The Public and International Environment
A court compares the allegedly infringing work with the original work, and considers whether a “lay-observer” would believe that the copying was of protectable aspects of the copyrighted work. The inquiry involves distinguishing between the author’s expression and the idea or theme that he or she seeks to convey or explore, because the former is protected and the latter is not. The court must determine whether the allegedly infringing work is similar because it appropriates the unique expressions of the original work, or merely because it contains elements that would be expected when two works express the same idea or explore the same theme.
* * * A lay observer would not believe that Jackson’s album/CD and film copied protectable aspects of Winstead’s book. Jackson’s album/CD is comprised of 16 individual songs, which explore drug-dealing, guns and money, vengeance, and other similar clichés of hip hop gangsterism. Jackson’s fictional film is the story of a young man who turns to violence when his mother is killed in a drive-by shooting. The young man takes revenge by killing the man who killed his mother, and then gets rich by becoming an “enforcer” for a powerful criminal. He takes up with a woman who eventually betrays him, and is shot to death by her boyfriend, who has just been released from prison. The movie ends with his younger brother vowing to seek vengeance. Winstead’s book purports to be autobiographical and tells the story of a young man whose beloved father was a Bishop in the church. The protagonist was angry as a child because his
stepmother abused him, but he found acceptance and self-esteem on the streets of Newark because he was physically powerful. He earned money robbing and beating people, went to jail, returned to crime upon his release, and then made even more money. The protagonist discusses his time at Rahway State Prison in great and compelling detail. The story
ends when the protagonist learns that his father has passed away; he conveys his belief that this tragedy has led to his redemption, and he hopes that others might learn from his mistakes.* * *
Although Winstead’s book and Jackson’s works share similar themes and setting, the story of an angry and wronged protagonist who turns to a life of violence and crime has long been a part of the public domain [and is there–fore not protected by copyright law].
Winstead argues * * * that a protagonist asking for God’s help when his father dies, cutting drugs with mixing agents to maximize profits, and complaining about relatives who are addicts and steal the product, are protectable, but these things are not unique. To the extent that Jackson’s works contain these elements, they are to be expected when two works express the same idea about “the streets” or explore the same theme. Winstead argues that not every protagonist whose story concerns guns, drugs, and violence in an urban setting winds up in prison or loses a parent, but this argument only serves to illustrate an important difference between his book and Jackson’s film. Jackson’s protagonist never spends any time in prison, whereas Winstead’s protagonist devotes a considerable part of his story to his incarcerations.In addition, Winstead’s book and Jackson’s works are different with respect to character, plot, mood, and sequence of events. Winstead’s protagonist embarks on a life of crime at a very young age, but is redeemed by the death of his beloved father. Jackson’s protagonist turns to crime when he is much older and only after his mother is murdered. He winds up dead at a young age, unredeemed. Winstead’s book is hopeful; Jackson’s film is characterized * * * by moral apathy. It is true that both works involve the loss of a parent and the protagonist’s recognition of the parent’s importance in his life, but nowhere does Jackson appropriate any–thing unique about Winstead’s expression of this generic topic.
Winstead contends that direct phrases from his book appear in Jackson’s film. * * * He emphasizes these phrases: “Yo, where is my money at,” “I would never have done no shit like that to you,” “my father, my strength was gone,” “he was everything to me,” and “I did not know what to do,” but, like the phrases “putting the work in,” “get the dope, cut the dope,” “let’s keep it popping,” and “the strong take from the weak but the smart take from everybody,” they are either common in general or common with respect to hip hop culture, and do not enjoy copyright protection. The average person reading or listening to these phrases in the context of an overall story or song would not regard them as unique and protectable. Moreover, words and short phrases do not enjoy copyright protection. The similarity between Winstead’s book and the lyrics to Jackson’s songs on the album/CD is even more tenuous. “Stretching the dope” and “bloodshot red eyes” are com–mon phrases that do not enjoy copyright protection. A side-by-side comparison of Winstead’s book and the lyrics from Jackson’s album/CD do not support a claim of copyright infringement.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing [Winstead’s] complaint.
Legal Reasoning Questions
1. Which expressions of an original work are protected by copyright law?
2. Is all copying copyright infringement? If not, what is the test for determining whether a creative work has been unlawfully copied?
3. How did the court in this case determine whether the defendant’s work infringed on the plaintiff ’s copyright?
