Stanley Miller v. Pixar Animation Studios et al.
Argued December 13, 15, 2006.
Decided December 20, 2006.

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.
Plaintiffs presented verbal information that EMD was fixed in a tangible form in 1997 and registered in 2002. Plaintiffs did not present proof of registration (neither did defendants dispute registration.

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.
Miller argues that he has an original work and that it was fixed in a tangible form. Pixar argues that the idea of a one-eyed monster (and a buddy theme) isn't original and cited numerous examples.

Given the 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.

Note: The court agrees with plaintiffs that fair use cannot be claimed in this case (and that Pixar did not make this claim).

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.

Miller claims that Pixar has had access to Miller's works (a known artist) and that the big guy/little guy have been depicted in various media and the Excuse My Dust (EMD) script circulated in Hollywood. Miller also claims a visit from a "fan" in 2000 that was actually from someone associated with Pixar. Pixar claims that no access has been proven

As such, both sides argue the lengthy process of creating an animated movie. Miller claims that Pixar was trying to find a workable character (that Mike wasn't in the original treatment, a point Pixar disputes) and that even if they had been working on Mike prior to EMD, it was access to EMD that helped Pixar create the Mike found in Monster's Inc. Pixar claims that there wasn't enough time for Pixar to borrow anything from Miller. By the time of the alleged visit in 2000, this was far too close to the release of Monsters Inc. to have made a difference in character development.

The court will note at this point that Disney/Pixar's alleged past behavior is irrelevant to this case. Past behavior can prejudice the facts in the case at hand. This case must only be decided on issues related to the alleged copyright infringement; therefore any information alleging motive or past "borrowing" of ideas is moot.

Even with the timeline in dispute, proving access doesn't have to reach the level of certainty. All plaintiff need show is more than a "bare possibility." The court finds that the plaintiff has met this criterion.

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; i.e. how the theme is carried out. 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 theme similar? On its face, it would appear so. Though titles such as Monstropolis/Monster City or Monster Corp. of America/Monster's Inc. can't be copyrighted, they can go towards showing a similar general theme (the defense's impressive list notwithstanding). To the court, this seems definitive enough to consider the second question.

Are the themes/characters substantially similar? The issue of theme is difficult to assess. The script of EMD is not available, and is no fault of the plaintiffs. The buddy theme, the two characters in relationship, the setting etc. form the heart of the plaintiff's argument that it is the totally that must be considered. This is where substantial similarity is key. Both sides see the importance of this question. However, this is not the only issue the court will look at in terms of substantial similarity.

Even if the script were available, and even if no substantial similarity were found, the analysis would not be complete. In judging infringement, even if the whole is not substantially similar, certain elements or "protected parts" may be infringed upon. Certainly, characters would fit under "protected parts" and may be analyzed in terms of shape, color, materials etc.

Miller argues that his work and Pixar's with respect to Mike is substantially similar. They note the similarities in terms of color, one eye, skinny legs, 3 prong feet, 2 pointy ears, 2 arms and the buddy relationship. Defense acknowledges some similarity ("fair to say some elements are similar – ball, big eye, green") while arguing that personality is a key difference. Defense also references small arms, 2 horns, small legs and a hat, some of which seem to fit with plaintiffs contentions and some of which do not. Defense argues that Miller's character changes while Mike does not. This is not relevant. Creativity implies change, the key is whether Mike is similar to any one of Miller's designs, and not that Miller's designs have changed.

The arguments against substantial similarity with reference to Sully were far stronger on the side of the defense. It seems clear to the court that there is not enough evidence to find substantial similarity with respect to Sully.

With reference to Mike and the issue of substantial similarity the burden of proof to demonstrate substantial similarity is on the plaintiffs. Given concessions by the plaintiffs it seems to this court that there is indeed substantial similarity with respect to Mike.Judgment for the plaintiffs.

With Judge Sochay presiding, all verdicts are final, there is no appeal to a higher court.