Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Briggs v. Blomkamp
Citations: 70 F. Supp. 3d 1155; 112 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1481; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142016; 2014 WL 4961396Docket: No. C 13-4679 PJH
Court: District Court, N.D. California; October 3, 2014; Federal District Court
The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion in the case concerning copyright infringement. Plaintiff Steve Wilson Briggs alleged that he authored a screenplay titled “Uberopolis: City of Light” in May 2005, later revising it to “Butterfly Driver” in January 2007. He marketed the screenplay through various channels, including posting it on triggerstreet.com, where he sought feedback from peers. After ceasing marketing efforts in December 2007, he returned to the project in 2013, believing that the film “Elysium” had elements copied from his screenplay. Upon viewing “Elysium” and comparing it to his work, he concluded that it infringed on his copyright, leading him to file the lawsuit on October 8, 2013, after obtaining copyright registration on June 21, 2013. The defendants, represented by legal counsel, successfully argued for summary judgment, indicating that the evidence did not support the plaintiff's claims of infringement. Arlo Grainer, the protagonist of the screenplay "Butterfly Driver," is a former military figure living in a Zone outside the jurisdiction of the oppressive Global State in the year 2120. He pilots hoverjets and has an estranged family nearby, including his wife Rianna and children John Carl and Franny. The antagonist, Drexler, is the President of the State and owner of the satellite city Uberopolis, which features modern amenities but is divided into developed and undeveloped sections. Arlo's conflict intensifies when he receives a distress call from fellow pilot Roddy, who reveals they were ambushed by bounty hunters searching for a person named Tamara. Understanding the danger to his family, Arlo arranges to send them to New York while accepting a risky job to transport Tamara to Los Angeles for a trial against the State concerning the A-cell, a device that could provide clean energy to millions. On their journey, they are ambushed by police, leading to Arlo's arrest and subsequent false accusations of kidnapping and murder. While detained in Uberopolis, Arlo learns about the dangerous practices of the State regarding prisoner transport. He escapes with another inmate, David Levine, and returns to Earth to find his ailing daughter Franny, who requires a drug called Drexlerin. With production halted, Arlo seeks help from siblings Louis and Benni to acquire fake identification and a passport to return to Uberopolis in search of the necessary medication. Arlo retrieves the A-cell, previously sent to a friend, while preparing for transport on a shuttle. Benni gifts him a yellow butterfly “dreamcatcher” for luck. Jerry tracks Arlo down, but Arlo disarms him and confines him in a sky-car trunk. Arlo instructs Jerry to find Drexlerin for Franny before heading to Uberopolis, where he acquires a police uniform and searches an empty hospital warehouse for Drexlerin. Recognized by security, he escapes in a stolen police “sky-ranger” and contacts Drexler, revealing he possesses the authentic A-cell. Jerry, having deduced Arlo's connection to Drexler from their wartime history, follows him to Uberopolis and coerces a technician to monitor Arlo via surveillance. Arlo crashes through windows into Drexler's conference room, threatening to destroy the A-cell and unleash anti-matter to force Drexler to dismiss security. During their conversation, unknowingly broadcasted on television, Drexler confesses to several crimes, including murder and identity theft; he is revealed to be "Midland," who killed the real Drexler. Drexler explains that the Drexlerin was stored in Uberopolis for safety and offers to trade doses for the A-cell. He proposes to escort Arlo to deliver Drexlerin to his daughter, arguing that Tamara would have jeopardized the energy industry. As they prepare to exchange, Arlo realizes Drexler is reaching for a gun. He throws the A-cell out the window, prompting Drexler to chase it, leading to a struggle. Arlo seizes Drexler's ankle, but the low gravity lessens the impact. A chaotic chase ensues, culminating in Drexler shooting Arlo in the leg. Arlo escapes into a harbor, aided by a dolphin named Spike. On a shuttle, Arlo gains the upper hand against Drexler but suffers a severe headache. As Drexler prepares to kill him, Jerry intervenes, stunning Drexler into unconsciousness. Arlo and Jerry pilot a shuttle away from Uberopolis, but are quickly targeted by a missile launched from the city. Arlo, suffering from a bullet wound, drifts in and out of consciousness, experiencing a vision of a pale child with a respirator and Benni’s dream catcher in Spike the dolphin's eyes. Upon awakening, Arlo commands Jerry to return to Uberopolis. As the missile follows them, Arlo successfully