Miller v. Pixar decisions

Case 1

Stanley Miller v. Pixar Animation Studios et al.

Argued May 12, 18, 2004.
Decided May 21, 2004.

Justice Sochay delivered the opinion of the Court:

Stanley Miller claims that "Mike" and "Sullivan, the two main monster-buddies in the Disney/Pixar movie "Monster's Inc." were derived from a little one-eyed creature and a larger monster who frequently appeared together in his cartoons going back to 1963.

In order to win a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must adequately address three questions:
1) Is the copyright on the plaintiff's work valid? This question looks at such matters as the proper registration of the work and whether or not the copyrighted work is an original work that can be protected by copyright.
2) Did the defendant have access to the plaintiff's work prior to the alleged infringement?
3) Are the two works the same or substantially similar?

The Court will look at each of these three questions separately in order to arrive at a decision.

Copyright valid/original work
Before a copyright holder can sue for infringement under the law, the copyrighted work must be registered with the federal government (the United States Copyright Office). The statute gives the owner 90 days to register a work. If the work is not registered within 90 days and an infringement takes place, the owner can still register the work and bring suit. However, the plaintiff cannot win statutory damages or compensation for attorney fees.

Has Miller properly registered his work?

Not every work is copyrightable. For example, ideas, concepts, facts, and trivial materials such as titles and slogans cannot be copyrighted.

In this case, Miller claims copyright for the eyeball character and the large monster as first being set in tangible form in 1963 and the buddy theme set in tangible form in 1966. The movie "Excuse My Dust" (EMD) was written in 1997 and registered in 2002. Pixar began working on Monster's Inc in 1995 (plaintiffs) or 1996 (defense). Pixar registered copyright for the movie in 2001. Defense claims that there is "no evidence" of Miller creating his characters before Pixar or that EMD was only an idea for a film and never in final form are of little merit. There is ample evidence of precedent for copyright on various characters dating back to 1963, and, the script of EMD was registered, thus fixing the idea in tangible form. As such, the court doesn't see any problems with proper registration (though it was beyond the 90 days thus limiting damages should Miller receive a favorable outcome in this case).

Is the work original?

Original means that the work must owe its origin to the author. It needn't be of high quality or even new. Even common and mundane works are copyrightable. The legal system is not to act as a literary or art critic when applying copyright law. Thus, the standard of originality is by nature, low. All that is needed is that the author contribute something more than a merely trivial variation, something recognizably his own.

With respect to television, in Murray v. NBC, the court was confronted with the question of originality. The court said "that such a show [as disputed in the case] had never been broadcast does not necessarily mean that the idea for the program itself was novel." If the idea was nothing more than a variation on a basic theme, novelty can't be found. Thus, some element of originality is needed.

The plaintiffs makes a narrow claim in that they say that the large hairy monster is not unique (which may cause problems for the plaintiff under substantial similarity). As such it is not copyrightable by Miller and no infringement is possible. The defense agrees. Plaintiff claims it is the buddy relationship between the small eyeball monster and the large monster that is unique and is what has been infringed. Plaintiffs claim that Pixar's work is a derivative work and thus an infringement. Defense argues that one-eyed monsters and large furry creatures have been around long before 1963. Further, the big guy/little guy buddy relationship in movies is also not unique. Neither is living in big cities or working in factories. For this point in the case, uniqueness isn't needed, only that it be more than a trivial variation on time worn ideas. The Court sees little difficulty in finding originality exists in the case of a one-eyed little guy and a large hairy big guy buddy relationship as expressed by Stanley Miller.

Access
The plaintiff must convince the court that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work. An opportunity to copy has to exist. If plaintiffs cannot prove that the alleged infringer had a chance to see the work, they are hard pressed to prove infringement. The smaller the circulation of the work, the harder it is to prove access. The larger the circulation of the work, the easier it is to prove access. In any event, plaintiffs must show more than a "bare possibility" that defendants may have had access to the work.

Plaintiffs make a two-fold case for access. One argument is that Miller is a well-known and popular artist dating back to the 1960s for both art and animation. They claim that it is likely that Pixar's animators were familiar with Miller's work. Defense makes no assertions to the contrary. Plaintiffs also claim that Pixar had access to the script for EMD in 1998 (while production of Monster's Inc. was on-going). Again, defense makes no assertions to the contrary.
What plaintiffs don’t claim is a visit from a story animator from Pixar in 2000. In fact, they acknowledge that they can't prove a Pixar employee had access. The defense agrees.

The key guide here are terms such as "opportunity," "chance," and "bare possibility." Plaintiffs need not show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pixar animators had access to Miller's work. They need only show the possibility of access. Though proof of an actual visit would make this an easy case of access, plaintiffs have demonstrated that Miller was well known in art and animation circles. In seems clear then, that Pixar had more than a "bare possibility" or a "chance" or "opportunity" to be familiar with Miller's work. Thus, access is found to have been possible.

At this point, plaintiffs have been able to answer the first two questions satisfactorily. The major question, and often the key to copyright infringement cases, remains.

Substantial Similarity
In some cases, substantial similarity is easy to define. Exact duplication, for example, is a clear case. In other instances, it is a bit more complicated. In these cases, judges must often take the role of art critic to flesh out the differences between two seemingly identical works. Judges must then look at the similarities and differences. When direct copying is not an issue, defendants are typically accused of appropriating "the fundamental essence or structure of the work." There must be more than minor similarities between the two works; they must be substantially similar. But, this rule is easier to state than apply. Courts use a variety of tests, but virtually all the tests focus on two aspects of the work. The courts will first ask whether the general idea or theme of the works is the same. If the general idea of the two works is not similar, there is no infringement. But if the general idea is substantially similar, then the court looks at how the idea is expressed; how the theme is carried out. The cases of "Shane and Pale Rider" and Warner Bros. v. ABC (Superman and "The Greatest American Hero") provide some guidance here. The general idea may be similar, but the plaintiff has to show that the concrete expression has been appropriated. In addition, Berkik v. Crichton shows that similarities at a high level of generality aren't enough. When one looks at the manner in which these similar ideas are expressed, does the similarity end? Judges may look at plot, setting, style, situations, incidents etc. in order to make this determination.

Is the general idea or theme of the work the same? Plaintiffs argue that the buddy relationship is at the heart or "fundamental essence" of the similarity. And indeed, both EMD and Monster's Inc. feature a buddy relationship between a big guy and a little guy. Defense states that big guy/little guy buddy pictures are a popular comedy genre for the movies. They cite four movies that have followed this general plot theme as evidence. This would seem to support the first step of the analysis, hinging the case on the second step. Further, defense cites the example of Superman and Spiderman; showing that they share a similar general theme but the characters are substantially different.

This merits a look at the second step. How is the theme carried out? Plaintiffs cite character and setting. They argue that the characters are substantially similar in that the one-eyed guy and Mike have thin arms and legs, single eyeballs, are green, similar feet, toothy grins and similar bone structure. Thus, they are not generic in similarity. Defense says the similarity is a coincidence, how many ways can you draw a one eyeball monster? Further, Pixar has fleshed out the personality of the characters with voice and dimensionality. Also, CGI techniques and screen aesthetics also play a role in how the characters will look.

Plaintiffs also argue substantial similarity in terms of setting they cite the use of Monster City v. Monstropolis and Monster Corp. of America v. Monster's Inc. They also cite the commonality of a girlfriend in both. Defense counters that there is no little girl in EMD, there is in Monster's Inc.

Defense adds one more element – plot. Plaintiffs argue that plot shouldn't be taken into consideration. The court finds it relevant to this second step analysis. Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate plot similarities that support this portion of the second step of analysis. Evidence of similarities such as power outages, chases, magical doors, etc. would be strong evidence of plot similarities and would prove plaintiff's case. On the other hand, defense was also unable to demonstrate any plot dissimilarities. In the real world, had there been access to the EMD script, the case would have hinged on this very issue.

In sum, the general theme or idea seems to have similarities, the characters have similarities, the setting has similarities (at times strikingly so). But, the manner in which the theme is carried may have substantial differences. Without plot evidence, the court has no recourse but to consider the matter on the basis of general theme, character and setting, and in that respect, plaintiffs have shown substantial similarity.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.
In the Court of Sochay, all verdicts are final, there is no appeal.

Case 2

Stanley Miller v. Pixar Animation Studios et al.

Argued May 14, 18, 2004.
Decided May 21, 2004.

Justice Sochay delivered the opinion of the Court:

The Court will look at each of these three questions separately in order to arrive at a decision.

Has Miller properly registered his work?

Not every work is copyrightable. For example, ideas, concepts, facts, and trivial materials such as titles and slogans cannot be copyrighted.

In this case, plaintiffs claim that Miller first sketched the one-eyed guy and the big hairy monster in 1963. The buddy relationship was first fixed in tangible form in 1963 or 1967 (both dates are cited for this relationship). "Excuse My Dust" (EMD) was written in 1997 and "Monsters Inc." in 2001. In both cases, character and movie script, plaintiffs claim Miller was the first to fix these in tangible form.

This court could not find in written or verbal arguments, any evidence from the plaintiffs that the copyrighted works by Miller had been registered with the United States Copyright Office. Without this evidence, no lawsuit can be filed. Defense could have asked for (and received) a summary judgment based on this point. Instead, defense provided evidence that EMD had been registered in 1997. So, the case may proceed.

Is the work original?

Plaintiffs argue that Miller was the first to create these characters and that they were not just an idea, they were fixed in books, on t-shirts etc. Plaintiffs submitted images to back this up. Defense argues that the characters weren't original. They cite work by Keith Campbell and Mr. Malewicki as being very similar to Miller's and thus that Miller's work isn't all that original (or that the concept of a one-eyed guy isn't original). The defense makes a strong case that the one eyed character isn't unique, However, given the numerous sketches from Miller, and the low threshold for originality, the Court sees little difficulty in finding that originality exists in the case of a one-eyed little guy and a large hairy big guy buddy relationship as expressed by Stanley Miller.

Defense claims that Miller and his work were not in the public eye. However, plaintiffs make a strong case that Miller was a "renowned" artist, well known in industry circles. In addition, Miller shopped EMD in 1997. Plaintiffs make no mention of an artist visit in 2000. Given renown, access seems more than a "bare possibility." "Opportunity" and "chance" seem probable. In any event, access becomes a moot point. Defense conceded access at "a certain point." This point was claimed to be after production and development were well under way. Defense's point then will be more relevant to use, which will be discussed in the next section.

At this point, plaintiffs have been able to answer the first two questions satisfactorily (with help from the defense for the first point). The major question, and often the key to copyright infringement cases, remains.

Plaintiffs argue that the buddy relationship is substantially similar. They also argue that the use of Monster City v. Monstropolis and Monster Corp. of America v. Monster's Inc. is substantially similar. Images were presented and some descriptive similarity was cited. Defense argued that terms such as the city and company names were generic. They also argued that the characters were substantially dissimilar. With respect to the one-eyed guy, defense presented an impressive list of dissimilarities. The defense also pointed out that the personalities/traits of the character was dissimilar as evidenced in the sketches. Further, defense argued that Monsters Inc. took place in a far different world. The burden of proof to demonstrate substantial similarity is on the plaintiffs. That burden has not been met.

Judgment for the defendants.
In the Court of Sochay, all verdicts are final, there is no appeal.

Return to syllabus