## Facts

- Denise Daniels and her company developed “The Moodsters,” a set of anthropomorphic characters representing human emotions, described in a 2005 pitchbook and later iterations.
- The Moodsters concept and visual depictions changed over time, including versions portrayed as insect-like figures with glowing antennae and later as bear-like “mood detectives” with hats and capes.
- Daniels pitched The Moodsters materials to multiple companies, including Disney and Pixar, and later sold related products beginning in 2015.
- Pixar released *Inside Out* (2015), featuring five anthropomorphized emotions living inside an 11-year-old girl’s mind.
- Daniels alleged Disney copied her Moodsters characters in *Inside Out* and also claimed Disney was bound by an implied-in-fact contract to pay if it used her pitched ideas.
- The district court dismissed both the copyright and implied-in-fact contract claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and Daniels appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether The Moodsters characters (individually or as an ensemble) were sufficiently distinctive and consistently delineated to be copyrightable.
2. Whether the characters were protectable under the “story being told” test.
3. Whether Daniels plausibly alleged an implied-in-fact contract under California law based on her pitch and disclosure of materials.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the copyright claim.
- The court held The Moodsters were not copyrightable characters because they were “lightly sketched,” varied substantially across iterations, and lacked consistent, identifiable traits and distinct expression.
- The court rejected protection under the “story being told” test, concluding the characters functioned as vehicles within stories rather than constituting the story itself.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the implied-in-fact contract claim because the complaint alleged only conclusory, boilerplate assertions without facts showing mutual assent or an expectation of payment tied to Disney’s use.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protection for a character requires more than an abstract concept; the character must be sufficiently delineated with consistent, identifiable traits and must contain distinctive expressive elements.
- A set of characters is not rendered protectable merely by grouping; an ensemble is not copyrightable where the individual characters are not protectable.
- Under the “story being told” test, a character is protectable only if it constitutes the story itself, not if it is merely a device for telling the story.
- California implied-in-fact contract claims arising from idea submissions require specific factual allegations showing circumstances and conduct evidencing an agreement and an expectation of compensation; conclusory references to industry custom and submission are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal because The Moodsters alleged similarities concerned an unprotectable idea—personified emotions—without stable, distinctive character expression, and because the pitch-based implied contract claim lacked specific facts supporting an agreement or payment expectation.


Daniels v. Walt Disney Co., 958 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020)