Keeling v. New Rock Theater Productions, LLC et al
Filing
41
OPINION re: 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by New Rock Theater Productions, LLC. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. This opinion disposes of the motion listed as document number 25 on the docket. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/13/2011) (ab)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------x
:
JAIME KEELING,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
– against –
:
:
NEW ROCK THEATER PRODUCTIONS,
:
LLC, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------x
10 Civ. 9345 (TPG)
OPINION
This is an action for copyright infringement, breach of contract,
and tortious interference with contractual relations. Plaintiff Jaime
Keeling claims defendants staged live productions of “Point Break LIVE!,”
an alleged parody that she wrote of the popular “Point Break” film,
without her permission, in violation of her copyright in that parody and
contractual rights owed to Keeling by defendants.
Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing Keeling’s
copyright claim and confirming their counterclaim for copyright
invalidity. The motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
Defendants’ motion first reiterates an argument – that Keeling
could not have obtained copyright in her script of “Point Break LIVE!”
because she did not have the permission of the original copyright holder
– that this court has already rejected on two occasions. The court again
finds this argument unpersuasive, for the reasons discussed in its prior
opinions in this case. See Keeling v. New Rock Theater Prods., LLC, No.
10 Civ. 9345 (TPG), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52736, at *2-5 (S.D.N.Y. May
17, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss); Keeling v. New Rock
Theater Prods., LLC, No. 10 Civ. 9345 (TPG), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
61377, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion for
reconsideration).
Defendants also claim that Keeling’s “Point Break LIVE!” does not
contain any original elements that are protectable by copyright, but
merely makes use of “theatrical devices.” Although defendants are
correct that theatrical devices cannot be copyrighted, Keeling is entitled
to copyright for her original creative expression that makes use of
theatrical devices. See Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S.
539, 547 (1985).
The remainder of the motion is denied because there are factual
issues for trial.
First, defendants claim Keeling is not entitled to copyright
protection in her script because the original “Point Break” “pervades” her
“Point Break LIVE!” script. See Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment
Co., Inc., 697 F.2d 27, 34 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1982). Keeling argues “Point
Break” does not pervade her script, and has set forth evidence
demonstrating a number of original elements in her script. Based on the
evidence Keeling has submitted and the differences between the original
-2-
“Point Break” and Keeling’s “Point Break LIVE!”, there are triable issues
of fact.
Second, defendants claim that they are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law because “Point Break LIVE!” is not a parody of “Point
Break,” but rather is just a more humorous stage version of “Point
Break” that makes no critical commentary on “Point Break.” However,
Keeling has set forth sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that
“Point Break LIVE!” is a parody of “Point Break,” which criticizes and
comments on the substance and style of “Point Break” by the use of
humor and exaggeration.
Third, there is a triable issue regarding the impact of Keeling’s
“Point Break LIVE!” on the market for the original “Point Break” motion
picture, which is an element of the fair use defense to copyright
infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. Keeling seeks discovery regarding
the impact of her script on the market for the original “Point Break”
motion picture because she believes her version of “Point Break LIVE!”
may actually enhance the market for the original “Point Break.” Such
discovery is appropriate.
Finally, defendants have not established conclusively that their
performances of “Point Break LIVE!” were not substantially similar to
plaintiff’s script. As a preliminary matter, defendants contend that the
court should compare Keeling’s script to a script (“the NRTP script”) that
defendants have attached to their motion papers. Defendants claim they
-3-
utilized the NRTP script in their performances of "Point Break LIVE!."
Keeling has produced a different script that she obtained in discovery,
which she claims was used in defendants' performances of "Point Break
LIVE!". Thus, there is an issue of fact with regard to which script or
scripts defendants used in their live performances of "Point Break LIVE!".
Moreover, due to a number of similarities between Keeling's script, the
NRTP script, and defendants' live productions of "Point Break LIVE! ,"
defendants have not shown that they are entitled to summary judgment
on their claim that their performances of "Point Break LIVE!" were not
substantially similar to Keeling's script.
CONCLUSION
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. This opinion
disposes of the motion listed as document number 25 on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
December 13, 2011
U.S. District Judge
-4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?