Case 1:23-cv-24437-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`WRIGHT et al,
`
`- against –
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:23-cv-24437-BB
`
`THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND
`U N I N C O R P O R AT E D A S S O C I AT I O N S
`IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,
`
`Defendants,
`
`MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRICTION ORDER
`
`
`
`Defendants wowcugi (Doe No. 360 in Schedule A, hereafter “Deo 360”), by and through
`
`the counsel undersigned, hereby requests that this Court dissolve the Temporary Restriction
`
`Order [DE 15] granted for Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Entry of TRO, PI and Order
`
`Restraining Transfer of Assets and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [DE 10] (“Motion for
`
`TRO” hereafter) and states as follows:
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`“The standard for obtaining a TRO is the same as the standard for obtaining a preliminary
`
`
`
`injunction.” See Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir.
`
`2001). Thus, the objections to the TRO here shall apply to the motion for preliminary injunction
`
`portion of this Motion.
`
`
`
`Factors a movant must show to be entitled to a TRO include: "(1) a substantial likelihood
`
`of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) the
`
`
`
`Page ! of !1 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-24437-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 2 of 6
`
`threatened injury outweighs the harm the TRO would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the TRO
`
`would serve the public interest." Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
`
`II. ARGUMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAWS
`
`A. Probability of Success on the Merits of Plaintiffs’ Claims.
`
`
`
`In Dubay v. King, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1330, 1336 (M.D. Fla. 2019), the court explained the
`
`doctrine of scènes à faire as follows:
`
`In addition to non-original works and broad ideas, noncopyrightable material includes
`scènes à faire, which are stock scenes or, " ‘sequences of events which necessarily follow
`from a common theme,’ or ‘incidents, characters of settings that are indispensable or
`standard in the treatment of a given topic.’ " Peter Letterese and Assoc. , 533 F.3d at 1302
`(quoting Herzog , 193 F.3d at 1248 ). See, e.g.Herzog , 193 F.3d at 1262 (holding that
`characters in a murder mystery who keep secrets are not protectable); Williams v. Crichton
`, 84 F.3d 581, 588 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding figures of muscular superheroes in fighting
`poses are examples of scènes à faire ); Beal , 20 F.3d at 463 (noting that in all works
`involving courtship and marriage have a wedding, usually towards the end of the work);
`Walker
`
` v. Time Life Films, Inc. , 784 F.2d 44, 50 (2d Cir. 1986) (concluding no protection for "drunks,
`prostitutes, vermin, and derelict cars," as well as "foot chases and the morale problems of
`policemen, not to mention the familiar figure of the Irish cop" as they are common elements in
`police fiction); Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos. , 654 F.2d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 1981)
`(observing that the fact that both heroes fight villains is nothing more "than the classic theme of
`good versus evil”).Dubay v. King, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1330, 1336 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs accused that Defendant Doe 360 infringed their copyrights with the comparison
`
`as follows:
`
`
`Doe 360
`
`V 1-153-915
`
`Figure 1: Alleged Infringement of V 1-153-915.
`
`See DE 009-009, p. 203. See V 1-153-915 at DE 1-
`1, p. 3.
`
`
`
`Page ! of !2 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-24437-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`In Figure 1, Plaintiffs’ copyrighted picture is merely a stock scene of a fish, similar to
`
`“figures of muscular superheros in fighting poses.” Id. It is a non-copyrightable scènes à faire.
`
`Id. “[C]opyright law balances an author's ‘[r]ight to their original expression,’ while still
`
`'encourage[ing] others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by the work.’
`
`Feist , 499 U.S. at 349-350, 111 S.Ct. 1282.” Id., at 1336.
`
`
`
`Similar to no copyright to the statute, in Leigh v. Warner Brothers, Inc., 212 F.3d 1210,
`
`1214 (11th Cir. 2000), the court held that “Leigh’s copyright does not cover the appearance of
`
`the statue itself or of Bonaventure Cemetery, for Leigh has no rights in the statue or its setting.”
