Plaintiffs argued that the characters were identifiable based on their colors and emotions, but the court found that the pertinent question was whether the characters were identifiable in comparison to characters from other works. The court next analyzed whether DanielsвЂ™ characters were especially distinctive. In addition, the court found the characters were not widely recognizable, since they were distributed in only two works, the pilot had only 1,400 viewers and the characters had different names in the bible and the pilot.

DanielsвЂ™ happiness character вЂњwakes up each morning with a smile on his face,вЂќ and her sadness character is вЂњprone to doom and gloomвЂќ the court found these traits were not specific enough to make the characters sufficiently delineated. On the other hand, the Moodsters characters were only вЂњlightly sketchedвЂќ in the bible and pilot. James Bond, for example, has character traits that persist through various films and iterations of actors such that his character is вЂњinstantly recognizableвЂќ when he appears. The district court contrasted characters that courts have found sufficiently delineated, including James Bond, Batman, Superman, Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes, with the Moodsters characters in DanielsвЂ™ work.

To be protectable, a character must (1) have вЂњphysical as well as conceptual qualities,вