Focus on Burdens of Proof In Copyright Infringement

Focus on Burdens of Proof In Copyright Infringement Litigation Lydia Pallas Loren Professor of Law

Prima Facie Case: Infringement plaintiff’s burden “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. ” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. , 499 U. S. 340, 361 (1991) (citing Harper & Row Pub. Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 548)

A well functioning © system Threat: Concerns about “trolls” One potential answer: • Procedural hurdles • Focus on the plaintiff’s burden of proof and context for defendant’s rebuttals and defenses

4 Prima Facie Case: Infringement plaintiff’s burden (1) ownership of a valid copyright • Ownership • Valid copyright (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. • Copying in fact • Improper Appropriation Copied protected expression Substantial similarity in that copied expression

Assigning Burdens Burden of Proof / Persuasion • Assigned Burden of Production • Shifting – but not automatically Standard of Proof • Preponderance of the evidence Baseline assumption: “he who asserts must prove” • Default: burden follows pleading Statutory assignment of burdens Policy considerations • Access to proof • Estimates of probabilities • Handicapping of disfavored contentions • Order of storytelling

Prima Facie v. Defenses Infringement plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the prima facie case of infringement (ultimate burden of persuasion) • Burden of production may shift Defendant raises “defenses” • Rebuttals of the prima facie case Factual rebuttals Legal rebuttals • Affirmative Defenses

7 Prima Facie Case: Infringement plaintiff’s burden (1) ownership of a valid copyright • Ownership • Valid copyright (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Gray v. Perry - “that • Copying in fact defendant copied • Improper Appropriation protected elements of their work” - incomplete Copied protected expression Substantial similarity in that copied expression

8 Prima Facie Case (1) ownership of a valid copyright • • Ownership Valid copyright (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. • • Copying in fact Improper Appropriation -Copied protected expression -Substantial similarity in that copied expression Direct Evidence Circumstantial evidence • • Access Similarity “independent creation is a complete defense” • • Factual rebuttal, not affirmative defense Burden of persuasion (copying-in-fact) remains on plaintiff

9 Prima Facie Case: Infringement plaintiff’s burden (1) ownership of a valid copyright • • Ownership Valid copyright (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. • • Copying in fact Improper Appropriation -Copied protected expression -Substantial similarity in that copied expression Defendant asserts: The similar elements are not protectable expression • Because… Excluded from protection (ideas, etc. § 102(b)) Expression merged with ideas, etc. Scènes à Faire • How to view these arguments? Factual rebuttal? Legal rebuttal? Affirmative defense?

1 0 Prima Facie Case: Infringement plaintiff’s burden (1) ownership of a valid copyright • • Ownership Valid copyright Defendant asserts: the similar elements are not sufficiently substantial • Copying that is both “quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient” (2) copying of constituent elements of the Substantial similarity work that are original. • • Copying in fact Improper Appropriation -Copied protected expression -Substantial similarity in that copied expression • Often stated as a question of fact (for the jury) The rebuttals, however, are largely legal rebuttals Or perhaps mixed law/fact questions?

1 1 12 b(6) dismissal affirmed Jacobus Rentmeester Nike Photograph Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc. , 883 F. 3 d 1111 (9 th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1375 (2019)

Ninth Circuit’s special test for substantial similarity – plaintiff must show BOTH Extrinsic Similarity -objective similarities Only protectable elements of expression Filtering out unprotectable elements and comparing what remains Intrinsic Similarity -more holistic, subjective comparison Similarity in “total concept and feel” 12 b(6): Only Extrinsic similarity (lack of) may be decided as a ques. of law

1 3 Jacobus Rentmeester Nike Photograph

1 4 NO plausible extrinsic similarity – 12 b(6) dismissal affirmed Jacobus Rentmeester Nike Photograph

The need for plausible (Extrinsic) Substantial Similarity 12(b)(6) motion can focus attention on the heart of the copyright infringement case: substantial similarity of protected expression

Patterns to note • Similarities in Rentmeester to music cases: • Wildly successful work • Long delay in bringing the action • An additional component of many of the highest profile cases (Gaye Parties & Skidmore Trust) • Original author is not the plaintiff (transferee copyright owners)