Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California · Property

PropertyCopyrightCharactersSubstantial SimilarityPreliminary InjunctionFair UseJames Bondfilm character copyright

Facts

Plaintiffs owned registered copyrights in sixteen James Bond films and claimed rights in the James Bond character as expressed and delineated in those films. Defendants produced and aired a Honda del Sol commercial showing a suave male hero and a woman in a sports car escaping a grotesque villain in a helicopter by using the car's detachable roof. The commercial development included references such as "James Bob," and casting requests sought "James Bond"-type actors. Plaintiffs alleged that the commercial copied both protected James Bond film sequences and the Bond character, while defendants claimed the ad depicted only generic action-film elements and was independently created.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their copyright infringement claim so as to justify a preliminary injunction against the Honda commercial, and whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs lacked protectable rights or because the commercial was not substantially similar as a matter of law. The court also considered whether defendants' fair use and independent creation defenses defeated plaintiffs' claim.

Rule

To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show ownership of a copyright and copying of a substantial, legally protectable portion of the work. Copying may be shown circumstantially through access and substantial similarity, with substantial similarity evaluated under both an objective extrinsic test and a subjective intrinsic test. A copyright in a film series protects significant characters as expressed and delineated in those films, and once a copyright holder shows likelihood of success based on access and substantial similarity, irreparable harm is presumed for preliminary injunction purposes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Silver Harbor Studios owns copyrights in fourteen films featuring detective Adrian Vale, who is consistently portrayed as an impeccably dressed, dry-witted investigator with a signature silver lighter, unusual calm under danger, and a pattern of solving cases through elegant improvisation. A watch company in Miami releases a commercial featuring a similarly styled hero with those same recurring traits, and argues that Silver Harbor cannot sue because other producers lawfully made two unrelated Adrian Vale films decades earlier.

Under the majority opinion's reasoning, which is the strongest response to the watch company's argument?

Explanation. The opinion distinguishes ownership of a character in the abstract from ownership of the character as expressed and delineated in the plaintiff's copyrighted films. It held that a copyright owner of a film series may have protectable rights in significant characters portrayed there, even if unrelated productions also used the same general character. The key is ownership of the protected expression embodied in the plaintiff's films, not exclusive ownership of every manifestation of the character everywhere. (Derived from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (n.d.).)