Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Substantial similarity

Substantial similarity is a core doctrine in United States copyright law that assesses whether an allegedly infringing work copies a substantial portion of a copyrighted work's protected expression, thereby constituting infringement.^[1] To establish infringement absent direct evidence of copying, courts typically require proof of the defendant's access to the original work and substantial similarity between the two.^[2] This test ensures that only unauthorized appropriations of creative expression—not mere ideas, facts, or functional elements—are actionable, aligning with the constitutional mandate to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The modern framework for substantial similarity originated in the 1946 Second Circuit case Arnstein v. Porter, where Judge Jerome Frank articulated a two-prong analysis distinguishing between factual copying and its improper appropriation in terms of quality and quantity.^[3] This approach evolved from earlier precedents, such as Judge Learned Hand's abstraction test in Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. (1930), which laid the groundwork for separating unprotectable ideas from protectable expression across levels of generality in literary works.^[4] Over time, the doctrine has been refined through federal circuit courts, with variations applied to different media like music, software, and visual arts, reflecting the need to balance authorial rights against fair use and independent creation.^[5] In practice, many courts, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, employ a bifurcated extrinsic-intrinsic test for substantial similarity, first articulated in Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1977).^[1] The extrinsic test involves an objective dissection of the works' protectable elements—such as plot structure, character traits, or specific sequences—often aided by expert testimony to filter out unprotectable components.^[6] If this threshold is met, the intrinsic test follows, subjectively evaluating whether an ordinary reasonable observer would perceive the total concept and feel of the accused work as substantially similar to the original.^[6] This methodology underscores the doctrine's role in high-profile disputes, from musical compositions to digital interfaces, while adapting to technological advancements.^[7]

Definition and Framework

Core Definition

Substantial similarity serves as the foundational threshold in U.S. copyright law for determining whether an accused work infringes upon an original copyrighted work by copying its protected expression in a manner that is both qualitatively and quantitatively significant, beyond mere trivial or de minimis overlap. This standard evaluates whether the defendant's work appropriates enough of the plaintiff's original material to constitute actionable infringement, focusing on the extent to which protectable elements are reproduced or imitated.^[8]^[5] Central to this analysis is the distinction between unprotectable ideas and protectable expression, as codified in 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), which explicitly excludes ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries from copyright coverage, safeguarding only the original manner in which they are expressed. For example, the broad idea of a plot involving forbidden romance is not copyrightable, but the specific dialogue, character mannerisms, or descriptive sequences used to convey that idea in a literary work are protectable expressions that, if substantially copied, could establish infringement.^[9]^[10] The doctrine of substantial similarity originated in the 19th-century case Folsom v. Marsh (1841), where Justice Joseph Story articulated that infringement arises when "so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another," with courts required to consider "the nature and objects of the selections" made from the original work.^[11] This concept directly ties into the statutory framework of copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 106, which vests copyright owners with exclusive rights to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords, prepare derivative works, and distribute copies to the public; infringement occurs, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 501, when these rights are violated through unauthorized reproduction or use of a substantial portion of the protected expression.^[12]^[13]

Role in Copyright Infringement

In copyright infringement litigation under U.S. law, establishing a prima facie case requires the plaintiff to demonstrate two essential elements: ownership of a valid copyright in the original work and actionable copying by the defendant.^[14] Actionable copying is inferred either through direct evidence or, more commonly, circumstantial evidence consisting of the defendant's access to the plaintiff's work and substantial similarity between the works, which serves as proof that the copying was improper and exceeded fair use or other limitations.^[14] Independent creation by the defendant can negate the inference of copying, shifting the burden back to the plaintiff to provide direct evidence.^[15] Substantial similarity distinguishes infringement claims from those involving literal copying, as it specifically addresses non-literal appropriation where the defendant has altered or paraphrased the original expression without reproducing it verbatim.^[16] For instance, this doctrine applies when the defendant's work captures the protected elements of the original through modified structure, sequence, or stylistic choices, rather than exact duplication, ensuring that copyright protects against derivative uses that undermine the original's market value.^[17] The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show that the defendant's work is substantially similar to the protectable elements of the original, excluding unprotectable ideas, facts, or scènes à faire, after which the defendant may rebut the claim by asserting affirmative defenses such as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, de minimis copying, or independent creation.^[18] If substantial similarity is established and no valid defense applies, courts may impose remedies including injunctive relief to halt further infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 502, actual damages plus the defendant's profits or statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 per infringed work (up to $150,000 for willful infringement) under 17 U.S.C. § 504, and awards of costs and attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.^[19]^[20]^[21]

Analytical Approaches

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Tests

The intrinsic and extrinsic tests form a two-part framework developed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to assess substantial similarity in copyright infringement cases, distinguishing between objective and subjective evaluations of works.^[22] This approach originated in Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977), where the court separated the analysis into an "extrinsic" test for ideas (analytical dissection) and an "intrinsic" test for expression (intuitive impression), ensuring that only protectable elements are compared while respecting the idea-expression dichotomy.^[22]^[23] The extrinsic test is an objective standard applied by the court, involving a detailed dissection of the works to identify and compare specific protectable elements, such as plot structure, character traits, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, and pacing, while filtering out unprotectable components.^[6] Unprotectable elements include general ideas, which are not copyrightable under the merger doctrine—where an idea merges inseparably with its expression, leaving no room for independent creation—and scenes à faire, which are standard or indispensable stock elements common to a genre, such as predictable plot devices in adventure stories or archetypal character behaviors.^[6] Expert testimony may assist in this dissection to highlight objective similarities in protectable expression, but the court must ultimately determine as a matter of law whether sufficient similarity exists to proceed.^[6]^[22] If the extrinsic test is satisfied, the intrinsic test follows, evaluating substantial similarity subjectively from the perspective of the ordinary reasonable observer, who views the works as a whole without analytical breakdown.^[6] This test focuses on the "total concept and feel" of the works, assessing whether the defendant's expression captures the expressive essence of the plaintiff's in a way that would mislead the audience, emphasizing intuitive elements like overall aesthetic impression rather than isolated components.^[6] Typically reserved for the jury, the intrinsic test relies on lay perceptions and is particularly relevant for audiovisual or creative works, such as the children's television characters at issue in Krofft, where the court found McDonald's commercials evoked a substantially similar whimsical, magical feel.^[22] This sequence ensures meritless claims are screened early by the judge, while genuine disputes over expressive similarity reach fact-finders.^[6]

Striking Similarity

The doctrine of striking similarity, sometimes termed "probative similarity," permits a copyright plaintiff to infer copying—and thus establish the access element of infringement—when two works exhibit resemblances so distinctive and egregious that independent creation becomes implausible. This evidentiary shortcut arises in scenarios where direct evidence of access is unavailable, shifting the burden by compelling the conclusion that the defendant's work derived from the plaintiff's copyrighted material. Courts apply this doctrine cautiously, recognizing it as a rare but powerful tool to bridge gaps in proof, particularly when similarities extend beyond common ideas to unique expressions.^[24] Key criteria for invoking striking similarity emphasize the rarity and improbability of the resemblances, such as identical factual errors, distinctive phrases, or coincidences that defy random occurrence. For instance, shared typographical mistakes in maps or texts, or verbatim replication of idiosyncratic wording, signal derivation rather than coincidence. In Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997), the court held that the defendant's stuffed pig toy replicated the plaintiff's "Squealer" Beanie Baby in highly specific, non-public-domain features—like pose, coloration, and stitching patterns—precluding independent creation and inferring access despite denials.^[25] Such elements must be both qualitatively unique and sufficiently comprehensive to outweigh defenses of originality. The doctrine traces its historical basis to early twentieth-century precedents, including Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936), where the court inferred deliberate plagiarism from "undisguised" plot sequences, dialogue echoes, and scene structures between the play Dishonored Lady and the film Letty Lynton, deeming these resemblances too extensive for coincidence even amid access disputes. This approach solidified the principle that overt, web-like copying in expressive elements suffices to support infringement findings without exhaustive access tracing.^[26] Despite its utility, striking similarity does not obviate the need for substantial similarity in protectable aspects of the work; it merely aids in proving factual copying as a preliminary step, after which courts assess originality and infringement under frameworks like the intrinsic test for overall impression.^[27]

Established Tests

Total Concept and Feel Test

The total concept and feel test evaluates substantial similarity in copyrighted works by assessing the overall impression they convey to an ordinary observer, focusing on elements such as theme, setting, characters, and pacing.^[28] This approach serves as a variant of the intrinsic test, which relies on subjective audience perception rather than analytical dissection, and it complements the extrinsic test by addressing non-literal copying in audiovisual and literary works.^[29] The test originated in Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970), where the court examined greeting cards for infringement based on their cumulative expressive effect, determining that the defendant's cards replicated the "total concept and feel" of the plaintiff's through combined verbal and pictorial elements.^[28] In that case, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court finding of no infringement, emphasizing that individual components alone might not infringe, but their holistic arrangement could.^[28] The test has been applied in the Second Circuit for non-literal copying, as seen in Eden Toys, Inc. v. Marshall Field & Co., 675 F.2d 498 (2d Cir. 1982), where the court compared stuffed snowman toy designs and found no infringement despite superficial resemblances, because the overall concepts and feels differed substantially in expression.^[30] This application underscores the test's role in protecting original expressions in visual and character-based works without extending to mere ideas.^[30] Critics argue that the test's reliance on subjective impressions introduces vagueness, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes across cases.^[29] Additionally, its broad holistic focus risks overprotecting unprotectable ideas if courts fail to distinguish them from protectable expression, though limitations ensure it applies only to original creative choices.^[29]

Pattern or Sequence Test

The Pattern or Sequence Test assesses protectable "patterns or sequences of events" in literary and dramatic works that demonstrate originality beyond stock tropes or general ideas, serving as a component of the extrinsic analysis in copyright infringement claims. In Berkic v. Crichton, the Ninth Circuit applied this test to compare a plaintiff's 1968 screenplay treatment, Reincarnation, Inc., with defendant Michael Crichton's 1978 novel and film Coma, focusing on whether the arrangement of incidents constituted protectable expression rather than unoriginal plot concepts. The court emphasized that copyright protects the specific, concrete sequence of events and their interrelation, not broad themes like medical conspiracies, holding that no substantial similarity existed due to differences in event ordering and character development.^[31] For a sequence to qualify as protectable under this test, it must be detailed and non-generic, forming a unique chain of incidents that reflects the author's creative choices in narrative progression, rather than isolated scenes or predictable developments common to the genre. Courts require evidence of an original ordering that goes beyond mere coincidence, such as a distinctive progression of plot points tied to character actions, to establish infringement. This criterion ensures that only expressive elements eligible for copyright—those involving minimal creativity in arrangement—are considered, excluding functional or inevitable sequences inherent to the story type.^[31] The test's application, while prominently developed in the Ninth Circuit, has influenced approaches in other jurisdictions, including extensions to screenplays and novels where originality in event ordering is key to proving copying of protected structure. In literary works, courts dissect the narrative flow to identify if the defendant's version mirrors the plaintiff's in a way that appropriates the creative sequencing, as seen in evaluations of plot timelines and incident linkages without relying on subjective impressions. This objective focus aids in distinguishing permissible inspiration from unlawful duplication in dramatic storytelling.^[31] A key limitation of the Pattern or Sequence Test is its exclusion of scènes à faire, which are standard plot devices or genre conventions that no single author can claim exclusively, thereby preventing overbroad monopoly on narrative forms. For instance, routine elements like investigative discoveries or climactic confrontations in thriller novels are filtered out, allowing only novel combinations to support an infringement finding and preserving access to shared literary building blocks.^[32]

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test

The Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) test is a structured analytical framework used to determine substantial similarity in cases of alleged non-literal copying, particularly in complex works such as computer software, where infringement may involve structural or organizational elements rather than verbatim replication. Developed to address the limitations of earlier approaches like the single-expression/single-idea dichotomy in Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., the test systematically dissects works to isolate protectable expression from unprotectable components.^[33] The test consists of three sequential steps. First, in the abstraction phase, the court identifies and separates the work into successive layers of abstraction, ranging from high-level purpose or function (e.g., the overall goal of a program to manage data) down to more detailed concrete expressions (e.g., specific algorithms or code modules). This step draws on Professor Pamela Samuelson's levels-of-abstraction model to reveal the underlying structure without conflating idea and expression. Second, during filtration, unprotectable elements are sifted out, including ideas, processes, facts, elements in the public domain, standard or stock components (scènes à faire), and instances where idea and expression have merged such that only one form of expression exists. Merger occurs when the idea can be expressed in limited ways, rendering the expression unprotectable to avoid monopolizing the idea. Finally, in the comparison phase, the remaining "core of protectable expression" is compared between the original and accused works to assess whether the defendant's work is substantially similar to this kernel, focusing on whether the protected elements were copied. This process emphasizes a technical, objective dissection to isolate protectable code snippets or structures.^[33] The AFC test originated in the landmark case of Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992, where it was applied to evaluate claims of non-literal infringement in job-scheduling software. In that decision, the court reversed a district court ruling that had overly broadly protected program structure, establishing the AFC as the prevailing standard for software copyright cases and influencing numerous federal circuits, including the Tenth in Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd. (1993). Its filtration step bears resemblance to the extrinsic test used in general copyright analysis for dissecting protectable elements.^[33] The test has been extended beyond pure software to other complex compilations, such as databases and multimedia works. For instance, in CCC Information Services, Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc. (2d Cir. 1994), the Second Circuit applied the AFC to a database of used-car valuation information, filtering out unprotectable facts and methods of compilation while protecting the creative selection and arrangement. Similarly, in Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc. (1st Cir. 1995), the framework informed analysis of a spreadsheet program's menu command hierarchy, treated as a functional structure akin to a database interface, though the court ultimately deemed it a non-copyrightable method of operation. These applications underscore the test's adaptability to digital and multimedia contexts where structure and organization predominate.^[34]^[35]

Evolving Doctrines and Applications

Inverse Ratio Rule

The inverse ratio rule, a doctrine unique to the Ninth Circuit, posited that when strong evidence of a defendant's access to the plaintiff's copyrighted work was established, the threshold for proving substantial similarity could be lowered, thereby easing the plaintiff's burden in copyright infringement cases.^[36] This approach was prominently articulated in Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, where the court applied the rule to affirm a jury verdict finding that Michael Bolton's song "Love Is a Wonderful Thing" infringed the Isley Brothers' earlier composition of the same name, relying on evidence of widespread access to the original through radio play and sales to reduce the required showing of similarity.^[36] The rule stemmed from earlier Ninth Circuit precedents and aimed to account for the likelihood of copying in scenarios of high exposure, though it was not codified in the Copyright Act.^[37] The doctrine faced mounting criticism for lacking statutory basis, distorting the objective inquiry into copying, and unfairly burdening defendants, particularly in the music industry where access to popular works is often presumed.^[37] In 2020, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit overruled the inverse ratio rule in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, holding it "illogical and contrary to the Copyright Act," as access and substantial similarity are distinct elements that should not inversely affect evidentiary standards.^[37] The court in Skidmore affirmed noninfringement of the copyright in the instrumental "Taurus" by Spirit against Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven," emphasizing that proof of substantial similarity must remain rigorous irrespective of access evidence.^[37] The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari later that year, solidifying the Ninth Circuit's rejection.^[38] As of 2025, the inverse ratio rule stands abandoned in the Ninth Circuit and was never widely adopted in other federal circuits, which have consistently declined to embrace it in favor of uniform standards for substantial similarity.^[37] Courts now mandate consistent, objective proof of substantial similarity across all cases, without relaxation based on access, aligning infringement analysis more closely with the Copyright Act's requirements.^[39] This shift bolsters protections for defendants, especially in music copyright disputes, by refocusing litigation on empirical comparisons of protected elements rather than presumptions from access alone, thereby reducing the risk of erroneous findings of infringement in high-exposure contexts.^[39]

