Anderson V. Stallone - Case Background

Case Background

In June 1982, after viewing the movie Rocky III, Anderson wrote a treatment for Rocky IV. According to Anderson's complaint filed with the court, in October 1982, Anderson met with Art Linkletter, a member of MGM's Board of Directors, at his Bel Air home; with Freddy Fields, then-president of MGM/UA at his Culver City office; and also had meetings during the Summer of 1983 with then-Board Chairman Frank Yablans and MGM/UA Vice President Peter Bart. During the meetings, they discussed using Anderson's script for Rocky IV. Anderson claimed that MGM told him that if they used his script he would be paid a large sum of money. Anderson also met with Stallone in May 1983 at Stallone's Paramount Pictures office in a meeting arranged and attended by then-Deputy White House Chief of Staff Michael Deaver.

The case was argued before District Judge Keller of the Central District of California. The Court concluded that the Defendants are entitled to their motion for summary judgment because Anderson's script is an infringing work not entitled to copyright protection.

The Court determined that the characters from the original movies were afforded copyright protection, using a standard borrowed from Judge Learned Hand in Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation. The key to the standard is that copyright protection is afforded when a character is developed with enough specificity to constitute protectable expression.

It was strikingly clear to the Court that Anderson's work was a derivative work; that under 17 U.S.C. section 106(2) derivative works are the exclusive privilege of the copyright holder (Stallone, in this case); and that since Anderson's work is unauthorized, no part of it can be given protection.

Anderson attempted to argue that Congressional history of 17 U.S.C. section 103(a) indicates that Congress intended non-infringing portions of derivative works to be protected. The Court disagreed, citing legal scholarship (Professors Melville Nimmer and David Nimmer) and case law interpretations of 103(a).