## Facts

- Gary D. Blehm, a commercial artist, created and registered copyrighted black-and-white posters (1989–1993) featuring hundreds of “Penmen” cartoon figures arranged in rows with consistent spacing, often with interactive scenes and “find the matching figure” themes.
- The Penmen share a simple visual style, including round heads, large smiles, long legs, large feet, and a generally upbeat tone.
- The Jacobs brothers and related entities marketed “Life is Good” merchandise featuring “Jake,” a simple stick-figure-style cartoon character used on apparel and products.
- Blehm alleged Life is Good personnel had access to his posters through Boston-area retail displays and that multiple Jake depictions infringed his copyrighted Penmen works.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Life is Good on the ground that the works were not substantially similar.
- On appeal, the court assumed (for purposes of analysis) access and copying and addressed whether any copying reached protectable expression.

## Issues

1. Whether Life is Good’s Jake images are substantially similar to the protectable elements of Blehm’s copyrighted Penmen posters.
2. Whether the similarities identified by Blehm reflect protected expression or instead unprotectable ideas, stock features, and scènes à faire associated with simple cartoon figures.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Life is Good.
- The court held that, even assuming copying, the works were not substantially similar in protected elements.
- The court concluded the overlapping features (e.g., round head, broad smile, simple limbs, cheerful mood, common poses) were unprotectable ideas or commonplace design elements.
- The court found the protectable expressive aspects of Blehm’s works—dense poster composition, arrangement, and detailed interactions among many nearly uniform figures—were not appropriated by Jake depictions, which typically featured a single prominent character on merchandise.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects original expression, not ideas, themes, or common elements; generalized optimism or cheerfulness is not protectable expression.
- In substantial-similarity analysis, courts must filter out unprotectable material (ideas, stock elements, scènes à faire, and commonplace design choices) and compare only the remaining protectable expression.
- “Copying alone is not infringement”; liability requires copying of protected expression, not merely borrowing unprotectable ideas or standard features.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity as to protectable elements.

## Conclusion

The court held that the asserted similarities between the Penmen and Jake concerned unprotectable ideas and common cartoon features, and that the works differed materially in protected expressive choices and overall composition; therefore, Life is Good was not liable for copyright infringement and summary judgment was properly affirmed.


Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012)