Opinion
99 CIV 12342 (RCC)
March 15, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se James Bell ("Plaintiff") brought this Copyright Infringement Lawsuit against Vibe/Spin Ventures LLC (incorrectly sued under the names Blaze Magazine and Vibe Magazine, however, referred to herein as "Blaze Magazine" and "Vibe Magazine," consistent with Plaintiff's complaint), Keith Clinkscales, John Rollins, Darryl Dawsey, Corey Takahasi, Tone Boots, and Future Known and Unknown Infringers ("Defendants"), alleging the Defendants infringed his copyright of a manuscript he created entitled "Hip Hop Behind the Walls." Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Title 17 of the United States Code, Sections 106(4) and 601(a), and Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1400(a). Defendants have brought a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 12(b)(6)"). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
Federal Jurisdiction
This case is properly before the Court pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1338(a).
Factual Background
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, and alleges that defendants Blaze and Vibe Magazines infringed on his copyright by publishing infringing articles in its magazine. Plaintiff created a manuscript (the "Manuscript") in September of 1998, for a magazine proposal entitled "Hip Hop Behind The Walls." The magazine was intended to "touch down on real artist [sic] who are known and unknown who are or have been incarcerated. It was to also to touch down on news, weather, topics of everyday life, from those who are incarcerated. Talks with former drug dealers who are also incarcerated." (Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that he submitted the Manuscript to three magazines in November of 1998, including The Source Magazine, XXL Magazine, and Blaze Magazine. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff sought support and financial backing from Blaze Magazine in order to help launch his publication. (Compl. Ex. 1B.) In February of 1999, Plaintiff called each publication and Blaze Magazine informed him that it could not locate the Manuscript. Id. In May of 1999, Blaze Magazine published works which Plaintiff allege infringed on his Manuscript, including a cover article entitled "Hip Hop Behind Bars," an interview "that was spoke [sic] about in the letter that was sent with his Manuscript describing what would be added if the magazine wanted to use plaintiff's work." Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff also alleges that there was an article under the same title, "Hip Hop Behind Bars," that involved an interview Plaintiff conducted with a convicted drug dealer, restructuring the interview and using the magazine's greater resources to get information on much larger drug dealers. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff further alleges that the June/July issues of Blaze Magazine featured another article, dealing with private prisons, hip hop and prisons in America, drugs' affect on ethnic groups, and lengthy sentences for drug crimes. Plaintiff alleges that this involves the same subject matter as does his Manuscript. Id. ¶ 15-16. Plaintiff alleges that he sent a cease and desist letter to Blaze Magazine in April of 1999, yet has never received a response.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Keith Clinkscales and John Rollins of Blaze Magazine allowed such infringement to take place. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Darryl Dawsey and Corey Takahasi wrote infringing articles, which were published in Blaze Magazine, involving certain interviews and detailing the business of private prisons, ethnic targeting in drug cases and the resulting sentences. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants' took this idea and restructured it in a paraphrasing manner. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Tone Boots wrote an infringing article concerning drug dealers entitled "The Infamous," which was allegedly modeled after Plaintiff's article entitled "True Willies." Plaintiff alleges that this defendant took Plaintiff's work and restructured it in a paraphrasing manner, but ultimately, the idea was derived from Plaintiff's article. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Blaze Magazine infringed on his copyright by paraphrasing the title of Plaintiff's article "Hip Hop Behind the Walls" to read "Hip Hop Behind Bars." Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $2 million from each individual defendant.
Standard of Review
In order for a party to succeed on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), it must be clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish his or her claim for relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Cohen v. Koenig, 25 F.3d 1168, 1172 (2d Cir. 1994). When making a determination of whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts which would entitle him or her to relief, a court must assume that the allegations in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 546 (1964); Kaluczky v. City of White Plains, 57 F.3d 202, 206 (2d Cir. 1995). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations, however, are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. A complaint must "contain allegations concerning each of the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under a viable legal theory." American Council of Learned Societies v. MacMillan, Inc., 1996 WL 706911, at *3 (S.D.N Y Dec. 6, 1996).
Discussion
In order to state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) copying of the protected elements of the copyrighted work. Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). However, the fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work is protected, rather, a copyright protects only the original components of the author's work.Feist, 499 U.S. at 345, 348. Words and short phrases, such as titles or slogans, are insufficient to warrant copyright protection, as they do not exhibit the minimal creativity required for such protection. Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1072 (2d Cir 1992); 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a) (2001). Similarly, copyright protection does not extend to a concept or idea, regardless of the form in which it is communicated, explained, illustrated, or embodied. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217-18 (1954) (stating that copyright protection extends only to the expression of the idea and never to the idea itself); see 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (1988); Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 587-88 (2d Cir. 1996) (stating that this is a principle fundamental to copyright law). An idea, once born, may be exploited by others without violating the copyright laws, see Arica, 970 F.2d at 1074, however, the expression of an idea, other than a form of expression that is essential to conveying the idea, may be protected by copyrights. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); Williams, 84 F.3d at 587-88.
Here, Plaintiff registered for a copyright on the Manuscript on May 26, 1999, in accordance with Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 411(a). (Compl. ¶ 27.) This was done prior to the filing of this complaint on December 27, 1999. Ex. H to the Complaint. It appears that Plaintiff has validly registered the Manuscript and owns a valid copyright, satisfying the first prong of the test to determine copyright infringement. Therefore, in order to prevail, Plaintiff must show that Defendants copied his works.