Jurisdictional Variations

In the United States, the application of the substantial similarity doctrine in copyright infringement cases varies across federal circuits, reflecting different emphases on analytical frameworks and evidentiary standards.^[40] These jurisdictional differences arise from circuit-specific precedents that interpret the core requirement of proving that the defendant's work copies protected expression from the plaintiff's work in a way that is qualitatively or quantitatively significant.^[41] The Second Circuit employs the ordinary observer test, which evaluates whether an average layperson would recognize the alleged copy as having appropriated the "total concept and feel" of the original, including elements like theme, characters, plot, sequence, pace, and setting, after filtering out unprotectable material.^[40] This approach emphasizes a holistic, subjective impression but incorporates objective dissection to exclude unprotected elements such as ideas, facts, or common tropes.^[41] Post-Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai refinements have integrated an abstraction-filtration-comparison method, particularly for software and technical works, where courts first abstract the work's structure, filter out non-protectable components like functional elements, and then compare the remaining core of protectable expression.^[42] In contrast, the Ninth Circuit utilizes a two-part extrinsic-intrinsic test for substantial similarity, as established in Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., where the extrinsic test objectively dissects and compares protectable expression by filtering unprotectable elements, while the intrinsic test subjectively gauges the "total concept and feel" from an ordinary observer's perspective.^[42] The circuit has abandoned the inverse ratio rule, which once relaxed the similarity threshold based on high access, following Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, Inc., thereby requiring robust evidence of similarity regardless of access. It places strong emphasis on excluding scènes à faire—standard, stock elements inevitable to a genre or idea, such as common plot devices in adventure stories—during the extrinsic phase to ensure only original expression is compared.^[23]^[43] The Eleventh Circuit adheres to a reasonable jury standard for assessing substantial similarity, particularly in the intrinsic evaluation of overall impression, as illustrated in Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., where the court determined that a lay jury could reasonably find infringement based on visual and conceptual similarities between Cabbage Patch Kids dolls and Garbage Pail Kids stickers without needing expert dissection for non-technical works.^[44] This approach relies on side-by-side comparison by an average observer, allowing juries broad discretion to weigh protectable elements against the works' holistic resemblance.^[42] Despite these variations, trends toward harmonization have emerged through Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the idea-expression dichotomy, such as Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., which clarified that facts and ideas remain uncopyrightable, prompting circuits to consistently exclude such elements from similarity analyses and reinforcing uniform limits on protection for raw data or functional components.^[45]^[41]

Recent Developments in Case Law

In recent years, the doctrine of substantial similarity has evolved through key music copyright decisions that have clarified the role of access in infringement analyses. The Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin (2020) rejected the inverse ratio rule, which had previously allowed courts to reduce the required showing of substantial similarity when access to the original work was strongly proven. The court held that access and substantial similarity must each be proven independently, emphasizing a rigorous application of the extrinsic and intrinsic tests to protectable elements without easing the burden based on presumed copying.^[46] This shift influenced subsequent rulings, including an amended opinion in Williams v. Gaye (2020), where the Ninth Circuit upheld a jury's finding of infringement between "Blurred Lines" and Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" based solely on substantial similarity in protectable musical elements like basslines and keyboard riffs, without referencing the now-abrogated inverse ratio rule. The Sixth Circuit, like most other circuits, has not adopted or applied the inverse ratio rule, though earlier cases have considered access evidence to support inferences of copying where direct proof is lacking.^[47] These developments have standardized the extrinsic test's focus on objective similarities in musical structure, while cautioning against overprotecting unoriginal "groove" or style elements. In 2024, the Southern District of New York ruled in Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Ed Sheeran that Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" did not infringe Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On," as common chord progressions are unprotectable ideas, not substantially similar expression.^[48] In the realm of artificial intelligence and copyright, ongoing litigation has highlighted the challenges of applying substantial similarity to generative outputs. The class-action suit Andersen v. Stability AI (N.D. Cal., filed 2023) alleges that Stability AI's Stable Diffusion model infringes artists' copyrights by training on unauthorized copies of their works and generating substantially similar images. In denying parts of the defendants' motion to dismiss in October 2023, the court ruled that plaintiffs must demonstrate substantial similarity between specific AI-generated outputs and their original inputs, rather than relying solely on the ingestion of training data as evidence of copying.^[49] This emphasizes demonstrable reproduction of protectable elements in the final outputs, applying the extrinsic test to filter non-infringing aspects like general styles or prompts. As of November 2025, the case remains ongoing, with trial scheduled for September 2026 and discovery focusing on traceability from training datasets to generated art, underscoring filtration difficulties in AI contexts where outputs may remix multiple sources without direct one-to-one copying.^[50] The U.S. Copyright Office's January 2025 report on artificial intelligence further clarified that AI-generated works lacking substantial human authorship are ineligible for copyright, but infringement claims require proof of substantial similarity to protected human-created elements in AI outputs.^[51] Recent visual arts cases have reinforced the extrinsic test's application to character designs and photographic elements. In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (2d Cir. 2021), the Second Circuit found substantial similarity between Lynn Goldsmith's 1981 photograph of Prince and Warhol's series of silkscreen portraits, applying a "more discerning ordinary observer" standard to identify copying of protectable details such as shading, pose, and facial expression after filtering out unprotectable ideas like the subject's likeness. The court held that even transformative alterations do not preclude infringement if core expressive elements are substantially replicated, a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2023 on fair use grounds but preserving the similarity analysis for character-driven visuals. This decision has implications for comic book and film character designs, requiring dissection of unique visual traits beyond generic tropes to establish infringement.

