Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones

Background

Ralph W. Baker Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X. Kendi, and 95 other individuals and entities under the Copyright Act. Baker alleged that publications and derivative works by Hannah-Jones and Kendi infringed his copyright in his autobiographical work, Shock Exchange: How Inner-City Kids from Brooklyn Predicted the Great Recession and the Pain Ahead. He also described the other defendants as “agents” and appeared to assert claims for contributory copyright infringement, which concerns assisting or encouraging another person’s infringement.

The court explained that a copyright-infringement complaint must plausibly allege ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original, protected elements. Copyright does not protect ideas, facts, or standard elements of a work. A plaintiff generally must also show access to the work and substantial similarity between protected material in the two works.

Possible reasons for dismissal

The court first said that Baker’s claims might be barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations period. Baker filed this case on November 16, 2024, but his complaint stated that Hannah-Jones wrote The 1619 Project in 2019 and described that work as widely publicized. The court ordered Baker to explain why some or all of his claims should not be considered untimely under the applicable discovery rule.

The court also said that the claims against Hannah-Jones and Kendi likely failed because Baker relied on elements that are not protected by copyright, including his alleged “rhythmic prose and tedious talk.” Even assuming Shock Exchange contained protected elements, the court found that Baker’s side-by-side comparisons appeared to show major differences in the works’ content, overall concept, feel, plot, themes, and pacing. The court gave as an example Baker’s comparison of a passage about W.E.B. Du Bois’s writings and economic conditions in Farmville, Virginia, with a passage about Hannah-Jones’s father’s family as sharecroppers in Greenwood, Mississippi.

The court further stated that the claims against many of the remaining defendants likely failed. Contributory infringement requires knowledge of infringement and conduct that induces, causes, or materially contributes to it. The court said Baker’s complaint did not identify specific connections between many defendants and the alleged copying, and described allegations against educational institutions, media companies, publishers, and entertainment companies as conclusory.

The court also noted that Baker may have been trying to relitigate copyright claims involving publications by one current defendant. It said those claims might be barred by issue preclusion, a rule that prevents parties from relitigating an issue of law or fact that was fully and fairly decided in an earlier proceeding. The court referred to an earlier related case involving Baker, in which similar copyright claims were dismissed for failure to plausibly allege substantial similarity and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court did not reproduce the earlier proceeding’s party caption in this order’s ruling.

Finally, the court said Baker’s passing unfair-competition allegations would likely fail as a matter of law because claims alleging misrepresentation of a work’s author are not cognizable under the legal theories identified by the court.

Order

The court ordered Baker to show cause in writing, in a memorandum of no more than 25 pages, by January 9, 2025, why the complaint should not be dismissed in whole or in part. The court warned that if Baker did not respond or filed nothing by the deadline, it might dismiss the action in whole or in part without further notice. The opinion therefore issued an order to explain, not a final dismissal.