Arriola v. Joey Jordison, Civil Action No. 3:99CV107-B-A (N.D. Miss. 2000)
| Decision Date | 01 October 2000 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:99CV107-B-A. |
| Parties | TOM ARRIOLA PLAINTIFF, v. SID WILSON, JOEY JORDISON, PAUL GRAY, CHRIS FEHN, JIM ROOT, CRAIG JONES, SHAWN CRAHAN, MICK THOMPSON AND COREY TAYLOR, individually and collectively as a band commonly known as "SLIPKNOT," a/k/a the "KNOT"; ROSS ROBINSON, individually as a producer of "SLIPKNOT"; ROADRUNNER RECORDS INCORPORATED and THE ALL BLACKS U.S.A., INC. DEFENDANTS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
This matter is before the court on motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants Sid Wilson, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray, Chris Fehn, Jim Root, Craig Jones, Shawn Crahan, Mick Thompson, and Corby Taylor individually and collectively as a band commonly known as "Slipknot" (# 97-1), the defendants Roadrunner Records, Inc. and The All Blacks U.S.A., Inc. (# 99-1), and the plaintiff Tom Arriola (# 100-1). Because the issues addressed in each of these motions are essentially the same, the court will address all three motions with this Memorandum Opinion. The court will also address the motion to bifurcate (# 98-1) filed by the individual defendants.
The plaintiff Tom Arriola is the proprietor of a website found at "crimescene.com." The website contains stories of various crimes including the story of a teenage girl, Purity Knight. The stories on the website are fictional, and the subscriber is invited to follow the clues in an effort to solve each crime. The Purity Knight story involves a young girl who is murdered by being buried alive in a box. The website provides, among other things, pictures of Purity both before and after her murder. There are many clues the subscriber may follow to uncover the murderer. Among these clues are a voice recording and a note.
The voice recorded is that of the character Purity Knight. In the story, a young boy visits with Purity and records their conversation. The boy also delivers a note for Purity. The note appears to have been written by Purity Knight to someone named "Dave," and in the story this note is found in the University of Mississippi library tucked into a book of the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Both the recording and the note are supposed to help the subscriber identify Purity's killer.
The defendant Slipknot is a rock and roll band. On June 29, 1999, Slipknot released a record entitled "Slipknot." One of the songs on that record is entitled "Frail Limb Nursery" and includes approximately forty-five seconds of the boy's tape recording of Purity's conversation found at crimescene.com. The boy's recording found at crimescene.com lasts approximately four minutes and fifty-three seconds. The song "Frail Limb Nursery" leads directly into the next song with no break. The next song is entitled "Purity." The lyrics to the song "Purity" address being buried alive, and the lyrics are reproduced on the inside cover of the record. The plaintiff has provided evidence that the band introduced the song "Purity" at its concerts as being "about a girl in a box." Also on the inside cover of the record, the lyrics to the song "Purity" are superimposed over the text of the note Purity wrote to Dave; the letter is clearly an exact duplication of that note found in the University of Mississippi library as originally displayed on the crimescene.com website. Photographs of Purity Knight that originated at the crimescene.com website were also found at the website Slipknot.com.
After discovering the actions of Slipknot, the plaintiff Tom Arriola filed the instant action, alleging copyright infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective business advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.1 All defendants have now filed motions for summary judgment as to all claims. The plaintiff has likewise filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims. The court will address each of the claims in turn.
A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate "if 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 a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). "The moving party must show that if the evidentiary material of record were reduced to admissible evidence in court, it would be insufficient to permit the nonmoving party to carry its burden." Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)). After a proper motion for summary judgment is made, the burden shifts to the non-movant to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Beck, 204 F.3d at 633; Allen v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 204 F.3d 619, 621 (5th Cir. 2000); Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). Substantive law determines what is material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Id., at 248. If the non-movant sets forth specific facts in support of allegations essential to his claim, a genuine issue is presented. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327. "Where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); Federal Savings and Loan, Inc. v. Krajl, 968 F.2d 500, 503 (5th Cir. 1992). The facts are reviewed drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Allen, 204 F.3d at 621; PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management Dist., 177 F.3d 351, 161 (5th Cir. 1999); Banc One Capital Partners Corp. v. Kneipper, 67 F.3d 1187, 1198 (5th Cir. 1995). However, this is so only when there is "an actual controversy; that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994); see Edwards v. Your Credit, Inc., 148 F.3d 427, 432 (5th Cir. 1998). In the absence of proof, the court does not "assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts." Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (emphasis omitted).
In his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges a copyright infringement, "both negligent and intentional of Arriola's Recording, Note, and Photos under 17 U.S.C. § 106." (Pl.'s Amended Complaint at 4). The plaintiff also complains that, "Defendants' creation of the song "Purity" constitutes a copyright infringement, but (sic) negligent and intentional, as a derivative work of Arriola's story "Purity Knight." Id. The defendants attack each claim of copyright infringement in their respective motions with the heaviest emphasis placed on the latter claim. The defendants argue vehemently that the song "Purity" in no way infringes on Arriola's work. The court will address the claim regarding the song "Purity" and then address the claim regarding the direct copying of the voice, note, and photos.
To succeed on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove "actionable copying." Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335, 1340-41 (5th Cir. 1994). Actionable copying has two components: (1) copying in fact, that is "proof that the alleged infringer actually used the copyrighted material to create his own work" and (2) "substantial similarity" between the protected and the copied works. Computer Mgmt. Assistance Co. v. Robert F. DeCastro, Inc., 220 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir. 2000); Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772, 790 (5th Cir. 1999). In the absence of sufficient proof of actionable copying, summary judgment should be granted to the defendant. King v. Ames, 179 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 1999).
In their briefs, the defendants do not dispute that the alleged infringer actually used the copyrighted material to create its own work. Indeed deposition testimony submitted to the court by Roadrunner Records provides that "The story on the web site and the character's name became a partial inspiration for the additional lyrics and the change of title from `Despise' to `Purity.'" (Roadrunner's Brf. at 3). Consequently, in their arguments concerning the song "Purity," the defendants focus almost exclusively on the concept of "substantial similarity." Before the court can address the concept of substantial similarity, however, the defendants argue that the song itself must be "dissected."
The defendants rely heavily on the concept of dissecting a work before addressing the issue of substantial similarity. They contend that in determining whether the plaintiff has proven substantial similarity, the court must consider only those elements of the work that are protectable under the copyright laws. The plaintiff must establish not only that the defendant's work is substantially similar to his own, but that the substantial similarity relates to protectable material. Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1074 (2d Cir. 1992. Moreover, where a copyrighted work contains both protectable and unprotectable elements, the "ordinary observer" test2 must be more finely honed, by segregating and disregarding the unprotectable elements:
Where a [work] contains both protectable and unprotectable elements, we have held that the observer's inspection must be more `discerning,' ignoring those aspects of a work that are unprotectable in making the comparison.
Laureyssens v. Ideal Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131, 141 (2d Cir. 1992).
The Tenth Circuit also addressed the concept of dissecting a work in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial