Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:1189
`
`BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
`Keith J. Wesley (State Bar No. 229276)
`kwesley@bgrfirm.com
`Jonathan L. Gottfried (State Bar No. 282301)
`jgottfried@bgrfirm.com
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 274-7100
`Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
`Attorneys for EVOX Productions, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
`EVOX Productions, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`California Rent-A-Car, Inc.
`& Steve Vahidi,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-08046
`PLAINTIFF EVOX
`PRODUCTIONS, LLC’S
`OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA
`RENT-A-CAR, INC.’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`ADJUDICATION
`
`Judge: Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
`Date:
`June 27, 2016
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Crtrm.: 1600
`Trial Date: January 10, 2017
`
`640979.2
`
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:1190
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`640979.2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................2
`A.
`Title 17 Section 113(c) Does Not Excuse Defendants’
`Infringement............................................................................................2
`1.
`The Plain Language of the Statute Does Not Favor
`Defendants’ Interpretation of Section 113(c)...............................3
`No Case Backs Defendants’ Interpretation of Section
`113(c)............................................................................................4
`The Policies Underlying the Copyright Act Do Not Favor
`Defendants’ Interpretation of Section 113(c)...............................6
`EVOX’s Photos Are Not Derivative Works. ..........................................7
`1.
`EVOX’s Photos Are Not Derivative Works Because the
`Photos Are Entirely or Substantially Based Upon Useful
`Articles..........................................................................................7
`EVOX’s Photos Are Not Derivative Works Because They
`Do Not Recast, Transform or Adapt the Authorship of the
`Cars or Car Parts...........................................................................9
`EVOX’s Photos Are Not Derivative Works Because There
`Are No Preexisting Works in the Photos....................................11
`a.
`The Steering Wheel and Grilles Are Not
`Copyrightable Works. ......................................................12
`Contrary to defendants’ argument, the shape of the
`cars are not subject to copyright.......................................14
`Contrary to defendants’ argument, the trademark
`logos are not subject to copyright. ...................................17
`Even If EVOX’s Photos Were Derivative Works, They Were not
`Unauthorized. Under Section 113(c), EVOX Was Not Required
`to Obtain a License from the Car Manufacturers to Make and
`Distribute Photos of Cars. .....................................................................19
`EVOX’s Photos Are Not Slavish Copies..............................................21
`EVOX Is Not Attempting to Corner the Market on Standard
`Techniques. ...........................................................................................21
`EVOX’s Copyrights Are Not Invalid For Failure to Disclose
`Mandatory Information to the Copyright Office. .................................22
`-i-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:1191
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont'd)
`
`Page
`
`G.
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ Argument, EVOX’s DMCA Claim
`Does Not Fail. .......................................................................................24
`Contrary to Defendants’ Argument, EVOX Has a Basis to
`Recover Direct and Indirect Profits. .....................................................24
`III. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................25
`
`H.
`
`640979.2
`
`-ii-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:1192
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Bryant v. Gordon,
`483 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Ill. 2007) ...........................................................................................5
`
`Chestang v. Yahoo Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-00989-MCE, 2012 WL 3915957 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012).................................18
`
`Chosun Int’l, Inc. v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd.,
`413 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................15
`
`Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Miramax Films Corp.,
`11 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 1998)........................................................................................19
`
`Custom Chrome, Inc. v. Ringer,
`No. CIV. A. 93-2634 (GK), 1995 WL 405690 (D.D.C. June 30, 1995)....................................14
`
`Design Furnishings, Inc. v. Zen Path, LLC,
`No. CIV. 2:10-CV-2765-WB, 2010 WL 5418893 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010)...........................15
`
`Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp.,
`630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980).......................................................................................................14
`
`Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co.,
`697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982)...........................................................................................................7
`
`Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc.,
`122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997)......................................................................................................9
`
`Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer,
`591 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .............................................................................................15, 17
`
`Estate of Magnin v. Commissioner,
`184 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................11
`
`Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.,
`225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)............................................................................................ passim
`
`Fabrica, Inc. v. El Dorado Corp.,
`697 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1983)........................................................................................................8
`
`Fahmy v. Jay-Z,
`835 F. Supp. 2d 783 (C.D. Cal. 2011)........................................................................................24
`
`Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC,
`499 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2007)......................................................................................................11
`-iii-
`640979.2
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:1193
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont'd)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.).......................................................................................................13, 15
`
`Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co.,
`345 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................22, 23
`
`Leicester v. Warner Bros.,
`232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2000)....................................................................................................13
`
`Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.,
`815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016) (Defs.’ Memo. )...........................................................................5
`
`Major v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc.,
