Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mcgee v. Andre Benjamin 3000 (copyright, D. Mass. 2012)

Mcgee v. Andre Benjamin 3000 (copyright, D. Mass. 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 623|Likes:
Published by gesmer

More info:

Published by: gesmer on Jul 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/08/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSTIMOTHY McGEE,))Plaintiff,))CIVIL ACTION NO.v.)08-11818-DPW) ANDRÉ BENJAMIN 3000, THE CARTOON)NETWORK, and TURNER BROADCASTING)SYSTEMS, INC.,))Defendants.)MEMORANDUM AND ORDERMarch 20, 2012This copyright action arises out of a treatment for ananimated television series developed by Plaintiff Timothy McGeeand unsuccessfully pitched to Defendant The Cartoon Network(“Cartoon Network”) in 1997. Nearly ten years later, CartoonNetwork aired
Class of 3000
, which was co-created and co-producedby Thomas Lynch and Defendant André Benjamin. Alleging thatBenjamin, Cartoon Network, and its parent company, DefendantTurner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. (“TBS”), copied his cartoontreatment, McGee filed suit against the defendants for copyrightinfringement and various state law claims. Defendants CartoonNetwork and TBS have moved to dismiss, and McGee has filedseveral motions to amend the complaint and two motions to enforcean earlier discovery order. For the following reasons, I willgrant the defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny McGee’s motions.
 
1
In a submission before oral argument, McGee soughtguidance on how properly to serve Benjamin and a Georgia companycalled Moxie Turtle, Inc., which is involved in the production of
Class of 3000
. Neither Benjamin nor Moxie Turtle were properlyserved in this action. According to his submission, in January2008 McGee tasked his attorney with serving both Benjamin andMoxie Turtle, but the attorney failed to do so. McGee hassubmitted more than 100 pages of correspondence with his attorneyto demonstrate his good faith effort to serve Benjamin. However,under Local Rule 4.1 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m)and 6(b), McGee’s opportunity to serve Benjamin or extend thetime to do so for good cause had long expired by the time of oralargument. Thus, McGee’s claims against Benjamin will bedismissed on alternative grounds of failure to effect service.McGee was given leave to amend his complaint on April 9, 2009 toadd Moxie Turtle as a defendant, but McGee never filed his First Amended Complaint. Thus, Moxie Turtle is not properly subject tothis suit. In any event, even if McGee had properly servedBenjamin with his First Amended Complaint adding Moxie Turtle,McGee’s claims would still fail for the substantive reasonsdiscussed below in this Memorandum.2
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Timothy McGee is a resident of Massachusetts, butat times relevant to this action was an animation and graphicdesign student in Georgia. Cartoon Network and TBS(collectively, the “defendants”) are the only defendants who havebeen served properly in this action. The other named defendant, André “André 3000” Benjamin, is an Atlanta native and musicalartist/entrepreneur who is perhaps best known as half of the hiphop duo Outkast.
1
Cartoon Network and TBS both have principalplaces of business in Georgia. A.The Allegedly Infringed Work:
The Music Factory of the 90’s
In approximately 1997, McGee “developed characters, artwork,storylines, re-use (movie/internet) and marketing concepts” for
 
2
In the television and film industries, a “treatment” is along-form outline that is written to describe the plot and styleof a show. It is generally written in the present tense, as ifthe author is walking through the show step by step and hedescribes the scenes and dialog.
3
A second treatment, included as Exhibit A to the McGee’sbriefing but not identified in the Amended Complaint, lays outadditional episode summaries and characters.3an animated serial work titled “The Music Factory of the 90’s[
sic
]” (the “
Music Factory 
”). McGee registered three copyrightsfor work related to the
Music Factory 
: the original eight-pagetreatment,
2
Reg. No. VAu 218-1729, effective May 6, 1997; anupdated treatment, Reg. No. VAu 416-298, effective January 23,1998; and additional drawings and two pages of text, Reg. No. Vau440-850, effective May 27, 1998. The only copyrighted workallegedly infringed by the defendants in the Amended Complaint isNo. 218-1729, which includes (1) letters to several productioncompanies pitching
Music Factory 
, (2) various articles discussingmarketing of cartoons and spin-off merchandise, (3) samplecontract language regarding ancillary merchandising, (4) a“Synopsis/OUTLINE/TREATMENT”
 
for
Music Factory 
in the form of aletter pitch, (5) character sketches with accompanying textdescribing the characters, and (6) a script of a proposed pilotepisode entitled “The Birth of the Factory.”
3
McGee’s “story format is based on the cartoon (
Fat-Albertand the Cosby Kids
) format, where at the end of each show thecartoon characters had a sing-a-long for that day [
sic
] lesson.”

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->