stevan mena v. fox
TRANSCRIPT
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 1/37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
STEVAN MENA,
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELEcrRONICAU,Y FILED
DOC #: __ -.,.--.....,--_
ID/\I'E FILED: .rzat1Zp.P l a i n t i f f , 11 Civ. 5501 (BSJ) (RLE)
Memorandum & Order
v .
FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., FOX
BROADCASTING COMPANY, FOX
TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., DAVID
HUDGINS, HUDGINS PRODUCTIONS INC.,
CRAIG PERRY, PRACTICAL PICTURES
INC., JASON KOFFEMAN, LOU PITT, LOU PITT PRODUCTIONS, WARNER BROS.
TELEVISION INC., WARNER BROS.
TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC.,
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
BONANZA PRODUCTIONS, INC., TOM LUSE,:
SCOTT SWANSON, DERAN SARAFIAN,
Defendants .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
BARBARA S. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
P l a i n t i f f Stevan Mena (ftMena" or f tP la in t i f f" ) brought t h i s
ac t ion aga ins t Fox Enter ta inment Group, In c . , Fox Broadcas t ing
Company, Fox Telev i s ion Sta t ions , In c . , David Hudgins, Hudgins
Product ions Inc . , Craig Perry , P r ac t i c a l P ic tu res Inc . , Jason
Koffeman, Lou P i t t , Lou p i t t Product ions , Warner Bros.
Telev i s ion In c . , Warner Bros . Telev i s ion D is t r i b u t i o n Inc . ,
Warner Bros . Enter ta inment In c . , Bonanza Product ions , In c . , Tom
Luse, Sco t t Swanson, and Deran Saraf ian {co l lec t ive ly ftFox" o r
1
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 2/37
"Defendants ll), a l leg ing v io la t ions of th e Copyright Act of 1976
(17 U.S.C. §§ 101 e t ~ ) . Pursuant to Federa l Rule of Civ i l
Procedure 12(b) (6), Fox moved to dismiss th e Amended Complaint
fo r f a i l u re to s t a t e a claim on which r e l i e f cou ld be gran ted .
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) . For the reasons exp la ined below,
Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss i s GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
I . Procedural History
P l a i n t i f f f i l ed h is Complaint on August 8, 2011. (Dkt. 1 .)
On October 12, 2011, th e pa r t i e s s t i pu l a t ed and agreed t h a t Mena
would be permi t t ed to f i l e and serve an Amended Complaint
pursuan t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2) . (Dkt. 21.) Mena f i l ed h is
Amended Complaint on October 17, 2011. (Dkt. 25.) On October 26,
2011, Defendants Bonanza Produc t ions , I nc . , Fox Enter ta inmen t
Group, Inc . , Fox Broadcas t ing Company, Fox Televis ion Sta t ions ,
Inc . , David Hudgins, Hudgins Product ions Inc . , Lou P i t t , Lou
P i t t Produc t ions , Warner Bros. Televis ion Inc . , Warner Bros.
Telev i s ion Dis t r ibu t ion Inc . , Warner Bros. Enter ta inment Inc . ,
Tom Luse, and Scot t Swanson f i l ed t h i s Motion to Dismiss th e
Amended Complaint . (Dkt. 28.) Defendants Craig Perry , Prac t i ca l
Pic tu re s Inc . , and Jason Koffeman jo ined th e Motion to Dismiss
on October 27, 2011. (Dkt. 30.) On January 6, 2012, Mena f i l ed
h is Opposi t ion to th e Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint .
2
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 2 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 3/37
(Dkt. 35.) Defendants f i l e d t h e i r Reply to P l a i n t i f f ' s
Opposi t ion on February 2, 2012. (Dkt. 37.)
I I . Nature of the Dispute
This case cen te r s on two works, Transience and Past Life ,
which add a recondi te tw i s t to t r a d i t i o n a l crime dramas by
merging th e mundane with the myst . Both t e l l the s to ry of
murder vic t ims who have been re inca rna ted fol lowing t h e i r deaths
but r e t a in fragmented memories t h a t hold e lus ive c lues to th e
i de n t i t y of t h e i r l l e r s . For th e sake of c la r i t y , the
e s se n t i a l aspec ts of the p a r t s ' respect ive works a re descr ibed
br i e f l y below.
A. Pla in t i f f ' s Transience
Transience i s a screenp lay fo r a f ea tu re - leng th fi lm t h a t
chronic les the e f f o r t s a gr izz led and despondent d e t ec t i v e ,
Jack Ridge, f igh t ing aga ins t t ime to solve a s e r i e s of
abduct ions and murders committ by a s e r i a l k i l l e r . (Am. Compl.
2 .) In th e course of s inves t iga t ion , Ridge i s con tac ted by
an o ld ps yc h ia t r i s t f r iend who has poss ib ly he lp fu l - though
high ly unusual - informat ion. One of the p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s
p a t i e n t s , a nine -yea r -o ld g i r l named Rebecca Lowell , su f
from severe nightmares depic t ing a b ru t a l crime. In the course
of t r ea t ing Rebecca through reg re ss ive hypnotherapy I the
psychia t s t comes to th e as tonishing r e a l i z a t i on tha t Rebecca
i s recount ing v iv id memories of her murder by th e s e r i a l k i l l e r .
3
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 3 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 4/37
The p sy c h i a t r i s t comes to be l ieve t h a t Rebecca i s in f ac t the
re inca rna t ion o f th e k i l 's previous vic t im - a shocking
hypothes is t h a t i s confirmed when recordings of Rebecca ' s
r eco l l e c t i o n s (or "regress ions") l ead Ridge to discover t h a t
v ic t im ' s remains .
As th e i n v es t i g a t i o n progresses , Rebecca ' s "regress ions"
eventua l ly provide the c lues necessary to loca te th e s e r i a l
k i l l e r ' s hideou t . This discovery in t u rn l eads th e rescu ing o f
th e v iI's
l a t e s t capt ive and the su rp r i s ing r eve la t ion of
th e k i l l e r ' s i de n t i t y . Spurred by these d iscover ies , Ridge
va l i a n t ly rushes to th e a id of Rebecca, who i s again danger
from th e k i l l e r . Arriving j u s t in t ime, Ridge i s ab le to save
Rebecca and h er mother b ut i s morta l ly wounded himsel f . With
Rebecca sa fe and th e mystery so lved a t l a s t , Ridge only to
be re inca rna ted himself as h is es t ranged bro the r ' s newborn
ch i ld .
Mena began work on Transience in 2002 and in July 2006
produced an i n i t d r a f t t h a t he reg i s t e red with the Wri ters
Guild of America. (Am. Compl. ~ ~ 34 35.) Mena con t inued to work
on th e d r a f t and produced seve ra l subsequent i t e ra t i ons wel l
in to 2008.1
Id . a t 36.) In September 2008, Mena submi t ted a
1 Mena inc luded as exh ib i t s to h is Amended Complaint dra f t s o f Transience
dated December 28, 2008 (Ex. 1 ) , September 2008 (Ex. 2 ) , and December 1 , 2008
(Ex. 3 ) . These d r a f t s d i f f e r in minor r espec t s from one another . Mena
concedes , however, t h a t n if Past L i f e i s no t subs tan t ia l ly s imi la r to the
December 28, 2008 d r a f t , then it i s a l so no t subs tan t ia l ly s i m i l a r to the
4
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 4 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 5/37
copy of Transience to Defendant Perry , who expressed i n t e r e s t in
the sc reenplay and worked with Mena make add i t iona l s ions .
(rd . a t 39.) Mena also reg i s t e red the sc reenplay wi th the U.S.
Copyright Off ice in September 2008, l a t e r submit t ing two o t h e r
vers ions whose r eg i s t r a t i on became e f ive August 9, 2011.2
(Am. Compl. I I . )
B. Defendants ' Past Life
Past Li fe was an hour-long t e l s ion s e r i e s t ha t f i r s t
appeared on Fox in 2010 and ran fo r a shor t t ime before
apparent ly being cance l l ed in June 2010. (Am. Compl. 3, 13;
Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 3, 5 .) The s e r i e s f ea tu red P r i ce Whatley, a
former New York Pol ice Department de tec t ive , and Dr. Kate
McGinn, a psych ia t s t , both of whom were employed by a pr iva t e
i n s t i t u t e dedicated to so lv ing myste r ies in the p a s t l i ves of
i t s pa t i en t s . The lo t episode, the a l l eged i n f r ing ing work in
the Amended Complaint, concerns a fou r t een -year -o ld s tuden t
named Noah Powell . Noah/s paren t s br ing him to the i n s t i t u t e in
New York City when he begins exper ienc ing f r igh ten ing and
i nexp l i cab l e f lashbacks . McGinn eager and ea rnes t , and Whatley,
skep t i ca l and r e l uc t a n t team up in order to dec ipher th e
fragmented c lues conta ined in Noah's vi s ions .
e a r l i e r dra f t s . " (P I . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 6 n .4 . ) Thus, the Court compares only
the December 28, 2008 dr a f t to Past L i f e . (See id .
2 Regis t ra t ion i s no t required in orde r to ob ta in copyr ight pro tec t ion fo r an
or i g i na l work, but a ce r t i f i c a t e of r e g i s t r a t i on i s required to br ing an
ac t ion fo r inf r ingement . See 17 U.S.C. § 411{a) .
5
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 5 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 6/37
Over the course of t h e i r i n v es t i g a t i o n McGinn and Whatley
discover t h a t Noah i s ac tua l ly th e r e incarna t ion o f Rachel Bel l ,
an e igh t -year -o ld g i r l who disappeared along with her s i s t e r ,
Rebecca, be Noah was born . Following th e c lues from Noah 's
v is ions (a lso " regre ss ions" ) , McGinn, Whatley, and a team FBI
i n v es t i g a to r s eventua l ly t r ack down th e owner o f a myster ious
boa t with spec ia l s ign i f i cance fo r Rachel . Tracing the boat to
i t s or ig ina l owner, the s l eu th s loca te Rache l ' s k i l l e r and
discover s i s t e r , Rebecca,still
a l ive bu t brainwashed in to
be l i ev ing h e r abduc to r was ly her f a th e r . Rebecca i s
reun i t ed with h er family and Rachel ' s memories subside, leaving
Noah in peace to l i ve out h is new I i
I I I . Legal Standards
A. Motion to Dismiss
When cons ider ing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12{b) (6) th e Cour t accep t s as t rue a l l f ac tua l a l l ega t ions made
in th e compla int and draws a l l reasonab le infe rences in favor o f
the p l a i n t i f f . See ATSI Commcfns v. Shaar Fund, Ltd . , 493 F.3d
87, 98 (2d Cir . 2007). To survive the mot , th e compla must
a l lege "enough fac t s to s t a t e a cla im to r e l i e f t ha t i s
p laus ib le on i t s face ," Bel l At l . Corp. v . Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007) 1 meaning t h a t " the p l a i n t i f f pleads f ac tu a l
con ten t t h a t al lows the cour t to draw th e reasonable infe rence
t ha t th e defendant i s l i a b l e fo r th e misconduct a l leged ."
6
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 6 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 7/37
- - -
Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 55 6 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) . Conversely, a
pleading t ha t only "of ' l abe l s and conclus ions ' or ' a
formulaic r ec i t a t ion of the elements o f a cause of ac t ion ' " i s
not su f f i c i en t . Id . (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. a t 555).
B. Copyright Infringement
A ce r t i f i c a t e of r eg i s t r a t ion from th e U.S. Regis ter of
Copyrights i s i e evidence of a val id copyr ight . See 17
U.S.C. § 410(c) i accord Fol io Impress ions , Inc . v . Eyer
Cal i fo rn ia , 937 F.2d 759, 763 (2d Cir . 1991) Copyright
infr ingement may i n fe r red upon a showing (1 ) access to the
copyr ighted work and (2 ) s ubs t a n t i a l s imi l t i e s as to
p r o t ec t i b l e mate r i a l . See Fol io Impress ions , 937 F.2d a t 765.
"Even when [a ] p l a i n t i f f can show access , l S no
inf r ingement if s i m i l a r i t i e s between works are no t
s u f f i c i en t to prove copying. 11 Id . a t 765. Thus, in order to
surv ive Fox ' s Motion to Dismiss , Mena must be able to es t ab l i s h
each element a pr ima fac ie case of inf r ingement .
For th e purposes of t h i s motion, Defendants have assumed
s u f f i c i en t proof o f access .3 (Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 8 n.6 . )
Accordingly, the so le i ssue before t h i s Cour t i s whether a
subs t an t i s imi l a r i ty ex i s t s between the Pl a i n t i f f ' s screenplay
3 Thus, the Court does not cons ider a t t h i s s tage Mena's a b i l i t y o r i na b i l
to prove access , nor does it cons ider Fox's possib le defenses to
in f r ingement . As such, Mena's a l l ega t ions concerning evidence of ac tua l
copying are inappos i te to t h i s motion. Am. Compl. 36-52; Pl . ' s Opp
a t 5-6 . )
7
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 7 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 8/37
and th e Defendants ' a l leged ly in f r ing ing t e lev i s ion show. I t i s
wel l se t t l ed t h a t the Court can resolve ques t ions o f su b s t a n t i a l
s im i l a r i t y as a mat te r of law. 4 See, e . g . , Pe te r F. Gaito
~ A = r ~ c ~ h ~ i ~ t ~ e ~ c ~ t ~ u ~ r ~ e ~ ~ L ~ L ~ C ~ v ~ . ~ S ~ i ~ m _ o _ n _ e ~ ~ ~ ....~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 602 F.3d 57, 63-64 (2d
Cir . 2010). Where "the works in ques t ion a re a t tached to a
p l a i n t i f f ' s complain t , i s e n t i r e ly appropr i a t e fo r th e
d i s t r i c t cour t to cons ider the s im i l a r i t y between those works in
connect ion wi th a motion to dismiss , because the cour t has
before it a l l t h a t i s necessary in orde r to make such an
eva lua t ion . " Id . a t 64. Cf. Gordon v. McGinl ,11 CIV. 1001
RJS, 2011 WL 3648606 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) . I f th e Cour t
determines t ha t th e works are "not s ubs t a n t i a l l y s imi la r as a
mat te r of law," Kregos v. Associa ted Press , 3 F.3d 656, 664 (2d
Cir . 1993), the complain t does not "plaus ib ly give r i se to an
en t i t l ement to r e l i e f , " Iqba l , 556 U.S. a t 679, and the ac t ion
must be dismissed .
DISCUSSION
I . Protect ible Expression
Copyright pro tec t ion cannot be cla imed fo r mere ideas ,
concepts , o r pr inc ip les , which are permanent denizens of th e
publ ic domain. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) . The l i t e r a l words and
For t h i s reason , Mena's asse r t ion t h a t "the ques t ion of su b s t a n t i a l
s im i l a r i t y t y p i c a l l y presen ts a close f ac t quest ion t r ad i t i ona l l y reserved
fo r the t r i e r of f ac t " i s an i ncor r ec t s ta tement of th e law. (P l . ' s Opp'n.
Mem. a t 16. ) "[N]o discovery or f ac t - f ind ing i s typ ica l ly necessary ... . ff
Gaito , 602 F.3d a t 64 ( in t e rna l quota t ions omi t t ed) .
8
4
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 8 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 9/37
othe r express ive elements of a work, however, a re p ro t e c t i b l e .
Id . Copyright pro tec t ion may also extend to n o n - l i t e r a l elements
including the s t ru c t u re and organiza t ion of a work. See Nichols
v . Universa l Pic tu res , 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir . 1930)
(recognizing th e need to p r o t ec t l e s s concrete elements o f a
work to prevent a up lag ia r i s t [from] escap[ ing] l i a b i l i t y by
immater ia l v a r i a t i o n s" ) . The l i ne between unpro tec t ib le ideas
and copyr igh tab le embodiments i n o r ig ina l works, however, has
no t always been easy to draw. See id .
One major except ion to copyr igh tab le sub jec t mat te r
Usequences of events t h a t necessa r i ly r e s u l t from th e cho ice of
a se t t i n g or s i t ua t ion . " Will iams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 58 7
(2d Ci r . 1996) . nCopyrights . do no t p ro t e c t themat ic
concepts o r scenes which necessa r i ly must fo l low from c e r t a i n
s imi l a r p l o t s i t ua t ions . " v. Chi ld ren ' s Te lev i s ion
Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 91 (2d Cir . 1976) . These elements are
commonly ca l l ed scenes a fa ire . Courts have cons i s t en t ly held
t ha t scenes a fa i re are not copyr igh tab le as a mat te r o f law
U[b]ecause i s v i r t u a l l y imposs ib le to wr i t e about a
pa r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l e ra o r f i c t i o n a l theme withou t employing
c e r t a i n ' s t o c k ' o r s tandard l i t e r a r y devices ." Hoehl~ - - - - ~ ~ ~Universa l Ci ty S tud ios , I n c . , 618 F.2d 972, 979 (2d Cir . 1980) .
9
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 9 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 10/37
I I . Substant ial Similarity
Subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y i s eva lua ted with re spec t to
numerous aspec ts of a work, such as "the t o t a l concept and f e e l ,
theme, charac te r s , p l o t , sequence, pace, and s e t t i ng . " Will iams
84 F.3d a t 588. General ly , the Cour t eva lua tes su b s t a n t i a l
s im i l a r i t y according to th e "ord inary observer t e s t , " which asks
"whether an average lay observer would recognize the al leged
copy as having been appropr ia ted from the copyrighted work."
