Scott-Blanton v. Universal City Studios Productions LLLP

Citations: 539 F. Supp. 2d 191; 86 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1012; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22162; 2008 WL 740567Docket: Civil Action 07-0098 (RMU)

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; March 20, 2008; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Janice Scott-Blanton, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against Universal City Studios Productions and others, claiming that her novel "My Husband Is On The Down Low and I Know About It" was the source material for the film "Brokeback Mountain." She alleged violations of the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and various state and common laws. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that no reasonable juror could find that the defendants had access to her novel prior to the completion of the short story adapted into the film. Furthermore, the court determined that the similarities cited by the plaintiff were not protected under copyright law. The court also granted summary judgment for the remaining claims, as they were based on the same conduct. The factual history indicates that "Brokeback Mountain" was adapted from a short story published in 1997, with the screenplay completed in 2004, while Scott-Blanton’s novel was written and registered in late 2004 and early 2005, respectively. Despite recognizing similarities after viewing the film in 2006, her legal actions were delayed, and prior motions for injunction and discovery were denied due to insufficient grounds.

The court granted the plaintiff an additional chance to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, followed by a summary of both parties' works. The plaintiff's novel, "Down Low," is set in the 1980s southern United States and explores the bisexuality of a married couple, Annette and James. Annette discovers her bisexuality and is supported by James, who also grapples with his own bisexuality. Their relationship evolves as they both engage with other partners, leading to Annette's supportive family acceptance and James's affair with Thomas, a family friend. After Annette uncovers James's infidelity through reading his journal and witnessing a sexual encounter, they separate for several years but eventually reconcile, fostering a renewed relationship based on tolerance.

The defendants' works include "Brokeback Mountain," based on Proulx's short story, which follows Ennis and Jack, two men who develop a secret romantic relationship while herding sheep in Wyoming in the summer of 1963. After separating to marry and start families, they meet infrequently under the guise of fishing trips. Their relationship faces challenges, including Ennis's fear of societal repercussions and obligations to his family. As their marriages falter and Ennis becomes increasingly isolated, Jack grows frustrated with their limited encounters and reveals he has been with other men.

Ennis discovers a postcard marked "DECEASED" addressed to Jack, learning through a call to Jack's wife that Jack died from an accident involving an exploding tire. Ennis visits Jack's family home and finds a postcard of Brokeback Mountain alongside his shirt from that summer, revealing his ongoing love and remorse for Jack. 

In the legal analysis, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must draw inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, who must show more than a minimal amount of evidence to establish essential elements of their case. The moving party can succeed by demonstrating the nonmoving party's failure to provide sufficient evidence. 

The court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's copyright claim, noting that while The New Yorker published Proulx's "Brokeback Mountain" in 1997, the plaintiff's work "Down Low" was created and published much later. The plaintiff's allegations of the defendants incorporating elements from "Down Low" into the screenplay and backdating the short story lack substantiation. The court concludes that the similarities cited are either unprotected by copyright law or not sufficiently similar, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. The legal standard for copyright infringement emphasizes the requirement of originality and that similarity must not result from copying.

To establish a copyright infringement claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) that the defendants copied protectible elements of the copyrighted work. A certificate of registration from the Copyright Office within five years of the work's first publication serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright. For the second prong, the plaintiff must show that the defendants had access to the work and that there is substantial similarity between the protectible materials in both works. The court assesses which parts of the work are protectible and whether an ordinary observer would perceive unlawful appropriation of protectible expression.

In this case, defendants argue they lacked access to the plaintiff's novel, asserting their works, particularly a short story by Proulx, were completed prior to the novel's publication. Proulx's short story received three certificates of registration, two of which were issued within five years of its first publication, thus confirming the validity of her copyright. The plaintiff contends that the defendants infringed by revising the short story and backdating it, citing inconsistencies in various scenes as evidence. However, the plaintiff's claims lack merit, particularly regarding the alleged split-motel scene, as all versions of the short story consistently depict the characters discussing their relationship in a motel room, not across two different scenes as the plaintiff claimed.

Proulx's disagreement with Lee regarding a scene in the motion picture is substantiated by differences between the short story and the film. McMurtry clarified that his disagreement with Lee was due to revisions in screenplay drafts, not between the short story and the screenplay. The plaintiff, Proulx, has not provided evidence supporting her claim of discrepancies between defendants' statements and the short story or their affidavits. 

Proulx incorrectly asserts that the short story contains a second tent scene, which is present in the film but not in the story. The short story references a single tent scene associated with Ennis and Jack's first sexual encounter, while the film includes an additional love scene to emphasize their commitment over the years. This inconsistency further undermines Proulx's claims of fraudulent copies of the short story.

