Miller v. Pixar decisions
Case 1
Stanley Miller v. Pixar Animation Studios et al.
Argued May 12, 17, 2010.
Decided May 20, 2010.
Chief 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 that he created for Excuse My Dust (EMD).
In order to win a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must adequately address three questions:
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.
Did the defendant have access to the plaintiff's work prior to the alleged infringement?
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?
Plaintiffs argued that Miller's work had been copyrighted. Specifically that Excuse My Dust (EMD) was fixed in a tangible form in 1997 and registered in 2002. Defense counters that the original copyrights from the 1960s have expired, that no renewal was ever sought and that characters went into the public domain. As evidence, defense cites findings from the US District Court (Cal.). Though this court is not bound by findings from a lower court (there is no higher court in the material realm than Dr. Sochay's court) they can provide guidance. The US District Court found that Character B was in the public domain but found sufficient evidence that Character A (Wise G'eye) and EMD "may be entitled to copyright protection." For the purposes of this court, the court finds that the buddy relationship is not subject to a copyright infringement suit but the case as it relates to Wise G'eye and EMD can proceed.
Still, showing something is copyrighted does not mean the work is original.
That question isn't addressed until an infringement case is filed. For that we turn to:
Is the work original?
Not every work is copyrightable. For example, ideas, concepts, facts, and trivial materials such as titles and slogans cannot be copyrighted. 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.
Plaintiffs claim that Miller's work was original and fixed in a tangible form. Defense claims that Miller's work isn't original because the one-eyed Cyclops figure has been around for many years.
This court believes that the plaintiffs have met the low standard for originality with respect to Wise G'Eye.
Did the defendants have 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 argue that Miller was a renowned artist and created a "monster art" series early in his career. In addition, a treatment/script for Excuse My Dust was shopped in 1998. Further, a copy was given to Jeff Mann (ILM) who worked with John Lasseter. They claim that this copy was given to Mann before the creation date for Mike (April 6, 1998) In addition, a rep from Pixar allegedly visited Miller in 2000.
Defense claims there is no proof to support that Pixar ever had access and that EMD was shopped after Pixar had started developing characters.
For this section, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have shown more than a "bare possibility that defendants may have had access to the work. Miller was well known and Pixar had reasonable access to his work.
At this point, plaintiffs have been able to answer the first two key questions. The major question, and often the key to copyright infringement cases, remains.
Are the characters substantially similar?
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. When one looks at the manner in which these similar ideas are expressed, where 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? How is it expressed?
Plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial similarity between Wise G'eye and Mike. As evidence they cite Peter Lane as an expert (which defense did not dispute). Lane states that the biggest similarity is the close friendship between the two characters and the significant similarity between Miller's character and Sullivan. However, these observations are moot given that the court has already ruled that these are not infringable issues.
That leaves Lane's testimony on Wise G'eye. Lane acknowledges simple differences such as teeth, eyes, hair etc. (to which defense agrees). Lane says the basic body styles are "true representations of each other" (but from different eras). Lane states that the Pixar characters were "softened but still played off of the original artwork of Mouse." Lane's testimony seems to open the door to something less than substantial similarity. To the court "played off" and "copied" or "infringed on" don't seem to carry the same meaning. In addition, Lane says that the Pixar characters hoped to reach out to an audience of children, while Miller's were geared to an adult generation. This seems to speak of a difference in theme. Finally, plaintiffs argue for a substantial similarity in terms of surroundings (city/workplace).
Defense claims that there were many physical differences and that the city/workplace similarities are generic (where else would a monster live/work?). Defense showed a series of images and asked the court to consider the obvious differences, but did not spell them out.
The plaintiff has the burden of proof in a copyright infringement case, especially with respect to substantial similarity. Yet, it seems that the plaintiff's expert makes the strongest case for substantial similarity with respect to issues not before the court and the weakest case for substantial similarity with respect to Wise G'Eye and theme, which are before this court. Thus, plaintiffs fail to make the case for substantial similarity.
Having failed to meet the burden of proof in all three areas,
Judgment for the defense.
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, 17, 2010.
Decided May 20, 2010.
Chief 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 that he created for Excuse My Dust (EMD).
In order to win a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must adequately address three questions:
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.
Did the defendant have access to the plaintiff's work prior to the alleged infringement?
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?
Plaintiffs presented evidence that Miller created his characters in 1963. Further, Excuse My Dust was created in 1997 and registered in 2002. Defense argues that the registration didn't occur until 2002, well after the beginnings of Monsters Inc. The court finds that the key is when something is fixed in a tangible form not when registration is filed. Thus, Miller's works are found to be properly registered.
Is the work original?
Not every work is copyrightable. For example, ideas, concepts, facts, and trivial materials such as titles and slogans cannot be copyrighted. 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.
Plaintiff's claim that Miller's character and buddy relationship were his developed ideas. Defense claims that one-eyed monsters, big hairy monsters, and big guy/little guy relationships have been around forever and aren't original.
This court believes that the plaintiffs have met the low standard for originality. It is not the idea alone that is key, it is how the idea is expressed.
Did the defendants have 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 argue that Miller made Excuse My Dust available widely in 1998. They also cite a 2000 visit from a Pixar artist. Defense argues that there simply isn't any proof to substantiate access.
The key guides here are terms such as "opportunity," 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. It 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. This does not imply infringement however, that must wait for the third major area of a copyright infringement case.
The issue of time isn’t especially relevant. Though the making of an animated film is a complex and lengthy process, the Court has no precedent other than the possibility of access. Whether or not the material COULD have been incorporated into the film is not a question the Court need address.
At this point, plaintiffs have been able to answer the first two key questions. The major question, and often the key to copyright infringement cases, remains.
Are the characters substantially similar?
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. When one looks at the manner in which these similar ideas are expressed, where 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? How is it expressed?
Plaintiffs argued a long list of similarities that included city, workplace, Wise G'Eye and Mike, Lucretia and Celia, Fred Flypogger and Sullivan, and several relationships. They argue that it isn't any one similarity that is key but the combination of similarities that is. Plaintiffs also cite an expert, (which defense questioned) Julie Borchert, to cite issues related to substantial similarity.
Defense argued that Disney has a long history of developing the big guy/little guy theme in different expressions. They also state that city/workplace names for monsters are generic. They also presented their own long list of differences with respect to characters and further argued that one can't pick out individual images but must consider the characteristics/theme as a whole.
Much vigorous debate ensued around these basic points too volumnious to restate here. The Court should also note that both sides cited precedents to support their arguments. The Court is torn in that both sides argued substantial similarity with passion and evidence. What ultimately swayed the decision is that this high level of debate had one side bring in a convincing expert while the other side presented none. When addressing issues related to art, the Court is willing to defer to expert testimony rather than try to presume to be an art expert himself.
Having met the burden of proof in all three areas,
Judgment for the plaintiff.
In the Court of Sochay, all verdicts are final, there is no appeal.