Hobbs v. John
| Decision Date | 17 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–3652.,12–3652. |
| Citation | 722 F.3d 1089 |
| Parties | Guy HOBBS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Elton JOHN, also known as Sir Elton Hercules John, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Daniel J. Voelker (argued), Attorney, Voelker Litigation Group, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Tom J. Ferber (argued), Attorney, Pryor Cashman, New York, NY, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
While working on a Russian cruise ship, Guy Hobbs composed a song entitled “Natasha” that was inspired by a brief love affair he had with a Russian waitress. Hobbs tried to publish his song, but was unsuccessful. A few years later, Elton John and Bernie Taupin released a song entitled “Nikita” through a publishing company to which Hobbs had sent a copy of “Natasha.” Believing that “Nikita” was based upon “Natasha,” Hobbs eventually demanded compensation from John and Taupin, and ultimately filed suit asserting a copyright infringement claim and two related state law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss Hobbs's complaint for failure to state a claim, and the district court granted the defendants' motion. Hobbs appeals. We affirm.
In 1982, Guy Hobbs began working as a photographer on a Russian cruise ship where he met and romanced a Russian waitress. His experience inspired him to write a song entitled “Natasha” about an ill-fated romance between a man from the United Kingdom and a woman from Ukraine. In 1983, Hobbs registered his copyright of “Natasha” in the United Kingdom, and subsequently sent the song to several music publishers. One of those publishers was Big Pig Music, Ltd. (“Big Pig”), a company that published songs composed by Elton John and Bernard Taupin. Ultimately, Hobbs's efforts to find a publisher for his song proved unsuccessful.
However, in 1985, John released a song entitled “Nikita,” wherein the singer (who is from “the west”) describes heartfelt love for Nikita, whom the singer “saw ... by the wall” and who is on the other side of a “line” held in by “guns and gates.” Big Pig registered the copyright for “Nikita,” and the copyright application lists both John and Taupin. “Nikita” proved to be extremely successful.
Hobbs alleges that he first encountered the written lyrics of “Nikita” in 2001. Believing that “Nikita” infringed his copyright of “Natasha,” Hobbs sought compensation from John and Taupin, but his requests were apparently rebuffed. Consequently, in 2012, Hobbs sued John, Taupin, and Big Pig in the Northern District of Illinois for copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976.1 Hobbs also asserted two related state law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss Hobbs's entire complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.2
In opposing the defendants' motion, Hobbs identified a number of allegedly similar elements between the two songs. He argued that his selection and combination of those elements in “Natasha” constituted a unique expression entitled to copyright protection, and that the defendants' similar use of those elements in “Nikita” supported a claim for copyright infringement. The district court concluded that the elements identified by Hobbs are not entitled to copyright protection when considered alone. The district court also rejected Hobbs's “unique combination” theory because it thought that Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629, 632 (7th Cir.2012), precluded a copyright infringement claim based upon a combination of similar elements that are unprotectable individually. Despite rejecting Hobbs's “unique combination” theory, the district court nevertheless went on to consider that argument, and concluded that the similar elements considered in combination still could not support a claim for copyright infringement. The district court also concluded that the Copyright Act preempted Hobbs's state law claims. Consequently, the district court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Hobbs's entire action with prejudice. Hobbs appeals.
The lyrics to “Natasha” are:
You held my hand a bit too tight
I held back the tears
I wanted just to hold you, whisper in your ear
I love you, girl I need you
Natasha ... Natasha ... I didn't want to go
Natasha ... Natasha ... the freedom you'll never know
The freedom you'll never know
But a Ukraine girl and a UK guy just never stood a chance
Never made it to the movies, never took you to a dance
You never sent me a Valentine, I never gave you flowers
There was so much I had to say
But time was never ours
You sailed away—no big goodbyes
Misty tears in those pale blue eyes
I wanted just to hold you, whisper in your ear
I love you, girl I need you
Run my fingers through your hair
Natasha ... Natasha ... I didn't want to go
Natasha ... Natasha ... the freedom you'll never know
The freedom you'll never know
You held my hand a bit too tight
I held back the tears
I wanted just to hold you, whisper in your ear
I love you, girl I need you
Natasha ... Natasha ... I didn't want to go
Natasha ... Natasha ... the freedom you'll never know
The freedom you'll never know
(Spoken quietly) But Natasha ... Remember me
The lyrics to “Nikita” are:
Hey Nikita is it cold
In your little corner of the world
You could roll around the globe
And never find a warmer soul to know
Oh I saw you by the wall
Ten of your tin soldiers in a row
With eyes that looked like ice on fire
The human heart a captive in the snow
Oh Nikita you will never know, anything about my home
I'll never know how good it feels to hold you
Nikita I need you so Oh Nikita is the other side of any given line in time
Counting ten tin soldiers in a row
Oh no, Nikita you'll never know
Do you ever dream of me
Do you ever see the letters that I write
When you look up through the wire
Nikita do you count the stars at night
And if there comes a time
Guns and gates no longer hold you in
And if you're free to make a choice
Just look towards the west and find a friend
Oh Nikita you will never know, anything about my home
I'll never know how good it feels to hold you
Oh no, Nikita you'll never know
Oh Nikita you will never know, anything about my home
I'll never know how good it feels to hold you
Nikita I need you so
Oh Nikita is the other side of any given line in time
Counting ten tin soldiers in a row
Oh no, Nikita you'll never know
Counting ten tin soldiers in a row.