`No. 92 CIV. 2826 (PKL), 1992 WL 210115 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 1992) ...........................4, 5, 20
`
`Marascalco v. Fantasy, Inc.,
`953 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1991)......................................................................................................24
`
`Mazer v. Stein,
`347 U.S. 201 (1954) ...................................................................................................................17
`
`McDonald v. K-2 Indus., Inc.,
`108 F. Supp. 3d 135 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) ......................................................................................22
`
`Norris Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp.,
`696 F.2d 918 (11th Cir. 1983)....................................................................................................14
`
`Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`776 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................17
`
`Russ Berrie & Co. v. Jerry Elsner Co.,
`482 F. Supp. 980 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).............................................................................................23
`
`Sadhu Singh Hamdad Trust v. Ajit Newspaper Advert., Mktg. & Commc’ns, Inc.,
`503 F. Supp. 2d 577 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)........................................................................................19
`
`Satava v. Lowry,
`323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003)......................................................................................................22
`
`Schrock v. Learning Curve Int’l, Inc.,
`586 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2009)......................................................................................................21
`
`640979.2
`
`-iv-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:1194
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont'd)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
`977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)................................................................................................6, 18
`
`SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc.,
`117 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)..................................................................................10, 11
`
`Smith & Hawken, Ltd. v. Gardendance, Inc.,
`No. C 04-1664 SBA 2005 WL 1806369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2005) ..................................8
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC v. 17.19 Acres of Prop.,
`627 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2010)......................................................................................................4
`
`Urantia Found. v. Maaherra,
`114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997)......................................................................................................23
`
`Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie’s Costume Co.,
`891 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1989)...................................................................................................8, 23
`
`Wild v. Benchmark Pest Control, Inc.,
`No. 1:15-CV-01876- JLT, 2016 WL 1046925 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016) ..............................5, 6
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................................................................................7, 8, 9, 10, 13
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5) .......................................................................................................................18
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 (2) ..........................................................................................................................15
`
`17 U.S.C. § 113(c)..............................................................................................1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(b) ...........................................................................................................................24
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52(a)......................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) .........................................................................................................................18
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a).........................................................................................................................18
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.10(b).........................................................................................................................8
`
`640979.2
`
`-v-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:1195
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont'd)
`
`Page(s)
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`U.S. Const., Article 1, § 8 ..................................................................................................................6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Compendium of Copyright Office Practices II § 505.03..................................................................15
`
`Compendium of Copyright Office Practices III § 606 .....................................................................19
`
`Compendium of Copyright Office Practices III § 924.2(C) .............................................................16
`
`H.R. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1976)...............................................................................16
`
`2 Patry on Copyright § 3:119.50......................................................................................................10
`
`640979.2
`
`-vi-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:1196
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`For many years, plaintiff EVOX Products, LLC (“EVOX”) and its hundreds
`of employees during the time have incurred substantial time, costs, and effort
`creating, selling, and licensing high-quality, professional photographs of
`automobiles. Without permission or payment, defendants Steve Vahidi and
`California Rent-A-Car, Inc. copied to their website scores of EVOX’s photos.
`Defendants knowingly deleted the copyright information from the photos in order to
`hide their wrongdoing and then made money from the photos by using them to
`attract customers to their rental car business. Defendants’ conduct is straightforward
`copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
`After EVOX objected, defendants did not acknowledge their infringement.
`Instead, via their motion for summary judgment, defendants ask this Court to re-
`write copyright law and overrule Ninth Circuit precedent to accommodate their
`infringement. This Court, bound by clear statutory language, controlling Ninth
`Circuit precedent, and common sense, should summarily reject defendants’
`invitation.
`First, defendants argue that 17 U.S.C. Section 113(c) allows anyone free use
`of an original artistic depiction of a utilitarian product (e.g., a painting of a car or a
`photograph of a table) so long as the depiction is used in conjunction with
`advertising the product. Defendants’ argument is, quite simply, frivolous.
`Defendants’ argument is contrary to the plain language of the statute,
`
`which applies solely to copyrighted works re-produced “in useful
`articles.” In other words, Section 113(c) affords protection to the
`advertiser of a product that has a copyrighted work in the product –
`e.g., a t-shirt with a portrait of Michael Jordan. Section 113(c) is
`wholly inapplicable to use of artistic depictions of products – e.g., a
`painting of a boat.
`
`640979.2
`
`-1-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:1197
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`640979.2
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ argument is contrary to the case law. No court has applied
`Section 113(c) in the way defendants suggest, and defendants’
`interpretation would in effect overrule the Ninth Circuit’s seminal
`decision that confirms that the Copyright Act provides equal protection
`to photographs of useful products. Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225
`F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000).
`Defendants’ argument is contrary to the policies underlying the
`Copyright Act. Defendants’ re-write of the Copyright Act would
`transform a statute designed to protect artists into one that strips artists
`of rights they have held and exercised for generations.
`Second, defendants assert that EVOX’s photographs in particular cannot be
`protected under the Copyright Act because they are (a) unauthorized “derivative
`works” based on the cars they depict, and (b) unoriginal, “slavish” copies of the cars
`they depict. The same assertions were made by the defendant in the Ninth Circuit’s
`Ets-Hokin case. The Ninth Circuit rejected them. Its holding is controlling here.
`And although this Court should not and need not look any further than the binding
`Ets-Hokin opinion, there are alternative grounds to reject defendants’ assertions
`described below.
`Finally, defendants’ contention that the Court should summarily adjudicate
`EVOX’s claim to defendants’ wrongful profits should be rejected because (a) there
`is evidence from which a juror could conclude that defendants profited from their
`infringement and (b) the issue is not yet ripe because defendants have blocked
`relevant discovery.
`In sum, and for the reasons explained below and in EVOX’s concurrent
`motion for summary judgment, defendants’ motion should be denied, and summary
`judgment on liability should be granted in favor of EVOX and against defendants.
`II.
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Title 17 Section 113(c) Does Not Excuse Defendants’ Infringement.
`-2-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:1198
`
`According to defendants, they had a right to use EVOX’s photos under 17
`U.S.C. § 113(c) because that statute allows them to “use even copyrighted
`photographs depicting a useful article as long as used in product advertisements of
`the useful article.” (Defs.’ Memo. at 8:13-15.) Defendants’ argument is wrong, as
`evidenced by the statute’s plain language, by the case law, and by the policies
`underlying the Copyright Act.
`1.
`The Plain Language of the Statute Does Not Favor
`Defendants’ Interpretation of Section 113(c).
`Section 113(c), which is entitled “Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial,
`graphic and sculptural works,” provides in relevant part as follows:
`In the case of a [copyrighted pictorial, graphic or sculptural] work
`lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or
`other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to
`prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs
`of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries
`related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection
`with news reports.
`
`(emphasis added) The statute applies “[i]n the case of a [copyrighted pictorial,
`graphic or sculptural] work lawfully reproduced in useful articles . . .” (emphasis
`added). Section 113(c) is inapplicable to photos (or other artistic depictions) of a
`useful article.
`Here, Defendants simply disregard the plain language of Section 113(c).
`EVOX produces and distributes copyrighted photographs of useful articles (i.e.,
`cars). The portion of Section 113(c) upon which defendants rely has absolutely
`nothing to do with copyrighted works of useful articles – rather the express language
`of the statute deals solely and expressly with copyrighted works contained in useful
`articles.
`For example, if a vodka company lawfully incorporates a copyrighted label as
`part of its bottle via a valid license, then the vodka company as well as others can
`advertise the bottle without violating the Copyright Act. Section 113(c) however
`does not speak to a situation in which a photographer takes a picture of the vodka
`-3-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`640979.2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:1199
`
`bottle. In that situation, the photographer can stop advertisers of vodka bottles (and
`anyone else) from using his photograph without his permission.
`As another example:
`(1) Acme Corp. receives a license from Artist to reproduce one of Artist’s
`paintings on a dinner plate.
`(2) Acme Corp.’s customer displays the plates in its catalog. Of course, in
`the catalog picture, one can see the Artist’s painting that was lawfully
`reproduced thereon.
`(3) Section 113(c) protects Acme Corp.’s customer from any liability to the
`Artist for copyright infringement. The customer can advertise the
`utilitarian product – i.e., the plate – without violating Artist’s rights.
`In contrast, here, the copyrights being asserted – i.e., EVOX’s photos of cars
`– were not reproduced “in” useful articles. EVOX’s photos were not incorporated
`into cars or anything else. They are photographs “of” useful articles and are stand-
`alone works. And it is those stand-alone works that defendants copied. By its plain
`language, Section 113(c) is inapplicable. Nothing in Section 113(c) indicates it is a
`loophole by which artists lose all rights to their original depictions of useful articles.
`That should be the end of defendants’ specious Section 113(c) argument.
`Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC v. 17.19 Acres of Prop., 627 F.3d 1268, 1271 (9th
`Cir. 2010) (“If the plain meaning of the statute is unambiguous, that meaning is
`controlling . . . .”). Nevertheless, even if the plain language were not clear (which it
`is), all other indicators are contrary to Defendants’ interpretation.
`2.
`No Case Backs Defendants’ Interpretation of Section 113(c)
`No court has applied Section 113(c) to photographs of useful articles. This
`court would be the first. Rather, consistent with the language of the statute, cases
`applying Section 113(c) involve copyrighted works in useful articles. For example:
`In Major v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., No. 92 CIV. 2826 (PKL), 1992 WL
`
`210115 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 1992), a photographer licensed a photo to CBS
`Records, which CBS Records placed on the cover of a video package offered
`-4-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`640979.2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:1200
`
`
`
`for sale. Id. at *1. Consequently, there was a work lawfully reproduced in
`useful articles being offered for sale. Sony Records advertised the video
`package in various magazines, and that advertisement included the cover of
`the video package. Id. The photographer claimed copyright infringement,
`and the district court dismissed: “Since the photograph was lawfully
`reproduced as part of the video package cover, plaintiff’s copyright does not
`include the right to ‘prevent the ... display of ... photographs of such articles
`in connection with advertisements ... related to the distribution of such
`articles,’ and his copyright claims must fail.” Id. at *3 (quoting 17 U.S.C.
`§ 113(c)).
`In Bryant v. Gordon, 483 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Ill. 2007), a photographer
`licensed his photos to a company that incorporated them into t-shirts and
`calendars. Id. at 609. Consequently, there was a work lawfully reproduced
`in useful articles being offered for sale. The company then filed for
`bankruptcy, and its assets were purchased by a new company that advertised
`the t-shirts and calendars online for sale. Id. at 612. The photographer
`claimed copyright infringement against the new company, but the district
`court explained that the t-shirts and calendars were useful articles and the
`company “was entitled to depict [them] in order to advertise [them] for sale”
`under 17 U.S.C. § 113(c). Id.
`In both cases, the copyright at issue was incorporated into the useful article.
`In Major, it was a photo incorporated into the cover of a video; in Bryant, it was a
`photo incorporated into a t-shirt and calendar. Here, none of EVOX’s photos were
`incorporated into useful articles. Rather, they are photographs of useful articles.1
`
`1 Defendants rely on Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016)
`(Defs.’ Memo. at 7:20-8:12), but that case does not cite Section 113(c).
`Nonetheless, defendants argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lenz involves
`“fair use” and that Section 113(c) is somehow a spin on fair use (Defs.’ Memo. at
`7:20-8:18). Not only did defendants make that up, but their effort to turn the fair-
`use doctrine into a subsidy for every commercial advertiser to use gratis all photos
`of useful articles is anathema to the doctrine of fair use. See Harper & Row
`Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985) (“The fact that a
`publication was commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor that tends to
`weigh against a finding of fair use. ‘[E]very commercial use of copyrighted
`material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that
`belongs to the owner of the copyright.’ ” (quoting Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal
`City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984)). Defendants also cite Wild v.
`Benchmark Pest Control, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01876- JLT, 2016 WL 1046925 (E.D.
`Cal. Mar. 16, 2016). But, in that case, the district court dismissed a defense under
`Section 113(c) because the defendant had “not pleaded facts to support the assertion
`that the use was exempted pursuant to Section 113(c), such as whether the image
`(footnote continued)
`
`640979.2
`
`-5-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:1201
`
`Furthermore, as mentioned above and described in more detail below, the key
`Ninth Circuit decision in the area of copyrighted photographs of products is Ets-
`Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). In Ets-Hokin, the Ninth
`Circuit detailed the venerable history of protecting photographs under the Copyright
`Act and confirmed that there is nothing different about photographs of products. In
`short, under Ets-Hokin, product photography – like photography of nature or people
`or anything else – is fully protected by the Copyright Act. If this Court were to
`adopt Defendants’ re-write of the plain language of Section 113(c), the Court would
`effectively be overruling Ets-Hokin.
`3.
`The Policies Underlying the Copyright Act Do Not Favor
`Defendants’ Interpretation of Section 113(c).
