Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company

Background

David Louis Whitehead, representing himself, sued The Walt Disney Company, Hulu, and National Geographic Corporation, alleging primarily that they copied three copyrighted works concerning singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin: “My Aretha,” “Aretha,” and “Aretha IT.” He alleged that the defendants’ series “Genius Aretha” copied events, performances, dialogue, characters, and sequences from those works.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a report recommending that the motion be granted, the claims be dismissed with prejudice, and Whitehead be denied permission to amend. Whitehead objected and filed several additional motions seeking, among other things, to add factual material and challenge the report.

Court’s analysis

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full. It reviewed Whitehead’s objections under the standards applicable to objections to a magistrate judge’s report and, because Whitehead was representing himself, read his filings with special consideration. The court nevertheless concluded that new factual assertions and materials raised after the motion-to-dismiss briefing were not properly before it and could not be used to supplement the complaint.

For a copyright-infringement claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must plausibly allege ownership of a valid copyright and copying of protected material. Copying may be inferred from the defendant’s access to the work and substantial similarity between the works.

The court agreed that Whitehead had not plausibly alleged access. His complaint described outreach to people in the entertainment industry, including a 2017 email exchange with Hulu employees, but did not allege that an agent or another person actually submitted the works to Hulu. The court also concluded that the additional facts Whitehead raised in his objections—such as sales of another work mentioning “My Aretha,” earlier submissions to Universal Pictures, endorsements, and interest from other individuals—did not show that the defendants had a realistic opportunity to see the copyrighted works. The court stated that corporate receipt of a work alone was insufficient and noted Hulu’s policy against accepting unsolicited submissions.

The court also agreed that Whitehead had not plausibly alleged “striking similarity,” meaning a similarity strong enough to support an inference of copying despite the lack of adequate proof of access. The court declined to rely on a later-filed list of alleged similarities that was not properly part of the motion-to-dismiss record. It added that even if those allegations were considered, they would not change the result.

Rulings

The court held that Whitehead failed to state a copyright-infringement claim because he had not adequately alleged access or striking similarity. It dismissed the copyright claim with prejudice. It also dismissed with prejudice the remaining claims, including claims under the Lanham Act and various state laws. The court denied Whitehead permission to amend, finding that amendment would be futile.

The court imposed an anti-filing injunction, a restriction requiring advance court permission before certain future filings. From the date of the order, Whitehead was barred from filing in any United States district court an action, motion, petition, complaint, or request for relief against The Walt Disney Company, Hulu, LLC, or National Geographic Partners, LLC relating to or arising from allegations that “Genius Aretha” infringed his works, unless he first obtained permission from the court. The request for permission had to use the specified caption and be submitted with the proposed filing to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The injunction did not bar an appeal to the Second Circuit.

The court also ruled on Whitehead’s other pending motions: some motions seeking to add material were denied as moot; the second motions for reconsideration were denied as procedurally improper; the sanctions motion was denied as moot and on the merits; the motion involving an additional list of similarities was denied, with related motions denied as moot; and the motion to amend the pleadings was denied. The court entered final judgment for the defendants and closed the case.