Warner v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

Background

Gabrielle S. Warner sued Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Content Services, LLC, Animal Kingdom, LLC, Big Indie Pictures, Inc., Mariama Diallo, and DialloGiallo, Inc. She alleged that their screenplay, Master, infringed her screenplay, The Board. Warner asserted claims for declaratory relief, direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement.

Warner alleged that she created The Board, registered it with the United States Copyright Office and the Writers Guild of America, West, and shared it with students and an instructor in a 2005 writing class. She claimed that Master was “strikingly similar” to The Board, identifying 35 alleged similarities. The works both involved Black college students, old college campuses, haunted dormitory spaces, ghost-related legends, library research, and characters affected by sexual assault, among other asserted similarities.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court treated the factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and considered the screenplays because they were incorporated into the amended complaint.

Court’s Analysis

To state a direct copyright-infringement claim, Warner had to plausibly allege ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized copying of original, protected elements. Defendants did not challenge Warner’s ownership for purposes of the motion. The court focused on whether Warner adequately alleged access and substantial similarity.

The court held that Warner did not adequately plead access. Her allegation that she shared the screenplay with as many as 16 people did not show that the work was widely disseminated, commercially successful, or readily available on the market. Warner also did not allege a connection between anyone in the writing class and any Defendant. The court rejected copyright registration itself as evidence of access and found that the alleged path from the writing class to Defendants was speculative.

The court separately held that the works were not substantially similar. Copyright protects an author’s particular expression, not general ideas, themes, character traits, or standard scenes that naturally follow from a genre or setting. The court found that the screenplays differed substantially in plot, sequence, pace, and setting. The Board involved a student at a historically Black university who communicates with a ghost and ultimately helps clear the ghost’s name, while Master focused on a student and a professor confronting racism at a majority-white college, ending with the student’s suicide and the professor’s departure.

The court also found no substantial similarity in the characters, themes, or overall concept and feel. The shared name “Jasmine Moore,” the presence of Black college students, haunted-campus elements, student housing, library research, and other identified features did not establish similarity in protectible expression. The court also concluded that several asserted similarities were standard elements of college or horror stories and therefore not protected by copyright.

Because Warner failed to plausibly plead direct infringement, the court dismissed the contributory and vicarious infringement claims. The court also denied declaratory relief.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss with prejudice. It granted the motion without leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile because the screenplays themselves were fixed and could not be changed. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.