Wilson

Wilson v. Walt Disney Co.

Good Law
123 F. Supp. 3d 1172·2015 WL 5011936·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50406
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 16, 2015Case No. 14-cv-01441-VCCalifornia1,166 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chhabria, J.

ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The cross-motions for summary judgment are denied.

Wilson’s Motion

Wilson contends she should win on summary judgment because the Frozen trailer and The Snowman are so “strikingly similar” that they could not have been created independently. In support of this argument, Wilson primarily cites emails from Disney employees to one another about the similarities between the two works, including one email in which a Disney employee described the works as “strikingly similar.” But the Disney employee appears to have been speaking as a layperson; the employee does not appear to have been using the phrase “strikingly similar” as it is used in copyright law. Nor does the testimony of Wilson’s expert, assuming for purposes of this discussion that it would be admissible at trial, establish as a matter of law that the works are “strikingly similar.” Indeed, a reasonable jury could go either way on whether the Frozen trailer and The Snowman are “substantially similar,” see Doc. No. 39, which by definition prevents a finding that they are “strikingly similar” as a matter of law.

Disney’s Motion

. Because a reasonable jury could go either way…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.