launches an evacuation pod before the shuttle collides with the city, resulting in its destruction. Arlo and Franny survive the incident and later attend Jerry's son Matty's funeral, who died from a respiratory illness. Rianna invites Arlo to "repatriate" with his family, but he declines and resumes his work as a hoverjet pilot. In the film "Elysium," set in 2154, Earth is depicted in dire conditions while the wealthy reside on a luxurious space station, Elysium, equipped with medical technology that can cure diseases and halt aging. The protagonist, Max, has a troubled past marked by theft, and he now works at Armadyne, the company producing robotic enforcers for Earth. After a violent encounter with police robots, Max reunites with his childhood friend Frey, now a nurse. As many attempt to board shuttles to Elysium, Defense Secretary Delacourt orders the destruction of these shuttles to prevent illegal entry. Following an accident at work, Max is exposed to lethal radiation and learns he has only five days to live. To seek treatment, he agrees to a perilous mission to kidnap Armadyne's chief officer, John Carlyle, and download critical data from his brain. Max is equipped with an exoskeleton for enhanced abilities. Meanwhile, Delacourt manipulates Carlyle to create a reboot sequence to seize control of Elysium from President Patel. The mission culminates in Max's brain seizing during the data transfer due to Carlyle’s defense mechanism. Delacourt orders Kruger to capture Max without harm, as Max possesses a critical reboot sequence in his brain. Max escapes Kruger and his men, who eliminate others during the pursuit. Severely injured, he finds Frey, who pleads for him to take her dying daughter Matilda to Elysium. Max declines for their safety and seeks a shuttle, but Elysium’s air traffic system is frozen. Spider discovers Max’s reboot sequence can grant citizenship to all on Earth, but Max, focused on his own survival, refuses to assist and surrenders to Kruger. Upon boarding Kruger’s ship, Max learns Frey and Matilda have been kidnapped. A fight ensues, culminating in Max detonating a grenade, severely injuring Kruger and crashing the ship on Elysium. Frey and Matilda seek medical help but cannot access the med bay due to citizenship restrictions, leading to their capture alongside Max. Kruger, after regenerating from his injuries, plans to use the reboot sequence to become Elysium's president and kills Delacourt. Max escapes, contacts Spider, and rescues Frey and Matilda, directing them to a med bay. In a race against Kruger, Max suffers a seizure but ultimately kills him. Realizing he will die extracting the reboot sequence, Max initiates the download while reflecting on Earth. He dies as the sequence is completed, granting Elysium citizenship to all on Earth. Matilda’s leukemia is cured, and shuttles with med bays are dispatched to Earth. Legal standards for motions for summary judgment state that a party may seek judgment on any claim if there are no genuine disputes regarding material facts. The moving party must demonstrate the absence of genuine issues with sufficient evidence, allowing a reasonable jury to find in favor of the nonmoving party. In a summary judgment context where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can succeed by demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s claims. Should the moving party fulfill this requirement, the opposing party must present specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial to counter the motion. Courts must evaluate the evidence favorably for the nonmoving party. For copyright infringement claims, the plaintiff must provide proof of valid copyright ownership and demonstrate that protected elements of the work have been copied. In the absence of direct copying evidence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had access to the work and that the two works are substantially similar. The Ninth Circuit applies both an "extrinsic test" (objective comparison of specific elements) and an "intrinsic test" (subjective assessment of similarity from a reasonable audience's perspective), but only the extrinsic test is utilized at the summary judgment stage. The extrinsic test analyzes articulable similarities in plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events, while filtering out non-protectable elements to focus solely on protectable elements. The plaintiff has submitted a copyright registration certificate from June 21, 2013, which serves as prima facie evidence of copyright validity if registered within five years of publication. The defendants do not contest the plaintiff's ownership of the copyright for the work "Butterfly Driver." Consequently, the plaintiff's responsibility in the summary judgment is to demonstrate that there are no triable issues regarding the copying of protected elements of the original work, warranting summary judgment as a legal matter. Plaintiff must either present direct evidence of copying or circumstantial evidence