9.20.2016

Case Analysis: Newt v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. - USDC, C.D. California, July 27, 2016

8/5/2016 by Meg Charendoff, Tal Dickstein, David Grossman, Wook Hwang, Jonathan Neil Strauss, Jonathan Zavin | Loeb & Loeb LLP
District court dismisses copyright infringement claim against creators of Fox’s television show “Empire,” finding no substantial similarity between Fox’s show about struggle for control of music company and plaintiff’s autobiographical story about his exploits as a drug lord and prostitution ring leader.
In a dispute involving the popular Fox television show “Empire,” Ron Newt, a self-described “gangsta pimp” and drug lord who briefly managed his children’s careers in the music industry, sued Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.; the show’s creators, Lee Daniels and Danny Strong; its star, Terrence Howard; and its writer, Malcolm Spellman. Newt asserted claims of copyright infringement and breach of implied-in-fact contract, arguing that “Empire” infringed the copyrights in his true-to-life book, screenplay and DVD, each titled “Bigger Than Big.” After reviewing the works and finding no substantial similarity, the district court granted Fox’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss. It also dismissed Newt’s state-law contract claim, without prejudice, to refiling in state court.

To establish copyright infringement, Newt was required to show: (1) his ownership of the copyrights in the “Bigger Than Big” works; (2) that Fox and the individual defendants had access to his works; and (3) that there was “substantial similarity” between his works and “Empire.” Fox did not contest Newt’s ownership of “Bigger Than Big” or that it had access to that work, given Newt’s allegation that he met with Howard in 2010 to discuss a potential project based on his life story. Fox’s and individual defendants’ motions focused on whether substantial similarity existed between the works.

Newt’s works involve the story of his life as a pimp and drug lord, including his various imprisonments. Newt later managed his preteen and teenaged sons in a singing and dancing group called the Newtrons, at one point obtaining a record deal for the group and befriending the Jackson family. The climax of the story occurs when Newt’s oldest son is killed during a gang initiation robbery. The district court found that Newt’s works focus primarily on the violence, sex, drugs and crime surrounding Newt’s life — a life he eventually gives up to manage the Newtrons.

“Empire,” on the other hand, focuses on the power struggle among members of the Lyon family, led by patriarch Lucious Lyon, a famous rapper and music mogul who used music to escape the streets and a life of poverty. Although “Empire” contains brief flashbacks to Lucious’ troubled past, the district court concluded that the plot focuses more on the conflict within the Lyon family — including Lucious’ ex-wife, Cookie, and their three successful adult sons — over control of his music empire.

Following an in-depth analysis of the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters and sequence of events of the works at issue, the district court identified significant differences between the works. It also found that many of the elements alleged by Newt to have been copied in “Empire” were generic and non-protectable scenes-a-faire, such as the theme of a bad person turning his life around, the setting of a story in an urban nightclub, and members of the music industry wearing hats and jewelry. Furthermore, the district court found that the mood of Newt’s works is dark, violent and sexually graphic, while the mood of “Empire” is less explicit and contains upbeat scenes.

Newt argued that the court was required to apply the inverse-ratio rule, which sets a lower standard of proof of substantial similarity when there is a high degree of access. But the district court decided that Newt would be able to demonstrate substantial similarity even under that relaxed view. The district court concluded that the works are not substantially similar, and dismissed Newt’s copyright infringement claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Newt’s state-law claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, noting that the similarity analysis under that claim differs from the analysis under copyright infringement, and dismissed Newt’s state-law claim, without prejudice, to refiling in state court.
Jiminian Law PLLC is devoted to helping clients in all areas of business, copyrights, trademark, sports and entertainment law.  Providing knowledgeable and effective representation are the keys to my success.  Danny Jiminian, Esq. is available for a free consultation if you call him at 917.388.3574 or 929.322.3546 or email him at danny@djimlaw.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Labels