Regarding four "new" scenes mentioned in interviews with Ossana and McMurtry, the court found that these scenes are rooted in the original 1997 short story, as detailed in its November 15, 2007 Memorandum Opinion. The court cited specific page references and noted that affidavits from the defendants confirm that elements claimed to be copied from Proulx's novel originate from the 1997 short story. Additionally, the authenticity of the short story copies is supported by independent sources, such as the Copyright Office and libraries, further discrediting Proulx's allegations.

Lastly, Proulx's reference to the song "Water Walking Jesus," which she claims was written in 2004 but mentioned in the 1997 short story, is addressed by the defendants, who explain that while Proulx conceived the song for the story, a full composition was created for the film in 2004. This does not support her claims of backdating.

The plaintiff fails to challenge the defendants' timeline or substantiate her claim that they incorporated elements of her novel into their short story, which undermines her allegations of fraud. The evidence is compelling enough that no reasonable juror could conclude the copies of the short story are fraudulent. Since the defendants did not have access to the plaintiff's novel prior to completing their work, the plaintiff cannot support a copyright infringement claim for any similarities between her novel and the short story.

Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that "Brokeback Mountain" infringes upon her novel, but must demonstrate substantial similarity in protectible elements if the defendants had access to her work. The court must filter out unprotectible elements such as ideas or common themes. The plaintiff identifies over 50 elements she believes show substantial similarity, but many of these are common scenarios and settings that lack the necessary creativity to be protected under copyright law. Specific examples include typical family interactions, emotional responses, and everyday activities. The court concludes that these elements, while present in the plaintiff's novel, are not protectible on their own due to their commonplace nature, which would otherwise unduly limit public domain expressions.

Copyright law does not protect general plot ideas such as family events, personal struggles, or everyday interactions. The court determines these elements are scènes faire and thus not protectible. The plaintiff's claims of infringement regarding specific scenes from "Down Low" and "Brokeback Mountain" do not demonstrate substantial similarity necessary to survive summary judgment. For instance, a scene where James, a 15-year-old, has sex in an alley is markedly different from Jack's adult encounter with a male prostitute in Mexico. The context and characters involved in each scene are significantly distinct, underscoring that the idea of same-sex encounters in alleys is not copyrightable; rather, it is the creative expression that receives protection. 

Further, the court finds no overlap in the creative expression of scenes involving internet searches for sexual partners, with the plaintiff's scenario lacking resemblance to the form of expression found in "Brokeback Mountain." Additionally, the scene depicting James and Annette discussing James' sexuality with their daughter is not substantially similar to Ennis and Alma Jr.'s interactions, as the latter does not involve any acknowledgment of Ennis' sexual preferences. Kynosha's acceptance contrasts sharply with Alma Jr.'s resentment, reinforcing the differences between the scenes. 

Overall, the court highlights that the total concept and feel of both works are markedly different, as substantial similarity must consider the combination of elements and the overall aesthetic of the works rather than isolated comparisons.

An ordinary observer may identify some minor similarities between the works "Down Low" and "Brokeback Mountain," but these are coincidental and insufficient to withstand summary judgment. "Down Low" narrates the story of an African-American couple, Annette and James, grappling with their sexual identities during the 1980s and 1990s, ultimately presenting an optimistic view of their relationship despite struggles, including James' homosexual affair. The couple communicates openly, and their journey leads to personal growth and resolutions, contrasting sharply with "Brokeback Mountain," which depicts a darker, more melancholic tale of two ranch hands, Ennis and Jack, who struggle in secret with their love for one another amid societal expectations and personal obligations. The characters in "Brokeback Mountain" are characterized by reserved dialogue and a sense of longing, leading to a hopeless conclusion.

The sequence of events in both narratives is notably different; while "Down Low" follows a trajectory of marriage, family life, and personal exploration, "Brokeback Mountain" starts with a love affair that results in separation before the characters marry and start families. Any similarities in the timeline of their relationships are coincidental, as emphasized by case law indicating that random similarities should be discounted. Consequently, the court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff's Copyright Act claim. Additionally, the court dismisses the plaintiff's claims under the Lanham Act and various state laws, including those concerning unjust enrichment and unfair competition, related to alleged infringements of the plaintiff's copyrighted work.

The court concurs with the defendants that the plaintiffs' claims are fundamentally based on the same conduct that underlies her copyright claims, rendering them derivative. The plaintiff's amended complaint asserts that her claims, both statutory and common law, stem from the defendants' infringement of her copyrighted novel. Due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that the defendants copied her work, her claim under the Lanham Act is deemed insufficient. A successful claim under the Lanham Act requires proof of actual customer confusion or intentional deception by the defendants, as established in precedent. Consequently, the court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's remaining claims. Additional context notes that the plaintiff sought more time to respond to the summary judgment motion, which the court accommodated, and highlights that the 1997 and 1999 versions of the story in question are nearly identical, with only minor additions. The court references the screenplay for analysis, as it closely mirrors the film's dialogue and scenes. Lastly, the plaintiff contests the defendants' claims regarding additional photography after August 2004, emphasizing the complexities surrounding the factual assertions in the case.