References

[1]
Substantial Similarity: Glossary - Research Guides
Oct 20, 2025 · Substantial similarity is a level of similarity showing improper appropriation of a work, a requirement for a copyright infringement claim.
[2]
MILLER v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. - Law.Cornell.Edu
Since there is often no direct evidence of copying, it is ordinarily established by proving access to the copyrighted material and substantial similarity ...
[3]
The Questionable Origins of the Copyright Infringement Analysis
Central to modern copyright law is its test for determining infringement, famously developed by Judge Jerome Frank in the landmark case of Arnstein v. Porter.
[4]
Substantial Similarity: Nichols - Research Guides
Oct 20, 2025 · Judge Learned Hand laid out his famous “abstraction test” to help find the line between a work's unprotectable ideas and its protectable ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[5]
[PDF] Judging Similarity - UC Berkeley Law
Substantial similarity in copyright law requires a court to determine if a defendant's copying is quantitatively and qualitatively enough to be actionable, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[6]
17.19 Substantial Similarity—Extrinsic Test; Intrinsic Test
The court employs a two-part test for determining whether one work is substantially similar to another.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[7]
An Empirical Study of Copyright's Substantial Similarity Test
The substantial similarity test is copyright law's dominant means by which courts determine whether a party has infringed another party's copyright rights.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[8]
Successfully Defending Copyright Infringement Suits
Feb 1, 2009 · Substantial similarity has both qualitative and quantitative aspects. Thus, to prove substantial similarity, a plaintiff must show that the ...
[9]
17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.Missing: similarity | Show results with:similarity
[10]
Copyright Infringement and Substantial Similarity - LegalZoom
Rating 4.6 (25,459) Feb 9, 2023 · Substantial similarity is not a defense at all but rather a test that courts use to determine whether or not an alleged new work actually copies ...
[11]
Folsom v. Marsh (D. Mass. 1841) - Justia Law
If so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent ...Missing: similarity | Show results with:similarity
[12]
17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
### Text of 17 U.S.C. § 106
[13]
Chapter 5: Copyright Infringement and Remedies
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A ...
[14]
17.17 Copying—Access and Substantial Similarity | Model Jury ...
A presumption of copying arises if the plaintiff proves that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that there is a substantial similarity ...
[15]
Fundamentals of Copyright Protection | Insights - Venable LLP
Jan 1, 1998 · 17 U.S.C. § 412. To establish a prima facie claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove two basic elements: (a) ownership of a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
[PDF] Computers, Copyright and Substantial Similarity
Id. This comment discusses the sub- stantial similarity test for copyright infringement as applied to the non-literal elements of a computer program.
[17]
"Reframing Similarity Analysis in Copyright" by Kevin J. Hickey
Copyright law lacks a coherent method to determine non-literal infringement. The core inquiry, “substantial similarity,” purports to assess whether two ...
[18]
Substantial Similarity: Overview - Research Guides
Oct 20, 2025 · Substantial similarity is a level of similarity that shows improper appropriation of the plaintiff's work, one of the requirements for a prima facie ...
[19]
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#502
[20]
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
[21]
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#505
[22]
[PDF] Sid-Marty-Krofft-Television-v.-McDonalds.pdf - Copyright Alliance
If there is substantial similarity in ideas, then the trier of fact must decide whether there is substantial similarity in the expressions of the ideas so as to ...
[23]
[PDF] Substantial Similarity in the Ninth Circuit
spell out the extrinsic-intrinsic analysis of substantial similarity in Sid. & Marty Krofft TV Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corporation.39. Referring to ...
[24]
[PDF] Proving Copyright Infringement Using the Strikingly Similar Doctrine
5 1 After a prima facie showing of ownership ... access and substantial similarity are crucial and distinct elements to every copyright infringement claim.
[25]
Ty, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Gma Accessories, Inc. and Paul Harris ...
GMA's pig is strikingly similar to Ty's pig but not to anything in the public domain--a real pig, for example, which is why we have included in our appendix a ...
[26]
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation, 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir ...
The suit is to enjoin the performance of the picture play, "Letty Lynton," as an infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrighted play, "Dishonored Lady." The ...
[27]
[PDF] Proving Copyright Infringement: Will Striking Similarity Make Your ...
"Reduced to most fundamental terms, there are only two elements necessary to the plaintiff's case in an infringement action: ownership of the copy- right by the ...
[28]
INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE v. ASSOCIATED PRESS. | US Law
The parties are competitors in the gathering and distribution of news and its publication for profit in newspapers throughout the United States.
[29]
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. | 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