Hamil Am. Inc. v. GFI, 193 F.3d 92, 10 0 (2d Cir . 1999) i accord
Pete r F. Gaito Arch i t ec tu re , LLC v . Simone Dev. Corp. , 602 F.3d
57, 66 (2d r . 2 0 1 0 ) .
Where a work i s not "wholly or ig ina l" because it
incorpora tes elements from th e publ ic domain, "[w]hat must be
shown i s subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y between those elements , and only
those elements , t h a t provide copyr igh tab i l i ty to the a l leged ly
inf r inged compi la t ion ." Key Publ 'ns , Inc. v . Chinatown Today
Publ 'g Ente r s . , Inc . , 945 F.2d 509, 514 (2d r . 1991) ; see a l so
Boisson v. Banian, Ltd, 273 F.3d 262, 272 (2d r . 2001);
Wil l iams, 84 F.3d a t 587. "In apply ing t h i s t e s t , " however, "a
co u r t i s not to d i s se c t the works a t i s sue in to sepa ra t e
components and compare only the copyrightable e lements ."
Boisson, 273 F.3d a t 272. Excessive sp l i n t e r i n g of th e elements
of a work "would be to take th e 'more d isce rn ing ' t e s t to an
extreme" and would " re su l t in a lmost nothing being copyr igh tab le
10
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 10 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 11/37
because or ig ina l works broken down i n to t h e i r composi te p a r t s
would usual ly be little more than bas ic unpro tec t ib le elements ."
( Id . )
Therefore th e Court also cons iders the " t o t a l concept and
feel l of a work. Knitwaves, Inc . v. Lol ly togs Ltd. (Inc .) I 71
F.3d 996, 1003 (2d Cir . 1995) ( c i t ing . v.
Marshal l Fie ld & CO' 675 F.2d 498, 500 (2d Cir . 1 9 8 2 » .
Reconci l ing these mandates i s not always s t r a igh t fo rward . See
e . g . , Gordon v. McGinleYI 11 CIV. 1001 RJS, 2011 WL 3648606 1 a t
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) ("Cour ts have noted th e apparent
t ens ion between a copyright t e s t t h a t embraces th e h o l i s t i c
impress ion of the lay observer and one t h a t imposes th e p a r t i a l
f i l t e r of the 'more di sce rn ing ' observer . II ) i ~ a n a l + Image UK
Ltd. v . Lutvak, 773 F. Supp. 2d 419, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("On
i t s face , disavowing th e not ion t h a t cour t s should compare only
those ements which are in themselves copyr igh tab le seems hard
IIto square with the more discerning observer t e s t .
( in te rna l c i t a t i ons om i t t e d» .
Mena argues t ha t "the Second C i r cu i t has c l a r i f i e d t ha t
cour t s should not engage in the f i l t r a t i o n process t h a t th e
discerning observer t e s t seems to requ i re ll and in s tead should be
"pr inc ipa l ly guided by comparing th e contes ted work 's ' t o t a l
concept and overa l l f e e l ' with t h a t th e l egedly in f r ing ing
work.1I (P I . ' s Opp/n. Mem. a t 17.) Foxi
on the o th e r hand, urges
11
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 11 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 12/37
t ha t the Cour t conf ine i t s focus narrowly to the ind iv idua l
protec t ib le elements of Mena's work, " ignoring those aspec ts of
[his] work t ha t are unpro tec t ib le in making th e comparison."
(Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 9 (c i t ing Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc . ,
964 F.2d 131, 141 (2 d Cir . 1992).) Nei ther p a r t y ' s pos i t ion
accura te ly descr ibes the s t a t e o f law.
Fi r s t , Mena urges t h i s Court to dispense with th e "more
discerning observer" t e s t , something it i s n e i t h e r f ree nor
inc l ined to do. See P I . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 17. ) Second, contrary to
Fox ' s asse r t ions (Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 3 n .3 ) , th e " t o t a l
concept and fee l" inqui ry not conf ined to cases involving
v isua l works. __ ~ __ ~ ~ , Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures , Inc . v.
Eins te in Moomjy, Inc . , 33 8 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir . 2003) ( t rac ing
the evolut ion of th e " t o t a l concept and fee l" ana lys i s ) ; Reyher,
533 F.2d a t 91-92 (apply ing th e " to t a l concept and fee l"
ana lys i s in the context chi ldren ' s books) . But see Canal+
Image UK Ltd . , 792 F. Supp. 2d a t 684 (observ ing tha t "[o]ne
e x p l a n a t i o n . i s t ha t the Second C i r c u i t ' s emphasis on th e
t o t a l concept and i nqu i ry i s th e r e su l t of applying to
v isua l works a copyr ight doctr ine developed with to
works cons i s t ing d i sc re te e lements") . Moreover, even a work
t ha t i s ent a compi la t ion of unpro tec t ib le elements may be
copyrightable under ce r ta in c i rcumstances . See Fei s t
Publ ica t ions , Inc . v. Rural Tel . Servo Co., 499 U.S. 340, 362
12
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 12 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 13/37
(1991) (holding t h a t compila t ions of unor ig ina l da ta may be
copyr igh tab le i f se lec ted o r arranged in an o r i g i n a l way) i
Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1003-04.
Both th e "more discerning observer" t e s t and the " t o t a l
concept and " ana lys i s can and should be appl ied when
eva lua t ing subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y . For any i nqu i ry concerning a
work t h a t con ta ins both p ro t e c t i b l e and unpro tec t ib le elements ,
th e "more discerning observer t e s t " i s always the s t a r t i ng
po in t . Tufenkian l 338 F.3d a t 134 ( s t a t ing t ha t su b s t a n t i a l
s im i l a r i t y ana lys i s "must begin by d i ssec t ing the copyrighted
work in to i t s component p a r t s in orde r to c l fy p re c i s e l y what
i s not or ig ina l " ) . When conduct ing t h i s ana lys i s th e Cour t
"must a t tempt to e x t r a c t the unpro tec t ib le elements from [ i t s ]
cons ide ra t ion and ask whether th e pro t ec t i b l e ements, s tanding
alone, a re s ubs t a n t i a l l y l a r . " DiTocco v. Riordan, 11-4438
CV 1 2012 WL 4016898, a t *1 (2d Cir . Sept . 131 2012) (quoting
Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1002 (emphasis in o r i g i n a l ) ) .
Yet it i s also apparen t t ha t "[b]y fac to r ing out
simi t i e s based on non copyr igh tab le elements , a cour t runs
the sk of overlooking wholesale usurpa t o f a p r i o r au thor ' s
express ion . 1I Hoehling 618 F.2d a t 979-80. A piecemeal
comparison the re fo re i s not independent ly f i c i en t because
"copyr igh t holder [s ] must be pro tec t ed not only from l i t e r a l
copying but also from infr ingement t ha t i s apparent only by
13
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 13 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 14/37
comparing the aes the t i c import o f th e works in t h e i r e n t i r e ty . "
DiTocco, 2012 WL 4016898, a t *1; Gai to , 602 F.3d a t 66. Thus,
th e Court must a l so look to the " to t a l concept and fee l" o f the
works being compared. Gai to , 602 F.3d a t 66; c f . Canal+ Image UK
Ltd. t 773 F.Supp.2d a t 435 ("[C]omparison by d i s s ec t i o n i s no t
the end of the mat t e r . The Cour t must a lso cons ider whether
t he re i s a su b s t a n t i a l s im i l a r i t y between th e t o t a l concept and
of the tw o works . " ) . This " to t a l concept and " ana lys i s
i s guided bycommon
sense. Boisson t 273 F.3d a t 273; Hamil t 193
F.3d a t 102.
The " to t a l concept and fee l " inqui rYt however, i s no t ca r t e
blanche to r e s t f ind ings o f in f r ingement on vague o r amorphous
dete rmina t ions . Such an approach would " inv i te [ ] an abd ica t ion
of ana lys is" or "end up er roneous ly pro tec t ing ' i d e a s . t "
Tufenkian, 338 F.3d a t 134 ( in te rna l c i t a t i ons omi t t ed ) . Thus t
"[w]here [courts ] have descr ibed poss ib l e in f r ingement in terms
of whether two designs have o r do no t have a s ubs t a n t i a l l y
s imi l a r ' t o t a l concept and fee l t ' [ they] genera l ly have t aken
care to i den t i fy prec i se ly th e p a r t i a e s t h e t i c dec i s ions -
o r ig in a l t o th e p l a i n t i f f and copied by th e defendant t ha t
might be thought to make th e des igns s imi l a r in the aggregate . 1I
Id .
While " [ t ]he s tandard of o r i g i n a l i t y i s low, . it does
exist . / I F e i s t Publ i ca t ions , 499 U.S. a t 362. Unpro tec t ib le
14
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 14 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 15/37
elements a re ex t rac ted complete ly from th e ca lcu lus only when
t h e i r use i s "so mechanica l or rou t ine as to r equ i re no
c r e a t i v i t y whatsoever ." rd . ; see a l so Fol io Impress ions 937
F.2d a t 765-66; Knitwaves 71 F.3d a t 1009. Aesthe t ic dec is ions
llre l evan t to the " t o t a l concept and f ee l o f a work must
themselves be o r i g i n a l and p ro t e c t i b l e i merely assembling s tock
e lements o r scenes a fa ire without o r i g i n a l "se lec t ion l
coord ina t ion l and ar rangement" cannot sweep under th e mant le o f
copyr igh t pro tec t ion what was once in th e publ i c domain. F e i s t
Publ ica t ions 499 U.S. a t 362.
I I I . Appl icat ion
Applying th e ru les discussed above th e Cour t f inds t h a t
Transience i s a work compr ised o f or ig ina l combinat ions o f ideas
and concepts as well as components drawn from th e publ i c
domain. Thus Mena/s work i s composed o f both p ro t e c t i b l e and
unpro tec t ib l e e lements and the Court app l i e s th e "more
discerning observer t e s t " to the indiv idua l pro t e c t ib l e e lements
o f Mena/s work. The Cour t then employs the " t o t a l concept and
fee lH
ana lys i s to cons ider the work as a whole. UltimatelYI th e
Cour t f inds t h a t Past Li f e does not in f r inge Transience under
these t e s t s .
15
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 15 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 16/37
A. "More Discern ing Observer" Test
1 . Set t ing , Mood, and Themes
Transience i s s e t in a smal l Midwestern community, with a l l
of th e ac t ion in the s to ry occurr ing in o r around th e same town.
In Past L i f e , the pro tagon i s t s t rave l in and among Connect icu t ,
New York City , Washington, D.C., and more ru ra l loca t ions in
Virgin ia and North Caro l ina . Past L i f e a lso makes ample use of
sweeping urban v i s t a s and s tock images of well-known loca les
t h a t are absen t fromTransience .
I t i s thus read i ly apparen t
t h a t the se t t i n g s of the two works are s ign i f i c a n t ly d i f f e r e n t .
Simi la r ly , the mood of Transience i s qu i te unl ike from t h a t
of Past L i f e . Mena's screenp lay i s rep le t e with brooding
cha rac te r s , blood, and b r u t a l i t y , while Past L i f e i s c l e a r ly
in tended to appeal to a more genera l audience. The cha rac te r s in
Transience s t rugg le with fa i l ed r e l a t i o n s h ip s , acc iden ta l
deaths , es t ranged family members, g u i l t , vio lence , and t e rmina l
i l l ness . In co n t r a s t , the cha rac te r s in Past L i f e are l ikeab le
and l e ss developed, of t en engaging in humorous ban te r and
revea l ing little out s ide of t h a t necessary t o d r ive th e p l o t .
Moreover, while Transience con ta ins c h i l l i ng imagery and seve ra l
v io l en t scenes , a few br i e f f lashbacks t ha t imply drowning are
the only h in t s of vio lence in Past L i f e . In shor t , Transience
has a l l th e hal lmarks of a dark crime drama while Past L i f e was
16
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 16 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 17/37
in tended to be a more l igh thear ted inves t iga to ry adven ture . The
moods of the two works a re not su b s t a n t i a l l y s i mi l a r .
The themes of th e works a re a l so qu i te d i s s i mi l a r . Whi
Mena a l l eg e s t ha t both works incorpora te re l ig ious re fe rences
(Am. Compl. " 94, 118-19) , it i s obvious t ha t Past fe does
not conta in any s ign i f i can t re l ig ious symbolism a t a l l . Mena's
asse r t ion r e s t s e n t i r e on one re fe rence - th e use of th e name
"Maria" as a c lue - and i s t aken completely out of context . See
id . ) Fox cor rec t ly po in t s out t h a t th e only meanings eve r
ascr ibed to "Maria" in Past L i f e a re th e name of Noah's
g i r l f r i e n d , Noah 's poss e name in h is pas t I i ,a witness to
Noah's murder, th e name of a counse lo r a t a s a i l i ng camp, and
th e name of a boa t . See Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 20 n.16. ) Mena's
claim t h a t both works incorpora te re l ig ious imagery i s simply
incor rec t .
Mena a l so argues t ha t r e incarna t ion i s a prominent theme in
both Transience and Past Li fe . (Am. Compl. , S.) Fox i n s i s t s
t h a t "Transience and Past fe t r e a t th e sub jec t of pas t Ii
regress ion qu i te d i f f e r e n t ly . " (Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 20.) In
fac t , Fox urges t ha t "Past Li i s not a r e incarna t ion s to ry so
much as it i s a ghos t s tory.1f Id . a t 21.) The Cour t i s not
persuaded, however, t h a t r e incarna t ion i s of so little impor t in
Past Li fe . The d i s t i nc t i ve fea tu re of Fox ' s s e r i e s was prec i se ly
t h a t it fea tured c lues gleaned from p as t l i ve s - not from ghosts
17
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 17 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 18/37
or o the r appar i t ions . Fur ther , t he re i s little suppor t fo r Fox ' s
cla im t h a t "Noah [ i s ] temporar i ly channel ing the s p i r i t of the
drowned g i r l . " ( Id . )
The genera l concept of re inca rna t ion , however, i s no t
p ro t e c t i b l e and to acknowledge t ha t r e incarna t ion i s a prominent
theme in both works i s no t to say t h a t t h e i r t rea tments of the
theme are su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r . Transience examines th e na tu re
and impl ica t ions o f re inca rna t ion a t l eng th , delving in to th e
mechanics and impl ica t ions of a s ou l ' s " t ransmigra t ion . " (Am.
Compl., Ex. 1 a t 47.) Past L i f e , however, o f fe r s only cursory
and conclusory exp lana t ions fo r what would otherwise be a r a t h e r
f a n t a s t i c phenomenon. I t i s qu i te c l e a r t h a t r e incarna t ion ,
though a prominent theme and p l o t dev ice in both Transience and
Past L i f e , i s viewed and presen ted very d i f f e r e n t ly in each
work.
2. Narrat ive and Plot
Mena a lso a l l eg es t h a t , " [ i ] n add i t ion to being
re inca rna t ion s to r i e s , Transience and Past Li fe are a l so ' c r ime
procedura ls ' in which th e de tec t ive so lves an abduct ion/murder
t ha t took place more than a decade e a r l i e r " (Am. Compl.
5 .) Both Transience and Past Li fe are inves t iga to ry
procedura l s with th e d i s t i nc t ive tw is t t h a t crimes a re so lved
using c lues ex t rac ted from p a s t l i f e f lashbacks . The p l o t s of
both works re ly on th e process of inducing and i n t e rp re t ing
18
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 18 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 19/37
" regre ss ions , " iden t i fy ing " t r i g g e r s , " and dec ipher ing
d i s jo in ted c lues . Both works are also concerned pr imar i ly with
deducing what t rauma be fe l l a re inca rna ted ind iv idua l in a p r i o r
l i f e in to resolve a contemporary problem.
Fox and Mena c o r re c t l y recognize , however, t h a t t h i s
genera l n a r ra t i s no t i t s e l f p ro t e c t i b l e . (See pl.'s Opp'n.
Mem. a t 23 ("Anyone may wri te about a d e t ec t i v e who uses c lues
from a re inca rna ted murder vic t im to so lve a cr ime as long as
they express t h i s d i f f e r e n t ly . ") ; Defs . ' Reply Mem. a t 13-
14.) Orig ina l though they may be, ideas and concepts remain ever
open to publ ic appropr ia t ion . See 17 U.S.C. § 10 2 (b ) (2012) i
Nichols , 45 F.2d a t 121. Mena argues in s tead t h a t " v i r tua l ly
every s i g n i f i c a n t scene and p lo t poin t in Past L i f e i s th e same
o r d i s t i n c t l y s imi la r to analogous por t ion o f Transience."
(P l . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 2 .) Fox responds t h a t th e major mot iva t ion
in Past L i f e i s t he the rapeu t i c r eso lu t ion of i s sues stemming
from a pas t l i f e occurrence , whi Transience i s dr iven pure ly
by a law enforcement miss ion . s.' Supp. Mem. a t 13.) While
t rue t h a t Past L i f e ' s Whatley and McGinn a re no t as s ingu la r ly
focused on so lv ing a cr ime as Trans ience ' s , it i s no t
cor rec t t h a t t h i s purpose i s e n t i r e ly absen t . s Any review of th e
works must recognize th e obvious p a r a l l e l s between th e p l o t s .
5 For example, both Whatley and McGinn are employed by a organ iza t ion
dedica ted to so lv ing pas t l i f e myster ies . Moreover, both Past L i f e
protagonis ts have la w enforcement connections; Whatley i s a former de tec t ive
19
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 19 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 20/37
The commonal i t ies , however, a re i n s u f f i c i e n t to suppor t a
f inding of subs tan t i a l s i m i l a r i t y . The main p l o t poin t s Mena
i de n t i f i e s inc lude : an i n i t i a l f lashback ; a concerned p a ren t
meeting with a ps yc h ia t r i s t ; at tempts to induce f lashbacks to
ga the r more c lues ; th e s t rugg le to decode a d i f f i c u l t clue
obtained from a f lashback ; an i nc iden t t h a t i nc rea se s th e sense
of urgency fo r th e pro tagon i s t s ; a c l imac t i c moment in which the
re incarna ted person buck les under th e s t r a i n of the pas t l i f e
memories; an event t h a t prompts th e re inca rna ted person to
disappear and the search t h a t ensues; and an emot ional reunion
with members of th e re incarna ted person ' s family from h is o r her
pas t l i f e . ( P l . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 6-16.) Each of these scenes in
Transience i s expressed d i f f e r e n t ly in Past L i f e . More
important ly , these p lo t poin t s flow from the idea o f a crime
procedura l invo lv ing re inca rna t ion and are l i ke ly to be found in
any s to ry involving an i nd iv idua l with p a s t l i f e memories of a
crime. To hold t h a t th e use of such elements i s copyr igh tab le
would be to depr ive t h i s unique genre of veh ic l e s necessary to
advance th e p lo t , e f f e c t i v e l y prevent ing othe rs from penning
s imi l a r s t o r i e s . These a re p r ec i s e ly th e kinds of scenes a fa ire
t ha t are outs ide th e purview of copyr igh t pro tec t ion .
with the NYPD and McGinn r e l i e s both on Whatley and on her connec t ions in th e
FBI to d iscover the p a s t i den t i t i e s of her pa t ien ts and to apprehend Rachel ' s
murderer .
20
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 20 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 21/37
Absent s u b s t an t i a l s i mi l a r i t i e s between sp e c i f i c scenes o r
sequences t th e p ro t e c t i b l e e lements th e p l o t s in Transience
and Past L i f e a re s u f f i c i e n t ly d i f to prec lude a f ind ing
of in f r ingement .
3. Speci f i c Allegat ions of Infr inging Scenes
Mena does a l l ege t h a t seve ra l scenes from Past a re
d i r e c t ly drawn from h is work.6
F i r s t t Mena argues t h a t the
opening sequence o f Transience i s su b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to th a t
of Past Li . According to Mena t ~ [ i ] n both works t an opening
v isua l sequence dep ic t s a c of l i g h t on a black screen"
t h a t s h i f t s t grows t and eventua l ly encompasses th e whole screen
in such as way as to crea te th e impress ion t h a t ~ t h e viewer
passe[d] through th e l i g h t and emerge[d] ." (Am. Compl. 56.)
Fox argues t h a t th e opening sequences a re n ot su b s t a n t i a l l y
s imi l a r because ~ t h e l i g h t in Past L i f e t ak es th e shape of a
face t h a t cons tan t ly evolves in to faces of d i f
i nd iv idua l s t one a f t e r ano ther . " (Defs . t Supp. Mem. a t 30 App.
A 1 .)
use of a white l i g h t on a black background i s hard ly a
concept t h a t can be c la imed by a s ing le c r ea to r . Simi lar lYt the
idea of pass ing through t h a t l i g h t and emerging on th e o t h e r
The Amended Complaint conta ins more a l l ega t ions of d i sc r e t e in s tances of
copying than the sequences l i s t ed here . (See Am. Compl. 53-136) . Many of
the se purpor ted " s i mi l a r i t i e s , " however, a re t r i v i a l , exaggera ted , o r c l a s s i c
scenes a fa i r e . The sequences cons idered by the Court a re those fo r which
subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y could most p laus ib ly be argued.
21
6
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 21 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 22/37
s ide i s too genera l to be copyr ightable . Mena argues in s tead
t ha t the ac tua l express ion of t h i s concept in both works i s
su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r . (P I . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 6-7 . ) Fox c o r re c t l y
po in t s out , however, t h a t \\ I we know of th e opening sequence"
i s th ree l i nes con s t i tu t ing abs t rac t s tage d i rec t ions and "[h]ow
exac t the concept of a f lashing l i g h t would have been
expressed i s unc lea r . " (Defs . ' Reply Opp. a t 12. ) concept
Mena seeks to claim i s simply too gene ra l to be r e s t r i c t e d to
h is work and h is work a lone . Whi th e opening sequence of Past
L i f e may be s imi l a r t o t h a t contemplated by the sc reenplay fo r
Transience, t h i s s im i l a r i t y i s too a b s t r a c t - and too
specula t ive - to amount to inf r ingement .
Second, Mena a l l eges t h a t the scene fol lowing the opening
sequence, in both works a f lashback exper ienced by th e
re inca rna ted v i c tim, i s subs t an t l y s imi l a r i n Transience and
Past Li fe . (Am. Compl. , 57.) Spec i f i c scenes o r unique
progress ions using s imi l a r elements may sometimes be
p ro t e c t i b l e , but a review of th e tw o scenes quickly revea l s t ha t
they are ac tua l ly qu i te d i f f e r e n t . Though Mena a s s e r t s t ha t the
re incarna ted v ic t im in both works has a " t e r r i f y ing v is ion
which an un iden t i f i ed person i s chased, a t tacked, bea ten , and
presumably k i l l e d , " t h i s i s simply i nco r rec t . (Am. Compl. , 57.)
In Transience t h i s a l t e r c a t i on i s l inea r , occurs in a dark
fo res t , and impl s the v ic t im i s s t r ang led not bea ten . The
22
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 22 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 23/37
corresponding sequence in Pas t Li fe shows a confused jumble of
images inc lud ing a house, a body of wate r , shaky views of a
backyard, and an i r a t e man with a baseba l l b a t . The Past Li fe
progress ion t akes p lace during th e day and i s markedly l e s s
" te r r i fy ing" than th e scene descr ibed in Transience. ( Id . )
Addi t iona l ly , in Transience the vict im experiences t h i s v is ion
as a dream while Past Li fe pre sen t s th e event as a f lashback
experienced in the midst of a baske tba l l game. These scenes a re
simply too divergen t to suppor t a f ind ing o f su b s t a n t i a l
s i m i l a r i t y . See Denker v. Uhry, 820 F. Supp. 722, 732 (S.D.N.Y.
1992) a f f ' d , 996 F.2d 301 (2d Cir . 1993) ( " P la in t i f f poin t s ou t
t ha t each of th e works opens with an ' a cc iden t ' b e fa l l i n g the
main cha rac te r . [. .] [T] 0 cla im t h a t the even ts are s imi l a r
in t ha t both are "accidents" i s l e s s an argument than a pun; th e
even ts a re d i s t i n c t not only as express ion but a l so in the ideas
they express . " ) .
Third , Mena a l leges t ha t Pas t L i f e i s su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r
to Transience because it imports a scene in which th e
re incarna ted v ic t im runs away and i s l a t e r loca ted by th e
pro tagon i s t s . (Am. CompI. ~ ~ 81-83; P I . ' s Opp'n . Mem. a t 12.)
The development of a pa r t i c u l a r p lo t device " i s p ro t e c t i b l e , bu t
only a t a l eve l t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i z e s t h i s genera l theme in to
cha rac te r s , de ta i l s , and events ." Smith v . Weinste in , 578 F.
Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) , a f f ' d , 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir .
23
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 23 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 24/37
1984) ( r e jec t ing a claim of in f r ingement where two works used
pr ison rodeos as th e s e t t i ng an escape) . The "use o f a p lo t
device t h a t d i f f e r s as t o cha rac t e r s , d e t a i l s , and even t s does
not amount to in f r ingement . " Denker, 82 0 F.Supp. a t 732
( in te rna l quota t ions omit ted) .
The re l evan t sequences in Transience and Past L i f e a re very
f e ren t i n t h a t they involve d if charac te r s and conta in
f f e r en t de t a i l s . 7 J u s t as a "[p] I i f f i s n ot en t i t l ed to
copyr igh t pro tec t ion fo r a l l ins tances of misfor tune t h a t b e fa l l
th e de r ly o r a l l demonstra t ions o f dedica t ion by a servan t o r
he lpe r , " n e i th e r i s Mena en t i t l ed to so le use a sequence in
which a young person, haunted by unexplained s ions of the
pas t , runs o ff to a s t range loca t ion and i s l a t e r found and
quest ioned. Id . Many works employ sudden depar tures to dr ive th e
p l o t and quicken th e pace . Most would be fa r shor t e r i f main
cha rac te r s t h a t made such has ty e x i t s were never rewoven in to
th e s to ry .