demonstrating both access to the copyrighted work and substantial similarity between that work and the accused product, as established in *Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton*. Defendants have the initial burden to show a lack of evidence for the copying claim; if they succeed, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to provide specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial. Defendants argue that the plaintiff lacks evidence of access. Direct access would require proof that the defendants actually viewed the "Butterfly Driver" screenplay. The plaintiff has not provided such direct evidence. Access can also be established circumstantially, requiring a demonstration of a "reasonable opportunity" to view the work, which cannot be based on mere speculation. The plaintiff asserts that he posted the "Butterfly Driver" script on triggerstreet.com in February 2007, claiming it was the only site where the complete script was available. He states that triggerstreet.com allowed members to share screenplays for feedback, with hopes of recognition from industry insiders. He alleges that he posted four versions of the script between February and August 2007, and that a director praised the script on the site’s message board, whom the plaintiff speculates could be defendant Neill Blomkamp. However, he does not believe the founders of triggerstreet.com were involved in any access or infringement, asserting instead that one or more defendants or their acquaintances accessed his work. The plaintiff views Blomkamp as the most likely infringer based on several factors, including Blomkamp's background as a short filmmaker and his social media savviness in a region known for screenwriting. Defendants argue that the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC) lacks factual support for the claim that director Neill Blomkamp found the “Butterfly Driver” screenplay on triggerstreet.com. They assert that there is no evidence demonstrating that Blomkamp or any other defendant had a reasonable opportunity to view the screenplay, characterizing the plaintiff's claims as speculative. Blomkamp's uncontroverted declaration states that he had never heard of triggerstreet.com prior to the lawsuit, had never visited the site, and did not obtain a copy of the screenplay from it or any other source. He provides background on his work, mentioning his upbringing in Johannesburg and his development as a filmmaker, including the creation of “Elysium” based on visual concepts and themes of segregation. To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show both access and copying. The plaintiff has not presented evidence that Blomkamp accessed the screenplay. Although the plaintiff claims to have dedicated significant portions of the FAC to support the plausibility of access, the court notes that such allegations do not constitute evidence for summary judgment. The plaintiff also cites a “chain of events” theory to argue access, detailing the connections between triggerstreet.com, its Los Angeles base, and Blomkamp’s background. However, these assertions only suggest a mere possibility of access, which is insufficient to support a copyright infringement claim. The court references case law to emphasize that the plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility of access necessary to validate his claims. The plaintiff claims that his screenplay was widely disseminated, arguing that he emailed it to family and friends and posted drafts online, specifically on triggerstreet.com. However, even if supported by evidence, this does not demonstrate sufficient dissemination to infer that the defendants had access to his work. He also mentions sending queries to agents, posting synopses on screenwriter websites, and entering competitions, none of which establish wide dissemination. To prove copyright infringement, the plaintiff must show either evidence of access or, in its absence, "striking similarity" between the works. Striking similarity requires proof that the works could not have been independently created, a high standard that the plaintiff struggles to meet. The defendants assert that the protectable elements of both works lack similarity and argue that the plaintiff's claims of infringement, including similarities in plot, characters, and themes, are unfounded. They contend that the elements in question share only generic or cliché ideas. While the plaintiff claims that various elements of his screenplay are similar to the film "Elysium," a detailed comparison reveals significant differences and only superficial similarities in protectable elements. The court typically evaluates works by examining plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events, but finds that the alleged "plot features" are only abstractly similar and reflect generic themes rather than concrete similarities. Plaintiff argues that both “Butterfly Driver” and “Elysium” feature a hero who must travel to a satellite world for medical