`The overarching policy of the Copyright Act is to protect the original
`creations of artists and encourage the progress of the arts. U.S. Const., Art. 1,
`sec. 8; see also Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1527 (9th
`Cir. 1992) (“The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for
`an “author’s creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate
`artistic creativity for the general public good.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`Contrary to this purpose, defendants argue that advertisers should be able to freely
`use the original work of artists who are creating new depictions of useful objects.
`Under defendants’ argument, Andy Warhol could not object if the Campbell Soup
`company used his lithographs—without his permission and for free—to advertise its
`products. Or an artist who paints a yacht could not stop the yacht company from
`using, without approval or compensation, the painting as the centerpiece of its ad
`campaign. The law does not so hold. If it did, artists would be deterred, not
`incentivized, to create. See accompanying Declaration of J. Sedlik.
`In sum, Section 113(c) does not allow defendants to (in the words of
`
`was produced in a news report or an article available to the public.” Id. at *4.
`
`640979.2
`
`-6-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:1202
`
`defendant Vahidi) “take any photograph available on the Internet and display it on
`California Rent A Car’s website.” (Dkt. No. 43-5 at 3:4-6.)
`B.
`EVOX’s Photos Are Not Derivative Works.
`Defendants argue that EVOX’s photos are unprotectable because they are
`“derivative” works. (Defs.’ Memo. at 9-18.) That is wrong. A derivative work is
`“a work based upon one or more preexisting works” that are “recast, transformed, or
`adapted.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. This definition has three implications relevant to this
`case: (1) the derivative work must be based on, or substantially derived from, the
`preexisting work, (2) the preexisting work must be recast, transformed or adapted,
`and (3) the preexisting work must, itself, be copyrightable. Defendants must prove
`all three in order to prevail on their motion. None is true with respect to EVOX’s
`photos: EVOX’s photo are not substantially based upon someone else’s
`copyrightable work that was recast, transformed or adapted.
`1.
`EVOX’s Photos Are Not Derivative Works Because the
`Photos Are Entirely or Substantially Based Upon Useful
`Articles.
`A derivative work is “a work based upon one or more preexisting works.”
`17 U.S.C. § 101. The requirement that a derivative work be “based upon” a
`preexisting work means that the derivative work must be “based in whole, or in
`substantial part, upon a pre-existing (or ‘underlying’) work.” 1 Nimmer on
`Copyright § 3.01. “[T]he term derivative work in a technical sense does not refer to
`all works that borrow in any degree from pre-existing works. A work is not
`derivative unless it has substantially copied from a prior work.” Id. See also Eden
`Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27, 32 (2d Cir. 1982),
`superseded on other grounds by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52(a) (describing “derivative
`works” as those “based substantially on pre-existing materials”). Consequently,
`defendants can only prevail on their argument that EVOX’s photos are derivative
`works if they can prove that EVOX’s photos are at least substantially based upon a
`copyrightable work. They cannot do so.
`
`640979.2
`
`-7-
`EVOX’S Opposition to California Rent-A-Car’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-08046-MWF-RAO Document 44 Filed 06/06/16 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:1203
`
`Defendants admit that “each [of EVOX’s photos] are photographs of a useful
`article, namely manufactured vehicles of the brands and models that appear in the
`photographs.” (Defendants’ SSUF (Dkt. No. 43-2) No. 5)) See also Defendants’
`SSUF at 21:1-2 (“Manufactured automobiles in the 149 PHOTOGRAPHS are all
`useful articles as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101.”). The term, “useful article,” has a
`specific meaning under the Copyright Act. It means “an article having an intrinsic
`utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to
`convey information.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. And “[c]opyright does not extend to an
`element of an article if it has any intrinsic utilitarian function.” Smith & Hawken,
`Ltd. v. Gardendance, Inc., No. C 04-1664 SBA, 2005 WL 1806369, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
`July 28, 2005) (citing Fabrica, Inc. v. El Dorado Corp., 697 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir.
`1983)). See also Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie’s Costume Co., 891 F.2d 452, 455 (2d
`Cir. 1989) (“Useful articles standing alone may never be registered.”).
`Consequently, by defendants’ own admission, EVOX’s photos are not substantially
`based upon a copyrightable work—instead, they are based upon useful articles,
`which are not subject to copyright.
`The Ninth Circuit applied this principle in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225
`F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). In that case, the defendant argued that photos of a vodka
`bottle were derivative works because the photos included a pote