Fourth , Mena urges t h a t the s ign i f i cance of the "tower" in
both s to r i e s i s also evidence of subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y . (Am.
Compl. 95 96; .'s Opp. Mem. a t 14.) Both Transience and Past
Li fe do fea tu re tower- l ike s t ru c t u re s t h a t f igure prominen t ly
th e p l o t . In Transience, a water tower with the phrase "Find
7 In Past Life, for , th i s "runaway" sequence coincides with thediscovery tha t Noah's was di f ferent in h i s pas t l i f e - a de ta i l and
plo t twis t whol absent from Transience.
24
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 24 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 25/37
Jesus H serves as an important landmark t h a t l eads th e de tec t ive
to the s e r i a l k i l l e r ' s l a i r . In Past L i f e , th e re inca rna ted
v ic t im ' s preoccupat ion wi th a f lashing red l i g h t a top a water
tower helps th e de tec t ives discover the Noah's former i de n t i t y
by revea l ing he could see the washington Monument from h is
bedroom window.
S t i l l , these elements a re s ign i f i c a n t ly d i f f e r e n t each
work. The water tower in Transience does not appear u n t i l th e
end of th e work, func t ion ing as one o f th e l a s t c lues l ead ing to
the rescue of a kidnapped vic t im. In Past fe , however, th e
s f i cance th e f lashing l i g h t i s an i n i t i a l c lue t h a t
al lows th e de tec t ive to discover th e v i c t i m ' s i de n t i t y .
Moreover, th e s ign i f i cance of these landmarks in each s to ry
arguably t u rns no t on th e natu re o f tower it f , but on an
add i t iona l element of each tower . In Transience , the phrase
"Find Jesus" - an of t - r epea ted phrase throughout th e s to ry used
s imul taneous ly as foreshadowing and l us ion - i s the key
landmark, not th e water tower f . Simi la r ly , in Past L i f e it
i s not the water tower but th e f lashing red l i g h t a t its apex, a
c ha ra c t e r i s t i c of s t ru c t u re s t a l l enough to requ i re a i r t r a f f i c
ind ica to r s - l i ke Washington Monument - t h a t prov ides th e
v i t a l c lue . Given t he i r d i f f e r e n t express ion and func t ions ,
these e lements a re not su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r .
25
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 25 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 26/37
Fina l ly , Mena a l l eg es t ha t " [ t ]he re i s a fa l se l ead in each
work (a man bel i eved to be th e k i l l e r t u rns o ut to be innocen t ) ,
but th e s to r i e s conclude soon a f t e r th e mystery o f th e c h i l d ' s
cryp t ic New Testament Reference i s solved. H (Am. Compl. , 7;
p l . ' s Opp. Mem. a t 14-15.) As an i n i t i a l mat te r , a " fa l s e lead H
- or , to use th e l i t e r a r y term, a red he r r ing - i s a rou t ine
element of any iv e s to ry . Thus, th e use t h i s element i s
not p ro t e c t i b l e . To th e ex ten t t h a t Mena suggests t h a t any
se lead" i s in f r ingement , h is argument necessa r i ly f a i l s .
Likewise, t he re i s no bas i s fo r f ind ing su b s t a n t i a l
s im i l a r i t y between the red he r r ings in each work. Cer ta in ly th e
f ac t t h a t th e red he r r ing in both s t o r i e s resu l t ed in suspic ion
of the wrong person cannot reasonab ly be unders tood as a
meaningful s im i l a r i t y . The func t ion o f a red he r r ing , a l l ,
i s to l ead the de tec t ive a s t r ay . Nor i s the element expressed in
the same way o r in t roduced a t the same p o i n t in both works. In
Transience , the red he r r ing i s a fa l se confess ion and Ridge does
no t dec ipher f i n a l cruc r idd le u n t i l a f t e r th e wrong
p e r p e t r a to r has been a r res t ed and everyone bu t Ridge i s
convinced the mystery i s solved. Converse ly , in Past th e
red he r r ing i s th e ownership of a suspic ious boat and i s
in t roduced a f t e r th e f i n a l c r u c i a l r idd le has a l ready
26
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 26 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 27/37
cracked. B Fina l ly , the Cour t i s unable to c re d i t Mena's
l ega t ion t h a t both red he r r ings c o n s t i t u t e "cryp t New
Testament re fe rence[s] ," (Am. Compl. 7 .) As a ined above,
t he re i s simply no ind ica t ion in Past Li t h a t any re l ig ious
overtone i s in tended.
With re spec t to those copyr igh tab le elements of these
sequences , th e Cour t concludes t h a t no observer would assume
Past L i f e had copied any p ro t e c t i b l e e lements from Transience.
Thus, a f t e r comparing th e works in ques t ion the Cour t f inds t h a t
the re l evan t sequences i de n t i f i e d in Past L i f e a re not
subs tan t i ly s imi l a r t o Transience under th e "more discerning
observer" s tandard .
4. Characters and Character Development
Mena a l so a l l eges t ha t Past fe i n f r i n g es h i s work because
it appropr i a t e s seve ra l important charac te r s .9 "The bar fo r
8 The Court must view th e f ac t s a l leged in the Amended Complaint in th e l i gh t
most favorable to Mena and so accepts the claim t h a t th e "Maria" re fe rence in
Past Li fe i s a red her r ing . While th e re fe rence does l ead th e i nves t iga to r s
i n i t i a l l y to suspec t the owner of a boat with t h a t name, h i s r eve la t ion tha t
he d id not own t he boa t a t the r e levan t t ime quickly s h i f t s susp ic ion to th e
prev ious owner who i s , in f ac t , the cor r ec t suspec t . The re fe rence in Pas t
Li fe could more proper ly be c l a s s i f i e d as one c lue in a se r ie s t h a t l eads to
the r eso lu t ion of the mystery , while the re fe rence in Transience i s a t rue
red her r ing des igned t o d e t e r o r d e r a i l the de tec t ive .9 Th e Court addresses in depth only those main charac te r s cen t r a l t o th e p lo t
in Transience and Pas t Li fe . Mena's a l l ega t ions regarding o t h e r suppor t ing
charac te r s f a i l as a mat te r o f la w because "[nJo charac te r in f r ingement claimcan succeed unless p l a i n t i f f ' s o r i g i n a l concept ion s u f f i c i e n t l y developed th e
charac te r , and defendants have copied th i s development and not merely the
broader o u t l i n e s . " Smith v . Weinstein, 57 8 F. Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.N.Y.
1984), 'd 73 8 F.2d 419 (2d Cir . 1984); Williams, 84 F.3d a t 58 9 ("[TJhe
l e s s developed th e charac te r s , th e l e ss they can be copyr ighted. ") i see a l so
Sheldon Abend Revocable T r us t v . Spie lberg , 748 F. Supp. 2d 200, 20 8
(S.D.N.Y. 2010).
27
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 27 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 28/37
subs tan t i a l s imi la r i in a cha rac te r i s s e t qu i te high ."
Sheldon Abend Revocable Trus t v. Spie lberg , 748 F. Supp. 2d 200,
208 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); v . Riordan, 815 F. Supp. 2d 655,
658 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) , f ld , 11-4438-CV, 2012 WL 4016898, a t *1
(2d r . Sept . 13, 2012) ( f inding no subs t an t s l a r i t y
between two teenaged who fought crea tu res from Greek
mythology) ; Arden v . Columbia Pic tu re s I n d u s t r i e s , Inc . , 908
F.Supp. 1248, 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ( f inding no su b s t a n t i a l
s im i l a r i t y between two middle-aged, s e l f - cen t e r ed bache lo rs t h a t
became t rapped in a repea t day while pursu ing love) .
Fi r s t , Mena argues t h a t th e re inca rna ted murder vic t ims who
provide th e c lues to so lve the murders a re subs t an t ly th e
same each work. (Am. Compl. " 59-60; P I . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t
26 27.) The re incarna ted v ic t im in Transience i s named Rebecca
Lowell , while the corresponding cha rac te r in Past Li i s Noah
Powell . Rebecca i s a nine o ld a r t i s t i c prod igy , whi Noah
i s an otherwise normal four teen-year old boy. Mena urges t h a t
these cha rac te r s a re su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi la r because both were a
young10
a p as t l i f e , murdered and re inca rna ted , so c i a l l y
o s t r a c i , a r t i s t i c , and i nc rea s ing ly burdened by f lashbacks to
10 I t i s worth not ing tha t the purpor ted Slm1 between the past
ident i t i es of Rebecca and Noah is a b i t exaggerated. While both were female
in t he i r l ives , Rebecca was a Hispanic teenage col lege s tudent while
Noah was a Caucasian eight-year-o ld g i r l .
