## Facts

- William Selby wrote a screenplay titled “Doubletime” based on an idea for a theatrical motion picture.
- Selby registered “Doubletime” with the Writers Guild of America and the U.S. Copyright Office.
- Through his agents, Selby submitted his ideas and screenplay to New Line Cinema Corporation for review and consideration.
- New Line rejected Selby’s submission, but Selby alleged New Line knew he expected compensation and screen credit if his material was used.
- New Line later purchased a different screenplay, “Frequency,” written by Toby Emmerich, and produced and marketed the resulting motion picture.
- Selby sued New Line and Emmerich, alleging (among other claims) that “Frequency” copied his work and that defendants used his material without compensating or crediting him.
- Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion targeting Selby’s Lanham Act claim (reverse passing off) and his California breach of implied-in-fact contract claim, arguing both were preempted by the Copyright Act.

## Issues

1. Whether Selby stated a claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act for “reverse passing off” based on allegations that defendants presented the film as Emmerich’s work while using Selby’s material, or whether the claim was barred by copyright preemption.
2. Whether Selby’s state-law breach of implied-in-fact contract claim, based on an alleged understanding he would be paid and credited if his submission was used, was preempted by the Copyright Act.

## Decision

- The court **denied** the motion to dismiss as to the **Lanham Act** cause of action, holding that Selby’s reverse-passing-off allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage and were not dismissed on preemption grounds.
- The court **granted** the motion to dismiss **with prejudice** as to the **breach of implied-in-fact contract** cause of action, holding that—as pleaded—it was **preempted** by the Copyright Act.
- The ruling addressed only the challenged causes of action on the motion to dismiss; it did not resolve the merits of Selby’s overall claims regarding copying.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright Act preemption under 17 U.S.C. § 301 applies when (1) the work falls within copyright’s subject matter and (2) the state-law right asserted is equivalent to an exclusive right protected by copyright.
- Under Ninth Circuit law, a state-law claim avoids preemption only if it includes an “extra element” that makes it meaningfully different from a claim for unauthorized copying or use of a copyrighted work.
- California recognizes idea-submission contracts in certain circumstances (commonly associated with *Desny v. Wilder*), where liability can be based on a promise to pay for the use of submitted ideas; however, a contract claim may still be preempted if, as pleaded, it does not add a distinct contractual duty beyond the rights protected by copyright.
- Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act can reach “reverse passing off,” where a party allegedly misrepresents another’s creative work as its own in commercial marketing; at the pleading stage, a claim centered on misattribution and marketplace designation of origin may not be dismissed solely as duplicative of copyright rights.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Selby’s Lanham Act reverse passing off theory to proceed past the pleadings but dismissed his implied-in-fact contract claim with prejudice because, as alleged, it asserted rights equivalent to copyright and was therefore preempted by the Copyright Act.


Selby v. New Line Cinema Corp., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (2000)