assistance, but the specifics differ significantly. In “Butterfly Driver,” Arlo's mission is to save his daughter Franny, while in “Elysium,” Max seeks treatment for his own radiation poisoning. The plaintiff also claims similarities in the heroes' socioeconomic status and experiences of witnessing a best friend's death, but these are not expressed comparably; Arlo needs a fake ID to evade authorities, whereas Max requires an ID to be recognized as a citizen. The deaths of their friends occur under different circumstances and contexts. Additionally, the plaintiff notes that both stories include a disabled transporter who assists the hero under dangerous conditions, comparing Dylan from the screenplay and Spider from the film. However, their roles are distinct: Dylan is a minor character who facilitates a money-earning opportunity for Arlo, while Spider is an independent operator with a significant role in Max's mission. The plaintiff further asserts that both works feature an agent sent by the villain to capture the hero, comparing Jerry and Kruger. However, Jerry, a federal agent, ultimately helps Arlo, while Kruger actively hunts Max with lethal intent. Lastly, the plaintiff mentions that both heroes carry a "keepsake necklace" that contributes to the story's conclusion, although further details on this point are not provided. In the "Butterfly Driver" screenplay, Benni gifts Arlo a yellow butterfly dreamcatcher, which holds minimal significance, unlike the locket given to Max in "Elysium," which serves as a reminder of Earth's beauty and plays a crucial role in the film's climax. The plaintiff notes that both works feature protagonists who threaten villains with explosives; however, this is a common trope rather than a unique element, as Arlo threatens to blow up Uberopolis and Max threatens to destroy Kruger’s shuttle. The claim that both stories involve "techie" programmers assisting the heroes with fake IDs is misleading; Arlo requires a fake ID to evade capture, while Max's ID is biologically integrated for access to Elysium. The assertion that both narratives depict characters negotiating with insurers for their children’s lives is also generic, as both scenarios differ significantly in context and execution. The climactic battles involving headaches are claimed to be similar, yet the specific circumstances and actions in each scene are distinct. In "Butterfly Driver," Arlo confronts Drexler in a high-rise office, leading to a chase through Uberopolis, where Arlo suffers a headache, allowing Drexler to shoot him, but he is saved by Jerry. In "Elysium," Max escapes captivity and rescues Frey and Matilda, instructing them to find a medical facility. He then partners with Spider to reach a control room for a brain reboot sequence. During their escape from Kruger, Max experiences a seizure due to a defense mechanism in the reboot, but ultimately defeats Kruger in a hand-to-hand confrontation aided by an exoskeleton. They successfully reboot Elysium’s systems, leading to a significant change for Earth's population. The plaintiff claims both the film and screenplay conclude with a "globally significant resolution," but this concept is deemed generic and non-copyrightable. The film ends with the reboot granting citizenship to all, while the screenplay features Arlo destroying Uberopolis, highlighting substantial differences in expression. The court emphasizes that copyright infringement must be assessed based on specific, protectable elements rather than broad, abstract ideas. Citing precedents like Funky Films, Benay, and Berkic, the court reiterates that familiar themes or generic plotlines are not protected, and that the overall similarities noted by the plaintiff do not support a claim of infringement due to the substantial differences upon deeper examination. In Benay, despite superficial similarities in plot, the court found significant distinctions upon closer analysis, underscoring the importance of concrete elements in evaluating copyright claims. The protagonist undergoes a transformation from isolation and self-destructive behavior to embracing traditional values and a new way of life. In the case of Funky Films, the creators of the screenplay "The Funk Parlor" sued the creators of the television series "Six Feet Under" for copyright infringement, citing similarities in plot elements involving a family-run funeral parlor, the death of the patriarch, and the inheritance by two sons with contrasting personalities. Despite these similarities, the court determined that significant differences exist between the two works. Notably, "The Funk Parlor" features a father's suicide leading to a series of murders, whereas "Six Feet Under" is characterized by its exploration of separate plot lines and character development without a central murder mystery. In another case, Berkic sued the creators of the film "Coma," based on Robin Cook's novel, claiming infringement of his screenplay "Reincarnation, Inc." While both works feature themes of criminal organizations selling organs, the court found the actual plots to be more dissimilar than alike, as the main characters have different motivations and roles within the investigations. The court concluded that the general plot features claimed by the plaintiff are unprotected due to their abstract nature, lacking the concrete originality required for substantial similarity. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that characters in "Elysium" resemble those in "Butterfly Driver," particularly in the hero archetype, with similarities in age between the characters Arlo and Max. The characters Arlo from *Butterfly Driver* and Max from *Elysium* share superficial similarities, such as being male protagonists of similar ages, experiencing chronic ailments, and possessing keepsake necklaces. However, significant differences exist in their backgrounds, motivations, and character arcs. Arlo, a war hero and hovercraft pilot, undertakes a selfless mission to save his daughter, while Max, an unmarried factory worker on parole, pursues a self-serving quest to save himself, showing a stark contrast in their moral compasses. Both characters suffer from different health issues; Arlo endures debilitating ice pick headaches, which have previously disqualified him from flight school, whereas Max experiences seizures triggered by a brain reboot sequence. Their climactic struggles also differ substantially: Arlo's headache incapacitates him during a fight, while Max's seizure provides a critical moment for his confrontation with Kruger. The keepsake necklaces also reflect differing themes—Arlo's dreamcatcher symbolizes hope and resilience, while Max's locket serves as a nostalgic reminder of beauty amidst his impending death. Regarding the villains, both Delacort from *Elysium* and Drexler from *Butterfly Driver* exhibit traits such as wealth, a crime-free sanctuary, and a facade of justifying their malevolent actions as beneficial. However, these traits are generic and not protectable. Furthermore, their characterizations differ significantly; Drexler is an ex-soldier and an imposter linked to Arlo, while Delacort lacks this depth, highlighting that despite some surface-level similarities, the characters are fundamentally distinct. Drexler, the President of the Global State and owner of Uberopolis, contrasts sharply with Delacort, a female character with no prior connection to Max and no earthly position, who aims to stage a coup for Elysium's presidency. Despite both being depicted as ruthless authorities, their similarities end there. Drexler has undergone DNA reprogramming to enhance his physical appearance and strength, while Delacort utilizes med bays available only to Elysium citizens for age prevention and disease treatment, highlighting a significant difference in their character backgrounds. The claim of similarity extends to the "sick child" trope, with Franny in "Butterfly Driver" and Matilda in "Elysium." The court notes that while both works feature a sick child, their representations differ significantly. Franny has minimal dialogue and is quickly cured, whereas Matilda plays a pivotal role in "Elysium," influencing Max's character arc. Additionally, the comparison of secondary characters—Rianna and Benni from "Butterfly Driver" with Frey from "Elysium"—is deemed abstract and unprotected, as Frey, critical to the plot, shares little resemblance to either character. Rianna's brief appearance and Frey’s significant role further underline their differences. The assertion that Frey is a blend of Rianna and Benni fails to substantiate any similarity. Finally, comparisons between Jerry and Kruger highlight the disparity in their character roles, with Jerry being a benevolent figure and Kruger an antagonist, further emphasizing the lack of protectable expression in the alleged similarities. Two contrasting characters, one law-abiding and the other outside the law, serve as agents pursuing the protagonist, but their differences are significant and not protectable as stock characters. The plaintiff argues similarities between minor character Dylan in “Butterfly Driver” and central character Spider in “Elysium,” noting both run underground bases, transport immigrants, and have disabilities. However, Dylan's minor role in “Butterfly Driver” diminishes any claim of similarity, particularly since the two characters serve different narrative purposes. Additionally, key characters in each work, such as Tamara in “Butterfly Driver” and various figures in “Elysium,” lack counterparts in the other, further illustrating their distinctiveness. Regarding setting, the plaintiff describes Uberopolis as a satellite world for the wealthy, presenting significant technological advancements and a stark contrast to a dystopian Earth characterized by poverty and crime. The plaintiff claims this juxtaposition is a unique creation. However, the court finds that the settings are only abstractly similar. Although both narratives include a wealthy satellite world, Uberopolis is depicted