28
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 28 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 29/37
h is o r her former l i f e . 11 (Am. Compl. ~ ~ 59-60; PI . ' s Opp'n. Mem.
a t 26-27. )
Fox argues t ha t a "vic t im with pas t l i f e memories" i s a
"scene a fa ire t h a t f lows from the idea of a po l i ce procedura l . "
(Defs . ' Supp. Mem. a t 18-19 n.14 . ) Fox a l so urges t ha t the
Rebecca and Noah a re not subs tan t i a l ly s i m i l a r because t h e i r
ages , genders , and backgrounds are not the same. (Defs . ' Reply
Mem. a t 5.) The Cour t also notes t ha t the manner of dea th of
each charac te r in h is o r her previous l i f e d i f f e r s . In
Transience, th e vic t im was raped, bea ten , and s t r ang led , while
in Past L i f e the v ic t im could not swim and was l e f t to drown.
Care must be taken to di s t ingui sh an unlawful ly copied
charac te r from "a somewhat s imi l a r though non- in f r ing ing
charac te r whose appearance , behavior , or t r a i t s , and espec ia l ly
t h e i r combinat ion, s ign i f i can t l y d i f f e r from those of a
copyr ighted charac te r , even though th e second charac te r i s
reminiscent of th e f i r s t one." Warner Bros. Inc . v . Am. Broad.
Companies, Inc . , 720 F.2d 231, 242 (2d Cir . 1983) . Admit tedly
both Rebecca and Noah embody the concept o f r e inca rna t ion and
t h e i r " regress ions" se rve as a source of c lues . This alone
cannot sus t a in a f ind ing of s ubs t a n t i a l s imi l a r i t y , however.
11 Mena also a l l eges s i m i l a r i t y because \ \ [ i ]n Transience, th e murderer bur ied
the [the vict im] near a r iver" and " in Past L i f e , the murderer threw the
[v ict im] in to the ocean." (Am. Compl. 60.) Equating the tw o scenar ios
obscures an impor tant d i f fe rence , however, as the former descr ibes the
k i l l e r ' s d isposa l of the vic t im ' s body while the l a t t e r descr ibes the manner
of dea th .
29
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 29 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 30/37
See, e . g . , Arden, 90B F.Supp. a t 1261 ( " P la in t i f f also argues
t h a t th e use of s imi l a r p lo t devices , such as each p ro t a g o n i s t ' s
sole knowledge of th e repea t ing day and the underdevelopment of
othe r charac te r s , cons t i tu t es s u b s t an t i a l s im i l a r i t y . Li te ra ry
devices , however, cannot be copyrighted .") .
In add i t ion to th e d i s t i n c t i o n s noted above, these
cha rac te r s also play very d i f f e r e n t ro les in t h e i r re spec t ive
works. Noah i s a f l a t cha rac te r with a pass ive ro le in the Past
Li fe s t o ry l i n e . Rebecca, on th e o t h e r hand, i s more fu l l y
developed and imbued with a degree of omniscience t h a t guides
othe r cha rac t e r s a t c r i t i c a l j unc tu re s .12 Given th e s i g n i f i c a n t
di f fe rences between Rebecca and Noah, th e Cour t concludes t h a t
these cha rac te r s a re no t s u f f i c i e n t ly s imi l a r t o suppor t a
f inding of infr ingement .
Second, Mena a l leges t ha t the de tec t ive charac te r s - Jack
Ridge and Price Whatley - a re su b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r. (Am. Compl.
~ ~ 6B ; P I . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 26-2B.) Both Transience and Past
Li fe fea tu re th e f ami l i a r f igure of a tough, capab le , determined
de tec t ive who fo l lows c lues and f a c t s . In both works, the
de tec t ive has l o s t h is wife , i s pra c t i c a l , and di sp lays
skept ic ism with regard t o re inca rna t ion . (Pl . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t
12 For example, Rebecca i s descr ibed as "except ional ly br igh t" and "[aJ t rue
prodigy" when it comes to a r t . (Am. Compl., Ex. 1 a t 13, 17.) Addi t iona l ly ,
throughout Transience Rebecca demonstra tes knowledge beyond her years ,
inexpl icably speaks f l u e n t Spanish, consoles her mother from he r p r io r l i f e ,
and sub t ly encourages a romance between Ridge and her cur ren t mother. ( Id . ,
Ex. 1 a t 16, 52, 94-95, 101.)
30
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 30 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 31/37
10.) The " d i f f i c u l t y in t h i s regard i s t h a t any two devices
purpor t ing to rep re sen t a na tu ra l prototype o r arche type are
l i ke ly to be s imi la r , qu i te a p a r t from any copying ." r s t Am.
A r t i f i c i a l Flowers, Inc. v . Joseph Markovits In c . , 34 2 F. Supp.
178, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) . The image of the hardscrabb le
de tec t ive i s , a f t e r I , a recur ren t f igure throughout
l i t e r a t u r e and serves as a s tock charac te r in myriad genres .
Life Films I n c ' l 784 F.2d 44, 50 (2d
Cir . 1986) ("Foot chases and th e morale problems of policemen,
no t to mention th e f ami l i a r f igure o f I r i sh cop, a re
venerab le and of ten - recur r ing themes o f po l ice f i c t i o n . " ) .
Likewise th e mot ivat ion of a l o s t loved one a despa i r
mit iga ted only by th e t h r i l l of the chase, and th e promise
love renewed a re a l l f ami l i a r p lo t dev ices . Mena/s "purported
list of common a t t r i b u t e s . . evokes only a genera l ske tch of
a charac te r ( i . e . , an unpro tec t ib l e idea) 1 r a t h e r than a
recognizab le i de n t i t y t h a t can be l inked to a p a r t i c u l a r f igure
( i . e . , a pro tec t ed express ion o f t h a t idea ) . " Allen v .
Scholas t ic Inc . , 739 F. Supp. 2d 642 1 660 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). To
th e ex ten t t ha t Mena seeks to cla im a copyr igh t in these
aspec ts , th e de tec t ive persona i s not pro t e c t ib l e .
1urthermore though they occupy s imi la r pos ions in t h e i r
re spec t ive p lo t l i ne s , Ridge and Whatley a re very d i f f e r e n t
dramat ic charac te r s . Ridge i s tough, hard -nosed , miserable , and
31
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 31 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 32/37
s ick ly . A paragon of s t rugg le and s t r i f e , he embodies th e
preva len t themes of t ragedy , redemption, g r i e f , hope, and
t y t h a t permeate Transience. In con t ras t , Whatley i s
suave, handsorne t c lever t and fu l l of v i t a l i t y . With l e s s
dramat deptht he i s a charac te r with whom th e audience w i l l
i den t i fy someone easy to roo t fo r from episode to episode as
he pursues both j u s t i c e and love . "S t i r r ing onet s memory o f a
copyr igh ted charac te r i s not th e same as appear ing to be
subs tant ly s i m i l a r t o t h a t charac te r t and only th e l a t t e r i s
infr ingement . II Warner Bros . Inc . , 720 F. 2d a t 242. S th e
de tec t ives in Transience and Past L i f e are s imi la r as s tock
cha rac te r s but d i ss imi la r otherwise t t he re i s no subs tan t i a l
s im i l a r i t y here .
Third t Mena a l l eg es t h a t th e ps yc h ia t r i s t charac te r s , Dr.
Leonard Hellerman and Dr. Kate McGinn, a re su b s t a n t i a l l y
s imi la r .13
(Am. Compl. ~ ~ 63-64, 67, 69 74; P I . t s Opp'n. Mem. a t
26-27.) Spec i f ica l lYt Mena urges t h a t these charac te r s i n t e r a c t
with the re inca rna ted vic t ims and th e de tec t ive i n s imi la r ways
13 In h is Amended Complaint , Mena t r ea t s th e ro le of th e p s y c h ia t r i s t and th e
charac te r Dr. McGinn separa te ly . Ins tead of comparing McGinn as th e
psych ia t r i s t to th e charac te r s in Transience, Mena in s tead l abe l s McGinn " the
Female Lead" and compares h e r to Rebecca 's mother . Th e Court i s no t persuaded
t h a t t h i s comparison i s va l id given t h a t , unl ike Rebecca 's mother, McGinn i s
in t imate ly involved in each phase of the i nves t iga t ion , plays a prominent
ro le in th e s to ry , and does n ot func t ion in the same care tak ing capac i ty with
r espec t to the r e incarna ted v ic t im . Th e Court a l so dec l ines to adopt Mena's
more a b s t r a c t nomenclature fo r th e purpose of making compar isons as many of
h is i den t i f i e r s inc luding "Female Lead," "Detec t ive , " and "Murder Vict im" -
would "cons t i tu t e [] gene r a l prototype[s] too i nd i s t i nc t to mer i t copyr ight
pro tec t ion ." 73 9 F.Supp.2d a t 660.
