Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cosgrave (author)
Analysis
The court considered a copyright infringement claim where the plaintiff alleged that a motion picture copied their play, both of which featured the child actress Shirley Temple. The court ordered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding no substantial similarity between the works.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Judgment in favor of the defendant“Judgment must therefore be in favor of the defendant, and it is so ordered.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that general ideas, situations, and stock characters (such as an orphan in China or a bachelor protector) are not subject to copyright protection. By finding that the works differed significantly in their specific treatment and features, the court properly concluded that there was no substantial similarity of expression, which is required for infringement. The finding that access was shown but not by the actual writers further supports the lack of direct copying. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a brief summary judgment or post-trial ruling that applies the correct legal standard (substantial similarity of expression, not ideas) to the facts recited. However, it is very short and does not cite any specific legal authorities, which is a gap in the reasoning, although the legal conclusion is standard and defensible.
Opinion — Cosgrave
COSGRAVE, District Judge.
. The plaintiff’s play and the defendant’s motion picture were both written for the use of the child actress, Shirley Temple. It is not unnatural, therefore, that they should have common features. These they have: An orphaned American child in China, missionaries, bandit raids, protection of the child by an individual who happens to be a bachelor, the influence of the child as an agency in the marriage of her protector and a woman. These are all, however, situations that are not in themselves subject to copyright.
An exhibition of defendant’s picture shows the introduction of features and a treatment of the subjects so widely different from that appearing in plaintiff’s play as to force the conviction that, except as to the general nature of the subject, there is no substantial similarity. It is obvious that the picture is not a copy of plaintiff’s play. Access on the part of the defendant corporation in the legal sense is shown, but there is nothing to indicate that the actual writers of the motion picture script had themselves seen the play.
Judgment must therefore be in favor of the defendant, and it is so ordered. Defendant will propose findings and judgment.
Cited by
- De Montijo v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. 1025 · 1941-07-23