Oppenheim v. Goldberg

Background

Gabriel R. Oppenheim alleged that Samuel R. Goldberg and Ilan Ulmer unlawfully copied his works to create “DCU: Deep Crime Unit,” a television series about a police scuba team in Japan. Oppenheim alleged that he developed an earlier concept called “Crime Divers: NY,” including a show idea, emails, and a one-page treatment describing an NYPD scuba team that solved cases. He alleged that Goldberg had promised him compensation or an ownership share, but that negotiations over a written agreement stalled in March 2014.

According to the amended complaint, Goldberg later shared the concept with Ulmer. They recruited a writer, sold the show to Facet4 Media, and participated in arrangements that led to its production in Japan. The series premiered in January 2022. Oppenheim alleged that DCU copied his work and that he was not credited or compensated.

Oppenheim asserted eight counts: direct copyright infringement, three forms of secondary copyright infringement, breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The defendants moved to dismiss the entire amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim for relief.

Copyright Claims

The court dismissed Count One, the direct copyright-infringement claim. It explained that copyright protects original expression, not ideas, facts, processes, or standard elements of a genre. The court found that many features Oppenheim identified—including an elite law-enforcement team solving crimes, a dark crime-show theme, and the team’s selection and rapid travel—were standard ideas or themes that copyright law does not protect.

The court also found that many specific details in Oppenheim’s treatment were facts about the NYPD Scuba Team drawn from an article that Oppenheim had sent to Goldberg. The court stated that discovering or selecting facts does not make those facts copyrightable. It recognized that a creative arrangement of otherwise unprotected facts can receive limited copyright protection, but concluded that Oppenheim had not adequately alleged an original compilation and, in any event, would have only a thin copyright requiring very close copying.

The court separately held that Oppenheim’s works and DCU were not substantially similar. Oppenheim’s concept was set in Brooklyn, while DCU was set in Japan. Oppenheim’s materials did not identify specific characters and contained few plot details, while DCU included a full cast, character arcs, and nine episodes with developed plots and subplots. The court concluded that similarities such as both works involving crime-solving scuba teams or bomb threats before major events were broad ideas or premises, not substantial similarity in protected expression.

Because the direct-infringement claim failed, the court also dismissed Counts Two through Four, which alleged secondary copyright infringement. The court stated that secondary infringement cannot exist without actual direct infringement.

State-Law Claims

The court dismissed Oppenheim’s breach-of-contract claim because he did not sufficiently allege that the parties had reached an agreement. The allegations and attached emails showed discussions about compensation and ownership, but did not establish agreement on material terms, including the amount Oppenheim would receive. The court characterized the allegations as, at most, an agreement to agree, which is not actionable under New York law.

The court dismissed the tortious-interference claim as preempted by the Copyright Act. Preemption means that federal copyright law displaces a state-law claim when the claim concerns copyrightable subject matter and seeks rights equivalent to the rights protected by copyright. The court also stated that the claim would fail independently because Oppenheim did not allege a pre-existing business relationship with the third parties involved in producing or distributing DCU.

The court likewise dismissed the conversion and unjust-enrichment claims as preempted. It determined that those claims were based on the same alleged unauthorized publication, copying, distribution, and exploitation of Oppenheim’s works as his copyright claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Oppenheim asked for permission to file a second amended complaint. The court denied that request because it concluded that amendment would be futile. The court relied on the lack of protectable material, the substantial differences between Oppenheim’s works and DCU, the inadequately alleged contract, and the preemption of the remaining state-law claims. It also noted that Oppenheim had already amended his complaint after receiving notice of the defendants’ arguments.

Judge Oetken granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied Oppenheim’s request to file a second amended complaint, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice and to close the case.