as more accessible to ordinary citizens than the exclusive environment suggested by “Elysium.” The Global State in “Elysium” features a 100% employment rate and minimal crime, while the Earth is portrayed with elements typical of urban life, indicating significant differences in expression between the two settings. Advanced medical care is accessible on both Earth and Uberopolis, with no class divide between these populations. In contrast, Elysium is exclusively for the wealthy, with Earth’s inhabitants prohibited from traveling there. Earth lacks basic urban infrastructure such as malls and subways, and its population lives in poverty, heavily unemployed, and policed by an abusive robotic force. The medical facilities in Elysium are reserved for its "citizens," highlighting a significant class divide. The excerpt critiques the originality of the “Butterfly Driver” screenplay, asserting it presents a familiar narrative of a wealthy satellite juxtaposed with a dystopian Earth, a concept not new to the genre. Expert Jeff Rovin, a seasoned writer, testifies that the term "dystopia," coined by John Stuart Mill, typically describes societies marked by oppression leading to dehumanization, poverty, and disease. Rovin identifies numerous works in the genre that depict a similar dichotomy of wealth and poverty, including classics like H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" and films like "Metropolis." Rovin argues that the “Butterfly Driver” screenplay does not depict a dystopian Earth, as it portrays a society with full employment and low crime, unlike the impoverished conditions of Earth described in other works. He emphasizes that the concept of a satellite for the affluent is not original, citing various earlier works that explore similar themes. Plaintiff's claims regarding the concepts of wealth and privilege in space habitats are rooted in longstanding science fiction narratives. To demonstrate similarity, the plaintiff must show that his screenplay, "Butterfly Driver," and the film "Elysium" depict similar settings. However, they only share the broad idea of a futuristic Earth and an orbiting space station. The plaintiff identifies five shared themes: 1) the inhumanity of survival without adequate healthcare, 2) the brutal plight of immigrants, 3) the corrupting nature of wealth, 4) heroic sacrifice, and 5) redemption through hope. Regarding healthcare, both works feature advanced medicine on a satellite, but the contexts differ significantly: "Butterfly Driver" presents a drug available on both Earth and Uberopolis, while "Elysium" restricts advanced medical access to its citizens, with Earth’s population forced to seek illegal access. The immigrant plight theme is also generic; "Butterfly Driver" discusses repatriation for better healthcare, contrasting with "Elysium's" depiction of life-risking illegal immigration to access restricted services. The themes of wealth, sacrifice, and redemption are deemed abstract and unprotectable, with no demonstrated similarity. "Elysium" addresses contemporary issues like class inequality and universal healthcare, whereas "Butterfly Driver" does not. In terms of mood and pacing, the plaintiff claims both works share a serious tone and fast pacing without being frenetic, featuring disabled characters and dark scenes. However, the concept of a "fast but not frenetic" pace is unprotectable, and any similar mood elements are considered generic or stock ideas, lacking originality and protection under copyright law. Any similarities identified do not amount to striking or substantial similarity. The plaintiff's motion to exclude the defendant’s expert, Jeff Rovin, is denied. Rovin is deemed qualified as an expert in the science-fiction genre under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, possessing significant knowledge and experience in this area. His expert report references various published works demonstrating that plot features, settings, and characters in the "Butterfly Driver" screenplay are not original but rather reflect established themes. This supports the defendants' claim that the screenplay's elements are generic and non-protectable, arguing against substantial similarity with the "Elysium" film. The court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies the plaintiff's motion for disqualification of Rovin. The plaintiff incorrectly compares the "Butterfly Driver" screenplay to an unauthorized version of the "Elysium" screenplay instead of the released film. The relevant comparison must be between the finished film and the plaintiff's work. The plaintiff's claim that he downloaded the "Elysium" screenplay a week before obtaining copyright registration is insufficient for maintaining a copyright infringement action, especially since he had already seen a trailer. Furthermore, the court notes that several elements the plaintiff identifies as "plot features" are better classified as aspects of setting, theme, or character, and has accordingly categorized its analysis.