A plaintiff can prove the second prong of the standard either by direct evidence, or by demonstrating that the defendants had access to plaintiff's work and that the parties' works are "substantially similar."Arica, 970 F.2d at 1071. Works are "substantially similar" where defendants have "appropriated the fundamental essence or structure of [a] plaintiff's work." Id. at 1073 (citations omitted). The determination of whether the parties' works are "substantially similar" may be decided by a court as a matter of law. Id. at 1067; Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 720 F.2d 231, 240 (2d Cir. 1983). In the case where a work contains protectable and unprotectable elements, a court must determine whether the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar. Crichton, 84 F.3d at 588 (citing Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs, Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir. 1995)). If a court determines that no reasonable jury could find that the works are substantially similar, or if it concludes that the similarities pertain only to unprotected elements of the work, it is appropriate for the court to dismiss the action because, as a matter of law, there is no copyright infringement. Buckman v. Citicorp, 1996 WL 34158, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 1996), aff'd, 101 F.3d 1393 (2d Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff described his Manuscript as a concept designed to center around hip hop in prisons and to focus on artists who are not recognized by the hip hop industry, while touching on issues and topics of everyday life, such as current events and the weather. He also planned to focus on what he termed the "inside" — on ways to restructure the lives of those who are incarcerated. (Compl. Ex. 1B.)
Blaze Magazine, launched in September, 1998, is a youth spin-off of Vibe, a major urban lifestyle and music magazine, focusing primarily on the "hip hop" style of music. The ideas embodied in both Plaintiff's Manuscript and Defendant's publication are not novel. They both focus on hip hop, and they both include articles covering many common subjects, such as the news and weather, and the allegedly infringing articles involve a similar subject to Plaintiff's Manuscript. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his copyright by capitalizing on his idea to publish a magazine which focuses on prison life and the black community, arguing that this concept, his specific ideas for stories and titles, were novel and protectable. This is simply not the case. It is clear that Plaintiff claims that Defendants copied his ideas — not theexpression of his ideas. Indeed, the complaint makes that clear, in that Plaintiff alleges specifically that "defendant . . . fraudulently [took] plaintiff's work and restructure[d] it in a [sic] infringing manner." (Compl. ¶ 22.) The case law is clear that Defendant's use of a concept or idea — even when narrowed to specific story lines that have been "restructured" — cannot provide a basis for copyright infringement claims. See Boyle v. Stephens, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Nikko Investment Advisors, 1998 WL 690816, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 1998) (citations omitted); A.A. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc, 1979 WL 1068, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 1979) (holding that a work that was the product of the plaintiff's lengthy research and marshaling, and the theory on which the plaintiff's work was based, were not copyrightable). In support of his claim that Defendants' copied his expression and not simply his ideas and concepts, Plaintiff attaches numerous exhibits to his complaint in an attempt to demonstrate similarities between his Manuscript and Defendant's publication. (See e.g., Compl. Exs. A, B, D, E, F, G.)
Specifically, with respect to the cover and article entitled "Hip Hop Behind Bars," the Court finds that the mere fact that it involved similar subject matter to Plaintiff's article "Hip Hop Behind the Walls" does not give rise to a copyright violation. As a preliminary matter, there is no copyright protection for titles, words or phrases, therefore, any similarity in the two titles is not actionable. Arica, 970 F.2d at 1072. Furthermore, the manners in which the ideas were expressed were markedly different. The fact that Blaze Magazine used its greater resources to get information on much larger drug dealers than those to which Plaintiff had access is simply an example of Defendants capitalizing on Plaintiff's idea and tailoring it to the needs of Blaze Magazine. The law does not provide for relief under the copyright laws for the exploitation of others' ideas. Id. at 1074. Therefore, there was no copyright infringement. The Court further finds that the allegedly infringing article in the June/July issues of Blaze Magazine, dealing in part with private prisons, hip hop, drugs' affect on ethnic groups, and lengthy sentences for drug crimes, does not amount to a copyright violation of Plaintiff's work. Plaintiff alleges that this article involves the same subject matter as does his Manuscript, however, even assuming that the two articles involve the same subject matter, this is not enough to give rise to copyright infringement. Again, any similarity involved ideas or concepts, which are not protected by the copyright laws.
Plaintiff's allegations that defendants Darryl Dawsey and Corey Takahasi wrote infringing articles, and that defendant Tone Boots wrote an infringing article concerning drug dealers entitled "The Infamous," which was allegedly modeled after Plaintiff's article entitled "True Willies," also are insufficient to rise to the level of a copyright violation. Even assuming as true Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants' took his ideas for these articles and restructured them in a paraphrasing manner, again, this merely demonstrates that Defendant's used Plaintiff's ideas or concepts and therefore cannot give rise to a violation of the copyright laws.
The Court has examined all of these alleged similarities and concludes that they all relate to unprotectable concepts and ideas and not Plaintiff's expression of these ideas. At the most general level, portions of the cited articles involve similar subject matter to the Manuscript. However, the manner in which such subject matter is expressed is vastly-different. The mere fact that some of the formats are similar (for example, the interview format) or the fact that the subject matter is similar (both works including articles on the weather, current events, hip hop music, prison life, ethnic targeting and drug crimes) do not give rise to valid copyright claims. Therefore, as the similarity between the works pertains solely to Plaintiff's ideas or concepts, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that Defendants did not infringe on Plaintiff's copyright. No reasonable juror could find that there is a substantial similarity between the works, such that is protectable by copyright. Accordingly, Plaintiff's copyright claims are dismissed. Plaintiff's allegations that defendants Keith Clinkscales and John Rollins of Blaze Magazine allowed the alleged infringement to take place must be dismissed along with the other allegations in the complaint, as the Court finds that no copyright infringement has occurred.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.