11th Circuit (1) 1st Amendment (2) 2015 (2) 2016 (20) 2017 (2) 2nd Circuit (8) 4th Circuit (1) 501(c)(3) (2) 7th Circuit (1) 9th Circuit (2) A-rod (1) accident (1) accounting (11) ACLU (1) acting (5) actor (2) advertising (3) advice (59) Aereo (1) age discrimination (1) agent (6) album release (3) alert (1) AlleyWatch (1) An Actor Inquires (3) analysis (6) Ancillary territories (3) angel pad (1) angels (1) anti-discrimination (1) AP (1) Apple (1) application (1) apps (2) architecture (1) art (5) art fair (1) art law (4) artist (3) asset (2) AT&T (1) athlete (1) athletes (4) Athletic Commission (1) audience metrics (1) avatar (1) bankruptcy (1) baseball (1) basketball (4) Beastie Boys (1) blog (17) Bob Marley (1) bonds (1) bone-head move (6) box office (2) boxing (1) branding (6) breach of fiduciary duty (1) brief bits (1) broadcast radio (2) broadcast TV (6) broker (1) budget (1) business (66) Business Insider (2) business manager (2) C&C Music Factory (1) CA (5) cable television (3) calendar (1) California (2) California law (5) campaign (2) cannabis (1) cases (10) casting (1) celebrities (6) Celebrity Endorsements (1) Center for Art Law (1) CFP (1) charts (1) China (1) China Law Blog (1) Chobani (1) Chubb Rock (1) class action (4) Coca Cola (1) Comcast (1) comedy (8) comic books (2) Commerce (1) Common Law Claims (1) company (14) compliance (1) contract (33) contracts (3) copyright (51) corporations (9) Creative Commons (2) crowdfunding (5) crowdsourcing (1) Cuba (2) cybersecurity (1) damages (1) Darth Vader (1) David Bowie (1) deals (11) Debmar model (1) defamation (4) demonstrations (1) development (6) DGA (2) digital (3) director (1) directors (10) DirecTV (1) disaster (2) discrimination (1) Disney (1) distribution (15) diversity (1) Division I (1) djimlaw.com (3) DMCA (3) DNA (1) DOJ (1) DOL (1) Dominican Republic (1) donor (1) Dov Seidman (1) DPRA (1) drone (1) Drumpf (1) DTSA (1) Duke Ellington (1) DVD (4) EA (1) economic espionage (1) economics (3) EEOC (2) EFF (2) EMI (1) Empire (1) employees (13) employer (13) entertainment industry (10) entrepreneur (9) ESL (1) esports (2) EST (1) ethics (3) events (1) Exclusive Use (1) executives (5) exhibitors (3) exploitation window (2) FAA (1) facebook (4) Fair Labor Standards Act (2) fair use (6) family & friends (1) fantasy sports (2) fashion (5) FBI (1) FCC (3) feature (4) FIFA (1) film (30) filmmaker (9) filmmaking (22) finance (6) finder (1) First Amendment (1) first-look deal (1) FL (2) FLSA (1) football (2) Forbes (2) forms (2) formula (3) foundation (1) FOX (2) FOX News (1) franchise (1) Free Speech (3) free trade agreements (1) funding (7) fundraising (3) gain (1) gambling (1) genetic larceny (1) Ghostface Killah (1) Google (3) Gordon Rees (1) government (28) grants (3) graphic novels (1) gross (3) guides (1) H-1B visa (1) HBR (1) hip hop (3) HOLA (3) Hollywood (9) Huffington Post (1) Hullabaloo (1) IATSE (1) IMDB (1) immigration (1) Inc magazine (1) incentives (5) Indiegogo (1) Indiewire (2) indigenous people (1) infographic (1) Information is Beautiful (3) infringement (20) Instagram (1) insurance (1) intellectual property (39) Intellirights (1) intent to use (1) International (7) internet (2) investment (10) investors (1) IP Watchdog (1) IPO (1) IPRHFF (1) Iron Man (1) IRS (10) ItsArtLaw blog (1) iTunes (1) jdsupra (5) Jersey Shore (1) John Cones (1) journalism (1) jumpstart foundry (1) Justice