Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantappealcopyright

plaintiffcopyright

Related Cases

Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111, 2018 Copr.L.Dec. P 31,235, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1912, 46 Media L. Rep. 1488, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1948, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1810

Facts

Jacobus Rentmeester, a renowned photographer, took a highly original photograph of Michael Jordan in 1984, which was published in Life magazine. The photo depicted Jordan in a unique pose, inspired by ballet, on a grassy knoll at the University of North Carolina. After Rentmeester provided Nike with transparencies of his photo under a limited license, Nike commissioned its own photograph of Jordan, which closely resembled Rentmeester's but featured different details and a different background. Rentmeester later filed a lawsuit against Nike, alleging copyright infringement.

Rentmeester's photograph of Jordan, reproduced in the Appendix, is highly original. It depicts Jordan leaping toward a basketball hoop with a basketball raised above his head in his left hand, as though he is attempting to dunk the ball.

Issue

Did Nike's photograph and the Jumpman logo infringe Rentmeester's copyright in his original photograph of Michael Jordan?

Rule

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and that the defendant copied protected aspects of the work's expression, which requires proof of both 'copying' and 'unlawful appropriation'.

To state a claim for copyright infringement, Rentmeester must plausibly allege two things: (1) that he owns a valid copyright in his photograph of Jordan, and (2) that Nike copied protected aspects of the photo's expression.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Rentmeester's photograph and Nike's photograph were substantially similar under the extrinsic test, which assesses objective similarities in the protectable elements of the works. The court found that while both photographs depicted a similar concept of Jordan in a leaping pose, the details of the poses, settings, and arrangements were materially different, leading to the conclusion that Nike's work did not infringe Rentmeester's copyright.

In our circuit, determining whether works are substantially similar involves a two-part analysis consisting of the 'extrinsic test' and the 'intrinsic test.' The extrinsic test assesses the objective similarities of the two works, focusing only on the protectable elements of the plaintiff's expression.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Rentmeester's claims, concluding that the accused photograph and logo were not substantially similar to Rentmeester's copyrighted work, and thus did not constitute infringement.

We conclude that the works at issue here are as a matter of law not substantially similar.

Who won?

Nike, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that their photograph and logo were not substantially similar to Rentmeester's original photograph, which meant there was no copyright infringement.

Nike, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that their photograph and logo were not substantially similar to Rentmeester's original photograph.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Olson v. Albert, 523 A.2d 585

Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill.App.3d 927, 791 N.E.2d 553, 274 Ill.Dec. 461

Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315, 181 U.S.P.Q. 673, 69 O.O.2d 235

Guith v. Consumers Power Co., 36 F.Supp. 21

Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Rounsaville, 320 S.W.2d 211