On appeal, Hobbs relies solely upon his “unique combination” theory.3 Hobbs contends that the unique selection, arrangement, and combination of individually unprotectable elements in a song can be entitled to copyright protection. Hobbs argues that Peters does not preclude such a theory, or alternatively, that we should overrule Peters. Finally, Hobbs contends that the similar elements found in “Natasha” and “Nikita,” when considered in combination, support a claim for copy-right infringement.
Ultimately, as explained below, we hold that Hobbs failed to state a claim for copyright infringement because, even when the allegedly similar elements between the songs are considered in combination, the songs are not substantially similar. Therefore, we need not decide if Hobbs is correct when he argues that a unique selection, arrangement, and combination of individually unprotectable elements in a song can support a copyright infringement claim. Similarly, we need not decide whether the district court correctly interpreted Peters as prohibiting such a theory.4
We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)de novo. Peters, 692 F.3d at 632. In conducting our review, we construe the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to Hobbs in order to determine whether he has stated a plausible claim for copyright infringement. Id.; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). To establish his copyright infringement claim, Hobbs must prove “(1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) unauthorized copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Peters, 692 F.3d at 632. Because defendants rarely admit to copying the works of others, Hobbs may establish the second element of his infringement claim by showing that the defendants had the opportunity to copy “Natasha” and that the two works are “substantially similar,” thereby supporting an inference that the defendants actually did copy his song. Id. at 633. For the purposes of their motion to dismiss, the defendants concede that Hobbs owns a valid copyright for “Natasha,” and that they had the opportunity to copy it. Thus, the defendants can only prevail on their motion to dismiss if “Natasha” and “Nikita” are not “substantially similar” as a matter of law. That is, if as a matter of law “Natasha” and “Nikita” do not “share enough unique features to give rise to a breach of the duty not to copy another's work.” Id. at 633–34.
Hobbs contends that the two songs are “substantially similar” because “Nikita” appropriates “Natasha” ‘s unique selection, arrangement, and combination of certain elements. In support of this argument, Hobbs identifies the following allegedly similar elements that are found in both songs:
(1) A theme of impossible love between a Western man and a Communist woman during the Cold War;
(2) References to events that never happened;
(3) Descriptions of the beloved's light eyes;
(4) References to written correspondence to the beloved;
(5) Repetition of the beloved's name, the word “never,” the phrase “to hold you,” the phrase “I need you,” and some form of the phrase “you will never know;” and
(6) A title which is a one-word, phonetically-similar title consisting of a three-syllable female 5 Russian name, both beginning with the letter “N” and ending with the letter “A.”
Hobbs's argument flounders on two well-established principles of copyright law. First, the Copyright Act does not protect general ideas, but only the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batiste v. Najm
...338 F.3d 127, 134 (2nd Cir.2003) (quoting Melville B. Nimmer, et al., 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[A][1] (2003)). 25. See Hobbs v. John, 722 F.3d 1089, 1093 n. 4 (7th Cir.2013). 26. 499 U.S. 340, 362, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). 27. 2012 WL 4741389 (S.D.N.Y.2012). 28. On the po......
-
Batiste v. Najm
...338 F.3d 127, 134 (2nd Cir.2003) (quoting Melville B. Nimmer, et al., 4 Nimmer on Copyright§ 13.03[A][1] (2003)).25 See Hobbs v. John, 722 F.3d 1089, 1093 n. 4 (7th Cir.2013).26 499 U.S. 340, 362, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991).27 2012 WL 4741389 (S.D.N.Y.2012).28 On the point that ......
-
Weller v. Flynn
... ... Vorbeck, Chicago, IL, Monica L. Thompson, Chicago, IL, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge Plaintiff Leslie Weller claims that the novel and movie Gone Girl infringe her screenplay Out of the ... 2013). In cases alleging copyright infringement, that rule generally encompasses the original and challenged works. See Hobbs v. John , 722 F.3d 1089, 1091 n.2 (7th Cir. 2013) ; see also [55] 1, 10711, 11518. Accordingly, this Court reviewed copies of OTB3 [712], and the ... ...
-
Alliance for Water Efficiency v. Fryer
... ... v ... Novelty , Inc ., 509 F.3d 339, 342 (7 th Cir. 2007). That discretion is broad. Kirtsaeng v ... John Wiley & Sons , Inc ., ___U.S.___, 136 S. Ct. 1979, 1988 (2016); United States v ... Kluball , 843 F.3d 716 (7 th Cir. 2016); Bell v ... Lantz , 825 ... Harper & Row Publishers , Inc ... v ... Nation Enterprises , 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985); Hobbs v ... John , 722 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (7th Cir. 2013)("the Copyright Act does not protect general ideas, but only the particular expression of an ... ...