Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc. - 883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018)
Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc. - 883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018)
To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must plausibly
allege two things: (1) that he owns a valid copyright, and; (2) that the
alleged infringer copied protected aspects of the copyright. The second
element has two distinct components: copying and unlawful appropriation.
Proof of copying by a defendant is necessary because independent creation is
a complete defense to copyright infringement. No matter how similar the
plaintiff's and the defendant's works are, if the defendant created his
independently, without knowledge of or exposure to the plaintiff's work, the
defendant is not liable for infringement. Proof of unlawful appropriation,
that is, illicit copying, is necessary because copyright law does not forbid
all copying. (READ
MORE: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-rentmeester-v-nike-inc.)
To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must plausibly
allege two things: (1) that he owns a valid copyright, and; (2) that the
alleged infringer copied protected aspects of the copyright. The second
element has two distinct components: copying and unlawful appropriation.
Proof of copying by a defendant is necessary because independent creation is
a complete defense to copyright infringement. No matter how similar the
plaintiff's and the defendant's works are, if the defendant created his
independently, without knowledge of or exposure to the plaintiff's work, the
defendant is not liable for infringement. Proof of unlawful appropriation,
that is, illicit copying, is necessary because copyright law does not forbid
all copying. (READ
MORE: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-rentmeester-v-nike-inc.)
A panel of the court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. The
court held that while the photographs at issue shared similarities in general
ideas or concepts, Rentmeester did not plausibly allege that his photo and the
Nike photo were substantially similar under the extrinsic test because there
were differences in selection and arrangement of elements, as reflected in the
photos' objective details. Such differences, the court ruled, precluded as a
matter of law a finding of infringement. Nike's photographer made choices
regarding selection and arrangement that produced an image unmistakably
different from Rentmeester's photograph in material details, disparities that
no ordinary observer of the two works would be disposed to overlook. The
Jumpman logo also was not substantially similar to Rentmeester's photo, the
court ruled. (READ
MORE: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-rentmeester-v-nike-inc.)
