No. 20-132

The Moodsters Company v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-08-07
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: audio-visual-characters circuit-split copyright-law literary-characters originality question-of-fact-vs-law
Key Terms:
Antitrust Patent Trademark Copyright
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether originality is the proper standard to determine character copyrightability

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Originality is the “touchstone,” the “sine qua non,” and the “premise” of copyright law. An artist may obtain a valid copyright if she meets this “extremely low” bar for creativity through her expression of a_ statutorily eligible work. The Copyright Act defines statutorily eligible works in 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). While § 102(a) does not list literary and animated characters, lower courts have uniformly found characters independently protectable as components of literary or audio-visual works. Yet the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have all announced different standards to determine when copyright law independently protects characters. None of these standards depends on originality. The first question for this Court is whether originality is the proper standard to determine character copyrightability, and, if not, what the proper standard is? 2. The circuit courts are split over whether to decide copyrightability as a question of fact or law. If a question of fact, this Court held in Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., that juries—not judges—decide disputes in copyright cases. 523 U.S. 340 (1998). And the sole question for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states enough facts to plead a plausible claim. The second question for this Court is whether a character or any work—is a (ii) question of fact, or involves questions of fact, illsuited for resolution on a Rule 12 motion? (iii)

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-11-24
Reply of petitioner The Moodsters Company filed.
2020-11-13
Brief of respondents The Walt Disney Company, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-10-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 13, 2020.
2020-10-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 16, 2020 to November 13, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-09-16
Response Requested. (Due October 16, 2020)
2020-09-08
Brief amicus curiae of California Society of Entertainment Lawyers filed. (Distributed)
2020-09-04
Brief amici curiae of Suna Izgi, Orly Ravid, Robert C. Lind and Michael M. Epstein filed. (Distributed)
2020-08-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-14
Waiver of right of respondent The Walt Disney Company, et al. to respond filed.
2020-08-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 8, 2020)

Attorneys

California Society of Entertainment Lawyers
Steven T. LoweLowe & Associates. P.C., Amicus
Steven T. LoweLowe & Associates. P.C., Amicus
Suna Izgi, Orly Ravid, Robert C. Lind and Michael M. Epstein
Michael Meredith EpsteinAmicus Project at Southwestern Law School, Amicus
Michael Meredith EpsteinAmicus Project at Southwestern Law School, Amicus
The Moodsters Company
Patrick Malin ArenzRobins Kaplan LLP, Petitioner
Patrick Malin ArenzRobins Kaplan LLP, Petitioner
The Walt Disney Company, et al.
Mark Remy YohalemMunger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Respondent
Mark Remy YohalemMunger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Respondent
Erin Joan CoxMunger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Respondent
Erin Joan CoxMunger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Respondent