## Facts

- Bradley A. Blakeman created a copyrighted political comedy concept titled *Go November*, described as a farcical story about campaign staffers’ dirty tricks during a presidential race and a romance subplot.
- In October 2006, Blakeman met with Kelsey Grammer and Steven Stark of Grammnet Productions to discuss developing *Go November* into a feature film.
- Defendants later produced and released the motion picture *Swing Vote*, a sentimental, character-driven comedy centered on a father, his daughter, and a local reporter, with a presidential election serving largely as a backdrop.
- Blakeman alleged that defendants used material from *Go November* after gaining access through the development discussions.
- Blakeman asserted overlap including the shared election setting and an ending in which a character casts a decisive vote and the credits roll without revealing the election winner.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Grammnet Productions and Steven Stark based on their alleged role in supplying a film intended for nationwide distribution, including in New York.
2. Whether *Go November* and *Swing Vote* were substantially similar in protectible expression such that a reasonable factfinder could find copyright infringement.

## Decision

- The court denied Grammnet Productions’ and Stark’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion, holding that personal jurisdiction was proper.
- The court converted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion on substantial similarity into a Rule 56 summary judgment motion and allowed supplemental evidence.
- The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the copyright infringement claim, finding no substantial similarity in protectible expression.
- The court granted leave to amend to allow plaintiff to attempt to plead diversity jurisdiction for the remaining state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction may exist where a defendant purposefully participates in supplying a work for nationwide exploitation and can reasonably foresee distribution and alleged injury in the forum state, consistent with the state long-arm statute and due process.
- Copyright infringement requires substantial similarity in protectible expression; general ideas, concepts, and stock elements are not protected.
- In assessing substantial similarity, courts compare themes, plot, characters, sequence of events, and the works’ overall “total concept and feel,” filtering out unprotectible material such as scènes à faire.
- Shared high-level devices (e.g., an election backdrop or an unresolved election outcome) are typically unprotectible absent sufficiently particularized expressive details.

## Conclusion

The court exercised personal jurisdiction over out-of-state production participants tied to nationwide distribution but entered judgment for defendants on the copyright claim because the asserted similarities concerned general election-related ideas and stock devices rather than substantially similar protectible expression.


Blakeman v. Walt Disney Co., 613 F. Supp. 2d 288 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)