`
`
`
`A comparison of Doe 360’s enlarged image with the copyrighted V 1-153-915 (“915
`
`Copyright”) is as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2: Comparison of Doe 360’s Images Alleged and Plaintiff’s Copyright V 1-153-915. 1
`
`
`
`From the comparison above, we are able to tell many different details, among the others:
`
`In Doe 360’s see bass portion, the mouth is less wide than that in 915 Copyright;
`1.
`2. The lower jaw of the bass in 915 Copyright is more protruding than that in Doe 360;
`3. The tail of the fish in 915 Copyright twisted more than that in Doe 360;
`
`1
`
` See DE 009-009, p. 203. See V 1-153-915 at DE 1-1, p. 3.
`
`
`
`Page ! of !3 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-24437-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 4 of 6
`
`4. The upper part of the tail in Doe 360 is bigger than that in 915 Copyright;
`5. The see waves under the fish are different;
`6. The see bass in Doe 360 is attempting to eat a small fish, which 915 Copyright does not
`have it;
`7. There is another small see bass swimming around the big one in Doe 360 and no in 915
`
`Copyright;
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s 915 Copyright is based on realistic see bass fish image and in the nature, all
`
`sea bass fish looks similar. For example:
`
`Figure 5: A Wall Eye Fish Picture via a Random
`Search of “See Bass” on Google.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6: A See Bass Fish Picture via a Random
`Search of “See Bass Fish” on Google.
`
`In addition, in the instant case, Mr. Wright used the mere picture of an isolated fish to
`
`
`
`
`
`claim copyright, however, in Figure 1, Doe 360 inserted the images of a see bass in the holisitc
`
`picture with a man in the background and the wording of “CAN’T WORK TODAY” and “MY
`
`
`
`Page ! of !4 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-24437-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 5 of 6
`
`ARM IS IN A CAST,” combined with the word “WILLIAM” on the other side of the mug,
`
`engendering a new complete different expression of a fisherman’s sentiment, rather than a
`
`depiction of a wild life.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ above copyright did not convey a clear particular expression of an idea. If yes,
`
`it was about a jumping sea bass. It was the simple conversion of realistic pictures of sea bass fish
`
`into a realistic print or painting.
`
`
`
`“It is an axiom of copyright law that the protection granted to a copyrightable work
`
`extends only to the particular expression of an idea and never to the idea itself.”” Morford v.
`
`Cattelan, Civil Action 21-20039-Civ-Scola, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2023), citing Herzog, 193 F.
`
`3d at 1248.
`
`
`
`In the instant case, Doe 360 used the ingredient of see bass to create an expression of idea
`
`of fisherman’s “can’t do it today.”
`
`
`
`Thus, Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success against Doe 360 is not high.
`
`B. The Relief Sought Serves the Public Interest.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs filed multiple copyright lawsuits in the federal courts of various states. By
`
`googling “Jon Q. Wright copyright infringement,” it is easy to find so many copyright lawsuits
`
`filed by Jon. Q. Wright and his agents, the plaintiffs in the instant case. Converting a wild natural
`
`fish into a realistic painting and print, is no more than a stock scene with certain different
`
`settings. There are no particular expression of ideas expressed in such works. By filing such
`
`lawsuits will not only the burden of the judiciary system, but also the litigating costs of all
`
`defendants, such as the instant case, with 730 defendants involved. It does not serve any public
`
`interest at all.
`
`
`
`Page ! of !5 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-24437-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted on Jan. 16, 2024.
`
`/s/ Jianyin Liu
`FBN: 1007675!
`Jianyin Liu, Esq. Attorney!
`The Law Offices of James Liu, LLC
`15750 SW 92nd Ave Unit 20C
`Palmetto Bay, FL 33157!
`Ph: (305) 209 6188!
`Email: jamesliulaw@gmail.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF GOOD-FAITH CONFERENCE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that prior to the filing of this motion, I have conferred with the
`
`opposing counsel in good-faith and the opposing counsel objects to the entire motion.
`
`/s/ Jianyin Liu
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent to all parties via CM/
`
`ECF on this Jan. 16, 2024.
`
`/s/ Jianyin Liu
`
`
`
`Page ! of !6 6
`
`
`
`