32
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 32 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 33/37
in both works. ( Id . ) But s i s not qu i te cor rec t . Though Mena
a l leges t ha t u[ t ]he [p ]sych ia t r i s t in each work reaches the same
conclus ion : th e [ c ]h i ld i s a re incarna ted murder v ic t im," th e
route to t ha t r e a l i z a t i on d i f fe r s g re a t l y i n Transience and Past
fe . ( Id . ) In th e former, lerman i s s t a r t l e d , f r ightened,
and f i na l ly awed and exc i ted by h is discovery t ha t Rebecca i s
re l iv ing memories from a pr io r l i f e . In con t ras t , McGinn i s
employed by th e Talmadge Center , a pr iva te organ iza t ion t ha t
spec ia l i zes in p as t l i f e therapy, and never doubts th e
s ign i f i cance o r verac i ty of Noah's f l ashbacks .
The most s t king d i s t i nc t ion , however, i s seen in th e
ionship between the ps yc h ia t r i s t and th e d e t ec t i v e in each
work. Mena a s s e r t s t ha t uin each work a homicide d e t ec t i v e
i s i s t e d to decipher the [ r ]e inca rna ted [ c ]h i ld ' s c ryp t i c
c lues , " but t h i s ignores major charac te r d i f f e rences . ( Id . ) In
Transience, Hellerman e n l i s t s Ridge ' s help by v i o l a t i n g the
doc to r -pa t ien t pr iv i l ege and en t ic ing Ridge with the informat ion
he gleaned from s sess ions with Rebecca. In Past Li fe ,
what ley i s ac tua l ly employed by the same i n s t i t u t ion as McGinn
and ready a member of the team seeking to help Noah.
Simi la r ly , Hellerman i s never more than a per iphera l charac te r ,
appearing in few scenes and func t ion ing pr imar i ly as a veh ic l e
fo r Ridge to access Rebecca ' s f l ashbacks . McGinn, on th e o ther
hand, i s a pro tagon is t in h e r own r i gh t , pa r tne red with the
33
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 33 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 34/37
de tec t ive and foreshadowed as a p o t e n t i a l love i n t e r e s t . Beyond
th e f ac t of t h e i r profe ss ion , few s i mi l a r i t e x i s t between the
ps yc h ia t r i s t s in Transience and Past Li fe .
Mena further aims that Fox infringed by ~ t [ a k i n g ] certain
c ha ra c t e r i s t i c s of th e Female Lead from Transience and
t rans [ ing] them to the female P sy c h i a t r i s t , who i s th e
Female Lead in Past fe ." (Am. Compl. 78.) This argument i s
also unava i l ing because the modi f ica t ion o r fus ion of charac te r
a t t r i bu t e s i s s u f f i c i e n t to d i s t ingu ish McGinn from Hellerman.
Cf. Hogan v . DC Comics, 48 F . Supp. 2d 298, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
( f inding no subs t an t s im i l a r i t y even though both charac te r s
were white males named Nicholas Gaunt; in t h e i r ea r ly twent ies ;
half-human, ha l f vampire; and had " thin-to-medium bu i lds , pa le
skin , dark messy h a i r and a s loven ly appearance") . Moreover,
while "no p l a g i a r i s t can excuse the wrong by showing how much of
h is work he d id not p i r a t e , a defendant may l eg i t ima te ly avoid
in f r ingement by i n t e n t i o n a l l y making s u f f i c i e n t changes in a
work which would otherwise be regarded as s u b s t an t i ly s imi la r
." Warner Bros Inc. v. American Broadcast , 654
F.2d 204, 211 (2d Cir . 1981) (c i t a t ions and i n t e rn a l quota t ions
omi t ted) ; c f . Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1002. Thus, Mena's
a l l ega t ions concerning Fox 's copying and a l t e ra t i on of th e
"Female Lead" and the "Psych ia t r i s t , " even i f cor rec t , f a i l to
show subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y .
34
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 34 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 35/37
With respec t to those charac te r e lements t h a t a re
copyr igh tab le , the Cour t concludes t h a t no observer would assume
Past fe had copied any p ro t e c t i b l e e lements from th e above
cha rac te r s found in Transience. Therefore , th e Cour t f inds t h a t
th e cha rac te r s and charac te r development Past fe i s not
su b s t a n t i a l ly s i m i l a r to Transience under th e "more discerning
observer" s tandard .
B. "Total Concept and Feel" Analysis
Fina l ly , th e Cour t looks a t Mena's " o r ig in a l con t r ibu t ions"
in terms of how he "se l ec t ed , coordinated , and arranged" th e
e lements of h is work to determine whether Transience and Past
Li fe are su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r under th e " t o t a l concept and
fee l" ana lys i s . Fe i s t Publ ica t ions , 499 U.S. a t 350, 358;
Knitwaves, 71 F.3d a t 1004. The Cour t i s guided in t h i s
assessment by common sense . Boisson, 273 F.3d a t 273. However,
th e Cour t must poin t to "pa r t a r a e s t h e t i c dec i s ions" made by
Mena and copied by Fox in orde r to sus ta in a f ind ing of
subs tan t i a l s im i l a r i t y with re spec t to " t o t a l concept and fee l . "
Tufenkian, 338 F.3d a t 134 ( in te rna l c i t a t i o n s omit ted) .
The Cour t ' s review th e works in t h i s case compels th e
conclus ion t h a t th e " to t a l concept and fee l" o f Past L i f e i s
s u f f i c i e n t ly d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of Transience. Though Mena
contends "[b]oth [w]orks are unapologe t ica l ly dramat ic , i n t ense ,
and emot ional t h r i l l e r s with little comic r e l i e f and hopeful
35
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 35 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 36/37
end ings ," t h i s appra i sa l i s only accura te with re spec t to
fe does, in f a c t ,Transience. (P l . ' s Opp'n. Mem. a t 28.) Past
con ta in many i ns t ances of comic r epar tee designed to make th e
charac te rs appeal to a wider audience. Addi t iona l ly , while some
of th e ac t ion in Past Li fe can be descr ibed as ex c i t i n g ,
Transience i s f a r more "dramat ic , i n t ense , and emot ional"
because it employs elements t h a t a re f a r more gruesome and
suspensefu l .
The se lec t ion , coord ina t ion , and ar rangement of scenes and
elements also d i f f e r su b s t a n t i a l l y i n both works. Both
Transience and Past Li fe con ta in subp lo t s and tw i s t s not found
in th e o ther . Arguably s imi l a r scenes occur a t d i f f e r e n t t imes ,
important c lues a re cracked by d i f f e r e n t people and a t d i f f e r e n t
s tages in th e inves t iga t ion , and analogous charac te r s a re
developed to d i f f e r e n t degrees . Transience i s w r i t t en as a
fea ture length f i lm, s tandalone and se l f - con ta ined , while Past
L i f e i s c l e a r l y s t r u c tu r ed as a s e r i a l program in tended to
proceed in an episodic fashion. Exercis ing common sense and
reasonab le judgment, th e Cour t i s unable to pinpo in t any
s u f f i c i e n t ly or ig ina l aes the t i c dec is ions t ha t appear to have
been copied by Fox. Consequent ly , th e Cour t concludes t h a t
Transience and Past Li fe a re not su b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r under
" to t a l concept and ana lys i s .I
36
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 36 of 37
7/30/2019 Stevan Mena v. Fox
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevan-mena-v-fox 37/37
CONCLUSION
In l i g h t of the above discuss ion , th e Cour t f inds t h a t no
discerning observer would conclude t h a t Past L i f e had
appropr ia ted pro tec t ed e lements from Transience. The Cour t
fu r the r f inds t h a t Transience and Past L i f e are not
su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r with re spec t to " to t a l concept and fee l . "
As such, th e Cour t concludes t h a t "no reasonable ju ry , proper ly
in s t ruc ted , could f ind t h a t th e tw o works are s ubs t a n t i a l l y
s imi la r , " Warner Bros . , 720 F.2d a t 240; Durham I n d u s t r i e s , Inc .
v . Tomy Corp. , 630 F.2d 90S, 918 (2d Cir . 1980) , and f inds t h a t
th e works a re no t su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r as a mat t e r o f law. Since
th e Amended Complaint does not "p laus ib ly give r i s e to an
en t i t l ement to r e l i e f , " Iqba l , 556 U.S. a t 679, t h i s ac t ion must
be d ismissed .
For th e foregoing reasons , Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss
th e Amended Complaint i s hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Cour t
i s d i rec ted to t e rmina te the motion (Dkt. 28) and to c lose t h i s
case .
SO ORDERED:
ARBARA S. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: New York, New York
September 27, 2012
37
Case 1:11-cv-05501-BSJ -RLE Document 40 Filed 09/27/12 Page 37 of 37