Miller v. Pixar decisions

Case 1

Stanley Miller v. Pixar Animation Studios et al.
Argued May 13, 18, 2009.
Decided May 21, 2009.

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 registered character A in 1963 and renewed copyright in 1991. Plaintiffs admit that character B is in the public domain (though defense did state that because Excuse My Dust was copyrighted, then character B in Excuse My Dust was copyrighted as well). Fortunately for the defense, it is the copyright holder who can voluntarily release copyright rights. Therefore, plaintiffs admission of public domain status for character B is controlling. The implications of public domain status are clear, defense cannot be found guilty of infringing on character B. It also means claims of infringement involving the buddy relationship between A and B is tenuous at best. The Court rules that the remainder of the case will focus on infringement issues related to character A and Mike rather than on broader claims.

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.

Defense claims that character A isn't original because the Cyclops figure has been around for many years. They further argue that terms that use "monster" are overbroad and unoriginal. They claim that there are only so many ways to use the term "monster," especially with respect to children's content. Plaintiffs argue that there are many variations on the Cyclops image and that character A is not similar to these variations.

This court believes that the plaintiffs have met the low standard for originality with respect to the green one-eyed character.

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 is a highly renowned artist with some claim to fame. Further, that Miller shopped EMD in 1998. They also argue that an artist linked to Pixar had a meeting with Miller and a copy of character A prior to the creation of Mike. Defendants claim that Mike was created about a month after the alleged meeting and that the creative process on Mike had already started and that a month was insufficient time to redo the character along Miller lines.

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.

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?

Plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial similarity between character A and Mike. They cite a list including but not limited to: small, green, one eye, skinny arms, horns, three toes etc. In addition, plaintiffs argue that substanial similarity goes beyond character A and Mike. These similarities revolve around theme, setting and characters. The example of "Night Protector" was raised to make the point that too many similar characteristics in all these areas makes you think of the original and thus supports substantial similarity.

Defense argues that there is no one sketch of character A that can be used for comparision. Character A changes and never arrives as a developed character. Defense argues that Mike, as a 3D character is distinct. Not only that, Mike has voice, motion, mannerisms etc. that make him unique.

The Court looks at these arguments and makes these findings:

The "Night Protector" example is interesting but not compelling. It doesn't address the question "is Batman and Robin" original or copied from something earlier. In other words, it shows elements related to substantial similarity but not to originality.

Defense argued for things such as voice, motion and mannerisms but never presented video/audio evidence to support this claim. Thus the Court is left to compare the drawings of Mike and character A as the relevant evidence. On that basis, it appears that plaintiffs have a strong case for substantial similarity.

This means then that the Court must look at how the idea is expressed. In other words, extrinsic factors. Along these lines, plaintiffs have made the argument that extrinsic factors are similar, citing things such as the similarity of Monster City and Monstropolis, and Monster Corp. of America and Monster's Inc. This moves towards extrinsic similarity but is not definitive. Defense offers case findings that when courts look at extrinsic factors they favor the defense. In other words, even if intrinsic factors demonstrate substantial similarity, extrinsic factors can negate a claim of copyright infringement. Plaintiffs did not cite any cases as precedent to argue the contrary (though several were available).

It seems then, that the Court should follow the precedent of the Film Ventures and WB cases (the ones raised by defense). The Court notes that this is not a constructionist vs. judicial activist approach. Rather it is one of precedent supporting one side and lack of precedent to support the other side.

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 15, 18, 2009.
Decided May 21, 2009.

Chief 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?

Plaintiffs presented evidence that Miller registered his works in 1963 or 1964 and renewed them in 1991. 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?

Defense argues that character A isn't original and cite the Cyclops character that has been around for ages. Plaintiffs argue that character A is not the same as Cyclops and is original. Plaintiffs make no specific argument that character B is original, though there is a dispute as to whether the buddy relationshop is original.

This court believes that the plaintiffs have met the low standard for originality with respect to character A, but not with respect to character B and the buddy relationship. The court will consider the former only in the remaining opinion.

Did the defendants have access?

Plaintiffs argue that Miller is a famous artist who published a catalog that was well known, offering plenty of opportunity for access. They also cite a visit by Jeff Mann as another point of access. Defense argues that work on Monster's Inc. began in 1996, well before the visit. Even so, the visit was not enough time to copy character A for the purposes of Monster's Inc.

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?

Is the general idea or theme of the work the same?

Plaintiffs point to many examples of substantial similarity between Mike and character A. They cite (but not limited to) one eye, green, skinny legs, three prong feet, two pointy ears, two arms etc. They also cite other similarities such as Monster City/Monstropolis and Monster's Inc./Monster Corp. of America. Plaintiffs point out that both character A and Mike have a tall, flirty monster girlfriend.

Defense argues that there are differences in character A and Mike. They cite (but not limited to) differences in limbs, shape and eye color. In addition, the girlfriends are not alike. One is a medusa and purple, the other has red hair. Defense argues that Mike is more than looks, he has personality, mannerisms and quirks.

Both sides agree that 2D characters can have personality. Plaintiffs argue that the script means character development has occurred and defense notes Garfield as a 2D cartoon character that has personality. There are disagreements over the creative process and which Miller character is potentially substantially similar. Defense argues Miller's sketches are all different. Plaintiffs argue that Mike is substantially similar to at least one of Miller's designs. For infringement purposes, one design that is substantially similar is sufficient.

Defense never presented video/audio evidence to support the claim that Mike had a unique personality, mannerisms and quirks. Thus the Court is left to compare the drawings of Mike and character A as the relevant evidence. On that basis, it appears that plaintiffs have a strong case for substantial similarity.

It would be easier for the Court to reach a verdict had either side offered precedent to guide the decision. Cases exist that support weighing the character traits more heavily and cases exist that that support weighing the theme more heavily. Without additional guidance the Court is forced to weigh the evidence as is. As noted above, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiffs have the stronger argument with respect to substantial similarity.

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.

Return to syllabus