Id. § 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is ...
[30]
HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, INC. and the Reader's Digest ...
Petitioners brought a successful copyright action against The Nation. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court's finding of infringement, holding ...
[31]
misappropriation | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The misappropriation doctrine seeks to "protect something of value not otherwise covered by patent or copyright law, trade secret law, breach of confidential ...
[32]
Roth Greeting Cards, Appellant, v. United Card Company, an Illinois ...
Roth brought this suit against United to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for copyright infringement of seven studio greeting cards.
[33]
[PDF] Getting a "Total Concept and Feel" of Copyright Infringement
definition of 'substantial similarity' in this circuit is 'whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from ...
[34]
Eden Toys, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Marshall Field & Company ...
While the two snowmen are roughly the same size, their "total concept and feel" are substantially different. See Warner Brothers v. American Broadcasting ...
[35]
Ted Berkic, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Michael Crichton, Robin Cook ...
On July 1, 1983, the district court dismissed the copyright claim as time-barred to the extent that it was based on actions occurring more than three years ...Missing: pattern | Show results with:pattern
[36]
Grounding the Scènes à Faire Doctrine - Houston Law Review
Dec 11, 2023 · The scènes à faire doctrine is one of several “limiting principles” judges apply during the infringement analysis to limit the scope of protection for certain ...
[37]
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 ...
CA asserts that the test applied by the district court failed to account sufficiently for a computer program's non-literal elements. Second, CA maintains that ...
[38]
Ccc Information Services, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Maclean Hunter ...
The appellant, publisher of a compendium of its projections of used car valuations, seeks to establish copyright infringement on the part of a competitor.Missing: filtration- | Show results with:filtration-
[39]
Lotus Development Corporation, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Borland ...
In particular, we must decide whether, as the district court held, plaintiff-appellee Lotus Development Corporation's copyright in Lotus 1-2-3, a computer ...
[40]
Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000)
A jury found that Michael Bolton's 1991 pop hit, "Love Is a Wonderful Thing," infringed on the copyright of a 1964 Isley Brothers' song of the same name.
[41]
[PDF] Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Mar 9, 2020 · A, joining the majority of circuits, the en banc court rejected the inverse ratio rule, which requires a lower standard of proof of substantial.
[42]
Docket for 20-142 - Supreme Court
Michael Skidmore, as Trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, Petitioner v. Led Zeppelin, et al. ... Petition DENIED. Oct 30 2020, Petition for Rehearing ...
[43]
Stairway to Harmonization: The Future of the Inverse Ratio Rule ...
May 13, 2020 · ” In its 2000 decision Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, the Ninth Circuit more clearly articulated the inverse-ratio rule as “requiring a ...
[44]
Substantial similarity in copyright | DLA Piper
Substantial similarity in copyright: It matters where you sue · and dismiss on the basis that, as a matter of law, the two works are not substantially similar.
[45]
[PDF] Substantial Similarity and Junk Science: Reconstructing the Test of ...
As the standard of copyright infringement, “substantial similarity” is an ambiguous concept that produces unpredictable decisions often inimical to the purposes ...
[46]
[PDF] Tests for Substantial Similarity
SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW. 3–38. Page 39. In Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's. Corp., the Ninth Circuit held that ...
[47]
[PDF] THE FILTRATION PROBLEM IN COPYRIGHT'S “SUBSTANTIAL ...
Jun 13, 2019 · The filtration problem is the difficulty of separating unprotectable ideas from protected expression in copyright infringement, as they are ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[48]
Original Appalachian Artworks v. Topps Chewing Gum, 642 F. Supp ...
... substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the defendant's work. ... The Eleventh and Fifth Circuits have interpreted § 1114(1) as presently ...
[49]
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin - Harvard Law Review
Feb 10, 2021 · The en banc Ninth Circuit established that the scope of copyright in unpublished musical works registered under the 1909 Act is limited to their deposit copies.
[50]
[PDF] How Inconsistencies Within the Circumstancial Evidence Analysis ...
Dec 30, 2023 · Both elements—qualitative and quantitative—must be present to ... After successfully demonstrating substantial similarity, a copyright.<|separator|>
[51]
Copyright Litigation: Substantial Similarity | Practical Law The Journal
Jul 1, 2024 · Copyright Litigation: Substantial Similarity. A discussion of how courts compare works for purposes of evaluating copyright infringement claims, ...
[52]
Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. | Loeb & Loeb LLP
Oct 30, 2023 · Turning to the substance of plaintiffs' copyright allegations, the court denied Stability's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for direct ...
[53]
Takeaways from the Andersen v. Stability AI Copyright Case
Aug 12, 2024 · The order makes clear that generative AI models are unlike any technologies at the center of major copyright disputes in the past.