In the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 3:06-cv-00588-L Document 20 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 17 PageID 271 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CBS OPERATIONS INC., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3-06-CV-0588-L § REEL FUNDS INTERNATIONAL, INC. § d/b/a REEL MEDIA INTERNATIONAL, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Before the court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 15, 2006; and (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability, filed January 12, 2007. After consideration of the motions, responses, reply,1 stipulated facts, record, and applicable law, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability. I. Factual and Procedural Background This is a copyright infringement action involving sixteen half-hour episodes of The Andy Griffith Show (the “Show”), a well-known television series that originally aired in the 1960s. The Show was originally broadcast nationwide for eight (8) seasons beginning in the 1960-1961 season and ending in the 1968-1969 season. The following facts are undisputed.2 Mayberry Enterprises (“Mayberry”), a predecessor-in-interest to Plaintiff CBS Operations, Inc. (“CBS”), produced and 1Only Plaintiff filed a reply brief. See Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability and in Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 2The parties have provided the court with Stipulated Facts for Summary Judgment. See Pl. App. 3-7. Memorandum Opinion and Order and Permanent Injunction - Page 1 Case 3:06-cv-00588-L Document 20 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 17 PageID 272 broadcast a total of 249 episodes of the Show. The Show was also distributed nationwide for syndication. A. Original Copyright Registration Mayberry began registering episodes of the Show for copyright with the United States Copyright Office on or about October 5, 1962. Mayberry registered episodes 1 through 127 (other than episodes 2, 16 and 30) between 1962 and 1965. In or around 1973, Mayberry registered the copyrights in episodes 190 through 219. Viacom International Inc. (“Viacom”), a predecessor-in-interest to CBS, acquired the rights to the Show in 1978. Viacom registered the copyrights to episodes 2, 16 and 30 in 1988 in the name of Mayberry. In 1992, Viacom registered episodes 128 through 189 and 220 through 249. B. Renewal Registration Viacom successfully renewed the copyrights in episodes 1 through 79, and 96 through 174 prior to their expiration. Viacom filed renewals for the copyrights in episodes 175 through 235 on March 17, 1997, and for episodes 236 through 249 on February 24, 1997. In March 1997, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Viacom’s successor and a predecessor-in- interest to CBS, submitted renewal applications for episodes 80 through 95 (the “16 Middle Episodes”), as well as sixty other episodes. On June 5, 1997, the Copyright Office rejected the renewal applications for the 16 Middle Episodes as untimely. The copyrights in the first seventy-nine episodes of the Show were timely renewed and remain in full effect. No separate copyright registrations, apart from those for the individual episodes, exist or have ever existed for the characters in the show, including but not limited to Sheriff Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife, created for and depicted in the first seventy-nine Memorandum Opinion and Order and Permanent Injunction - Page 2 Case 3:06-cv-00588-L Document 20 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 17 PageID 273 episodes of the Show. The parties stipulate, however, that those characters are sufficiently distinctive and delineated in the first seventy-nine episodes so as to be independently copyrightable. As the copyright owner of the registered United States copyrights in all but the 16 Middle Episodes, CBS currently licenses all of the episodes of the Show for broadcast on television, including the 16 Middle Episodes. Pursuant to CBS’s licensing program, on any given day of the week, episodes of the Show are being broadcast on many station licensees in the United States. CBS also licenses and distributes episodes of the Show for home video release on VHS videocassettes and DVD, including the 16 Middle Episodes. C. Reel Media’s Actions Reel Media stipulates that it has sold, distributed, and/or licensed copies of the 16 Middle Episodes of the Show to, among others, television stations, which have publicly broadcast the 16 Middle Episodes, in some instances, in the same markets and in the same time periods as television stations which broadcast the episodes officially licensed by CBS. Reel Media conducted these activities without CBS’s authority or consent. D. The Lawsuit CBS filed this lawsuit on March 31, 2006, alleging copyright infringement by Defendant arising from its distribution and sale of the 16 Middle Episodes. CBS seeks to permanently enjoin Reel Media from reproducing, licensing, selling and distributing the 16 Middle Episodes to television broadcasters without authorization. CBS also seeks damages. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. CBS contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim against Reel Media, since the statutory copyrights in the first seventy- nine episodes are valid, and the 16 Middle Episodes that follow them in the series contain numerous Memorandum Opinion and Order and Permanent Injunction - Page 3 Case 3:06-cv-00588-L Document 20 Filed 08/13/07 Page 4 of 17 PageID 274 fictional characters and themes that are derivative of the copyrighted episodes. Reel Media has moved for summary judgment on liability, contending that its unauthorized sale and distribution of the 16 Middle Episodes is not infringing, since the copyrights in the 16 Middle Episodes were not timely renewed and they are now in the public domain. For the reasons set forth more fully below, and based on the undisputed facts, the court determines that Reel Media’s sale and/or distribution of the 16 Middle Episodes infringes CBS’s valid copyright in the first seventy-nine episodes of the Show. Accordingly, CBS’s motion for summary judgment should be granted and Reel Media’s motion for summary judgment on liability should be denied. II. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment Summary judgment shall be rendered when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986); Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). A dispute regarding a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view all inferences drawn from the factual record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Ragas, 136 F.3d at 458. Further, a court “may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence” in ruling on motion for summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254- 55. Memorandum Opinion and Order and Permanent Injunction - Page 4 Case 3:06-cv-00588-L Document 20 Filed 08/13/07 Page 5 of 17 PageID 275 Once the moving party has made an initial showing that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent summary judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and thus are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir. 1996). Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are not competent summary judgment evidence. See Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994). The party opposing summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his claim. Ragas, 136 F.3d at 458. Rule 56 does not impose a duty on the court to “sift through the record in search of evidence” to support the nonmovant’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Id.; see also Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915-16 & n.7 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832 (1992). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing laws will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Disputed fact issues which are “irrelevant and unnecessary” will not be considered by a court in ruling on a summary judgment motion. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case and on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. III. CBS’s Motion for Summary Judgment To reiterate briefly, CBS contends that under well-established principles of copyright law, the 16 Middle Episodes are “derivative” of the pre-existing copyrighted first seventy-nine episodes, and their sale and/or distribution without authorization from CBS thus constitutes copyright Memorandum Opinion and Order and Permanent Injunction - Page 5 Case 3:06-cv-00588-L Document 20 Filed 08/13/07 Page 6 of 17 PageID 276 infringement.