Dept. (2) Kickstarter (3) Kristin Thompson (1) LA Times (1) labor (10) Lanham Act (3) Las Vegas (1) latino (3) launch (1) law (8) Law 360 (1) Law360 (1) lawsuit (21) lawyer (3) lawyers (16) legal (2) legislation (8) liability (6) libel (2) licensing (6) Likelihood of Confusion (1) litigation (42) LLC (3) madrid protocol (1) maker (1) management (2) manager (3) marketing (8) Marvel (1) media (8) mediation (1) merchandising (2) merger & acquisition (1) MLB (2) MMA (1) mobile devices (4) money (5) moral rights (1) MPAA (1) Mr. Jaar (1) MTV (1) Murdoch (1) music (25) music publishers (1) musician (6) musicians (12) NAB (1) NALIP-NY (2) Name and Likeness (1) NBA (1) NC (1) NCAA (3) negotiation (10) Netflix (3) network (4) New Line Cinema (1) New Media (2) New York (6) New York law (9) news (6) newspaper (1) NFL (3) Nikki Finke (1) NJ (1) NJ Motion Picture and TV Commission (1) NLRA (1) NLRB (1) no budget (3) non-compete (2) Nonprofit Risk Management Center (1) nonprofits (15) NY (8) NY Court of Appeals (1) NY Mag (1) NY Press (1) NY Production Alliance (1) NY Times (4) NY Yankees (1) NYC Focus (1) NYC Mayor's Office (1) NYMag (3) O visa (1) Olympics (1) online rights (2) open-source (1) OSHA (1) P visa (1) partnership (2) patent (7) patents (3) PEDs (1) photography (5) PIPA (1) piracy (2) pitching (4) plan (1) policy (3) politics (3) Power Play (2) pre-1972 (5) privacy (5) producer (2) producers (20) producing (1) production company (12) production journal (1) production resources (2) production tips (1) profit (11) progress (1) projects (8) Promaxbda (1) promotion (5) PTAB (1) public domain (3) publicity (9) publishing (4) radio (2) Rakim (1) record labels (3) recording artist (1) registration (2) regulation (2) rent (1) Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1) residuals (1) revenues (5) Richard Prince (1) Richard Pryor (1) royalties (1) ruling (3) safety (1) SAG-AFTRA (3) sales (4) satellite (2) SBA (1) SBA loan (2) scandal (2) science (1) SCOTUS (5) Script Reader Pro (1) SDNY (3) SEC (6) securitisation (1) seed capital (2) seed money (1) settlement (1) Sirius (6) small business (15) soccer (2) social media (5) software (3) Sony (3) SOPA (1) SoundCloud (1) Spiderman (1) sports (24) sports agent (3) Sports Agent Blog (1) sports law (2) Star Wars (1) startup (13) Starz (1) statistics (1) stock (1) strategy (28) streaming (10) student-athlete (1) studios (7) Sub Pop (1) successul film (5) summary judgment (2) Supreme Court (11) Supreme Court of NY (1) susan sarandon (1) Tax credit (6) tax foundation (1) tax inversion (1) taxes (10) technology (16) ted hope (2) television (11) The Art Law Report (1) The Atlantic (1) The Baffler (1) The Business of Sports (1) The Guardian (1) The Upshot (1) Theater (1) theatre (3) theatrical exhibition (4) theatrical window (2) THR (9) Time Warner (2) TPM (1) TPP (1) trade secret (11) trademark (31) transmedia (1) Triple Crown (1) Trump (1) TTAB (2) TV (3) Twitter (1) UFC (1) unions (3) US International Trade Commission (1) USPTO (7) Variety (2) VC (2) vendor (2) venture capital (1) video (1) video game (2) Vimeo (1) visualizations (1) VOD (2) Vox (1) Walmart (1) Warner Bros. (2) Washington Post (1) Wattpad (1) web series (2) webcast (1) webinar (1) website (5) WGA (1) What Every Producer Should Know (8) wikipedia (1) WME (1) work for hire (1) workshop (1) write-offs (1) writer (2) writers (4) WSJ (2) YFS magazine (1) youtube (3)