similar)
`
`Nichols, 45 F.2d at 120 (outlining the distinction); Williams v.
`
`Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 587-89 (2d Cir. 1996)
`
`(exploring the
`
`distinction). Defendants' Guides do not tell stories that share
`
`similar plot elements with plaintiffs' work. They retell, albeit in
`
`abridged fashion, the very same stories including the very same
`
`characters, incidents, settings, and plot twists as the original
`
`Novels. To be sure, they do not copy every single incident, but it
`
`is well established as a matter of law that "no plagiarist can
`
`excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate."
`
`Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir.
`
`1936). Nor need a work create the same "feel" or effect as the
`
`copyrighted work to be infringing. See Castle Rock (where defendants
`
`infringed on plaintiffs' copyright in a TV show by publishing a quiz
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 16 of 31
`
`book about the show), Twin Peaks Prods., Inc. v. Publications Int'l,
`
`Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993)
`
`("Twin Peaks")
`
`(where defendants
`
`infringed on plaintiffs' copyright in a TV show by publishing a
`
`guide about the show), Star Trek (where defendants infringed on
`
`plaintiffs' copyright in a movie by publishing a guide about the
`
`movie), and Warner Bros. Entm't Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d
`
`513 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Harry Potter") (where defendants infringed on
`
`plaintiffs' copyright in books and movies by publishing an
`
`encyclopedia based on them) .
`
`By any reasonable comparison, defendants' Guides copy
`
`substantial aspects of the themes, characters, plots, sequencing,
`
`pace, and settings of plaintiffs' Novels. Indeed, that is their
`
`stated purpose. Def. 56.1 St. ~~ 68, 76 (admitting that "defendants
`
`'wanted to be true to the author's original conception'" at least
`
`"as far as possible given the nature of the KinderGuides as
`
`children's books" and that defendants' works seek to convey to
`
`children "the stories and characters" in plaintiffs' Novels).
`
`Defendants thus effectively admit to copyright infringement as a
`
`matter of law.
`
`(4) Derivative Works
`
`Plaintiffs also allege that defendants' Guides violate their
`
`right to control the preparation of derivative works. See 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 106 (2). The Copyright Act defines a "derivative work" as: "a work
`
`based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation,
`
`musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 17 of 31
`
`version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
`
`condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast,
`
`transformed, or adapted." 17 U.S.C. § 101. "A work is not
`
`derivative, however, simply because it is 'based upon' the
`
`preexisting works." Harry Potter, 575 F. Supp. 2d at 538. Only works
`
`that are ''recast, transformed, or adapted" into another medium,
`
`mode, or language while still representing the "original work of
`
`authorship" are derivative. Id.; Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 143 n. 9.
`
`For example, book reviews and parodies of copyrighted works are not
`
`derivative works, despite being based on, and potentially
`
`reproducing, substantial amounts of protected expression. See
`
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 592 (1994)
`
`(stating the general rule that the "market for potential derivative
`
`uses includes only those that creators of original works would in
`
`general develop or license others to develop").
`
`Depending on its nature, a "guide" may or may not qualify as a
`
`derivative work. The issue turns on whether the guide changes the
`
`copyrighted material in such a way that the guide no longer
`
`represents the original "work of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101;
`
`Warner Bros. Entm't Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513, 539
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2008). For example, the Second Circuit found that a guide
`
`to the TV show Twin Peaks, which "merely transformed" the original
`
`work "from one medium to another," was a derivative work. But an
`
`encyclopedia based on the Harry Potter world, which did not tell the
`
`same story as the original copyrighted books and movies, was not a
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 18 of 31
`
`derivative work. Id.
`
`("by condensing, synthesizing, and ~eorganizing
`
`the preexisting material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon
`
`does not recast the material in another medium to retell the story
`
`of Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another
`
`purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding of
`
`individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter that
`
`appear in voluminous and diverse sources.").
`
`Here, though defendants' Guides add additional material at the
`
`end, specifically a few brief pages of "Analysis," "Quiz Questions,"
`
`and information about the author, they are primarily dedicated to
`
`retelling plaintiffs' stories. Two pages of analysis do not convert
`
`the Guides overall - which are largely composed of "Story Summaries"
`
`-
`
`into something that no longer "represents the original work of
`
`authorship." Like a translation, dramatization, or motion picture
`
`adaptation (three categories explicitly delineated by Congress as
`
`derivative works, see 17 U.S.C. § 101), and like the guide in Twin
`
`Peaks, defendants' works basically retell the story of plaintiffs'
`
`works in another medium (in this case illustrated children's books)
`
`Thus, because defendants never received permission from plaintiffs
`
`to produce their Guides, the Guides are unauthorized derivatives as
`
`a matter of law. See Def. 56.1 St. ~ 150.
`
`For the aforementioned reasons, defendants' Guides are
`
`infringing; they infringe upon plaintiffs' exclusive right to
`
`reproduce their Novels, including the character of Holly Golightly
`
`(a separate count), and they infringe upon plaintiffs' exclusive
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 19 of 31
`
`right to exploit the market for derivative works based on their
`
`Novels.
`
`B. Fair Use
`
`Defendants argue that, even if they have infringed plaintiffs'
`
`Novels, defendants' Guides are protected by the doctrine of fair
`
`use. Fair use is an affirmative defense to infringement,
`
`traditionally defined as "a privilege in others than the owner of
`
`the copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner
`
`without his consent." Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 549 (quoting H.
`
`Ball, Law of Copyright and Literary Property at 260 (1944)) Though
`
`''fair use is a mixed question of law and fact," Id. at 560, where a
`
`court finds no genuine issues of material fact it may conclude as a
`
`matter of law that a challenged use does not qualify for fair use
`
`protection. See Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731, 735 (2d
`
`Cir. 1991)
`
`(noting that the "mere fact that a determination of the
`
`fair use question requires an examination of the specific facts of
`
`each case does not necessarily mean that in each case involving fair
`
`use there are factual issues to be tried") (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`The Copyright Act specifies four non-exclusive factors that
`
`bear on fair use:
`
`(1) the purpose and character of the use,
`
`including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
`
`nonprofit educational purposes;
`
`(2) the nature of the copyrighted
`
`work;
`
`(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-JSR Document 53 Filed 09/08/17 Page 20 of 31
`
`relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of
`
`the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
`
`work. 17 U.S.C. § 107.
`
`These factors are not meant to be "treated in isolation" -
`
`they
`
`are designed to be "weighed together," and applied with the
`
`underlying constitutional purposes of copyright in mind. Campbell,
`
`510 U.S. at 578. Indeed, "[f]rom the infancy of copyright protection
`
`some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been
`
`thought necessary to fulfill copyright's very purpose,
`
`'[t]o promote
`
`the Progress of Science and useful Arts'" Id. at 575 (quoting U.S.
`
`Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8) .
`
`The doctrine of fair use furthers these goals by permitting
`
`others to use existing works in ways that their owners would not
`
`ordinarily use them. For example, criticism and commentary are