Preliminary Injunction

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
the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,
and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, an injunction should issue if
Plaintiffs show “serious questions going to the merits” and a “balance of hardships
that tips sharply towards the plaintiff[s],” so long as they also show “that there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.”
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).
A. Plaintiffs Will Prevail On Their Copyright Infringement Claim.
To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show (1) ownership of
a valid copyright and (2) violation by the defendant of “at least one exclusive right
granted to copyright holders” under 17 U.S.C. § 106. A&M Records, Inc. v.
Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). One of the exclusive Section
106 rights reserved to the copyright holder is the right to make and authorize others
to make derivative works, otherwise known as the adaptation right. See
17 U.S.C. § 106(2); Twin Peaks Prods. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366,
1373 (2d Cir. 1993). See generally 2 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.09 (“the right to
make derivative works, i.e., the adaptation right”).
Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based
upon one or more preexisting works, such as a … motion picture version … or any
other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” 17 U.S.C.
§ 101 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court established more than a century ago
that a motion picture version of a book infringes the author’s copyright. See Kalem
Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55, 62-63 (1911) (affirming injunction prohibiting
defendant from distributing the silent film Ben Hur, which was based on the Lew
Wallace novel Ben Hur). It is now hornbook law that “[a]n unauthorized
dramatization of a novel clearly constitutes an infringement of the adaptation
right.” 2 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.09; accord Twentieth Century-Fox Film
Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 1983) (where defendant’s work
-5-
Memorandum ISO Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction