Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

It’s All in the Expression: Judge says, “Disturbia” Not Substantially Similar to “Rear Window”

Published onDec 25, 2010
It’s All in the Expression: Judge says, “Disturbia” Not Substantially Similar to “Rear Window”

On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, New York District Court Judge Laura T. Swain ruled that Steven Spielberg’s “Disturbia” did not infringe Sheldon Abend Revocable  Trust’s (“the Trust”) copyright in the short story “Rear Window.”   On May 28, 2009, pursuant to a joint stipulation, the Trust’s claims concerning the substantial similarity between “Disturbia” and the film version of “Rear Window” were dismissed.

 In order for a plaintiff to establish a viable copyright infringement claim, he must establish ownership of a valid copyright and copying of protected elements of his work. Typically, ownership is a nonissue because it is easily established by producing some sort of registration certificate. The issue usually lies in the infringement prong.  Notwithstanding direct evidence of copying, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has access to the plaintiff’s work and that there was a substantial similarity between the protectable elements in the works. This was the issue in the Spielberg case.

Generally, to show substantial similarity, a court looks at “whether an ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the] aesthetic appeal as the same.”   Summary judgment is appropriate where only the non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiff’s work are similar or where no reasonably jury could find that the two works are substantially similar. After reviewing both “Disturbia” and “Rear Window,” the court found that summary judgment was appropriate as a matter of law.

In a nutshell, both works follow a protagonist who, because of his confinement to his house, begins to spy on his neighbors. As a result of this voyeurism, both protagonists come to suspect his neighbor of murder. Each protagonist enlists help in the form of one or more friends, is eventually confronted by the neighbor, and is ultimately vindicated after proving that neighbor is actually a murderer. Notwithstanding these similarities, the protagonists’ difference in age, the overall development of the main plots as well as the existence of subplots in “Disturbia” serve as distinguishing factors between the two disputed works. Further, “Disturbia”  is set in a house in suburban California, while “Rear Window” is set in a New York City apartment.

The court, in looking at the two works as a whole, held that Spielberg’s expression of the characters as well as the plot development clearly distinguishes the total concept and feel of Spielberg’s “Disturbia” from “Rear Window.”  The court first pointed out that the “law of copyright only protects an author’s particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself.”  Looking at the two works, the court explained that the expression of the broad “voyeur-suspicion-peril-vindication plot idea” is distinguishable in both works.  Even when focusing on the pure similarities of the two works, the court found that the similarities were too generic to be protected.   After looking at the similarities, the court also noted the differences between the two works.  The court found significant differences in the depth of character and plot development, the setting, and the time span over which each story developed.   The court explained that these differences outweighed the similarities, and that it would not be appropriate to find a copyright infringement.

To the average viewer, this court’s ruling may be a little surprising, if not a little confusing.  After all, how much more similar can two works be? Both movies are about a man who spies on his neighbors and begins to suspect one of the neighbors of murder! However, the key to understanding the court’s holding is knowing that mere similarity simply is not enough. The rationale for this heightened standard is rooted in a desire to protect the free flow of ideas among artists.  Thus, while the expression of one’s ideas is protected, the actual idea is not. It is not so much about the idea of having the “voyeur-suspicion-peril-vindication plot,” it is about the expression of that idea. In looking at the expression, one must analyze the differences and similarities in the characters, depth of the plot development, existence of subplots, time span, mood, tone, etc… One must parse through the broad areas of similarity to get to the heart of the expression. In so doing, the average viewer may come to see that while something may appear on its face to be similar, upon actual inspection, it is not.

*Tierryicah Mitchell is a second-year law student at Wake Forest University School of Law and is Secretary of the Black Law Student’s Association. She holds a Bachelor of Arts and Science in Political Science and History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Upon graduation in 2012, Ms. Mitchell plans to work for the federal government.

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?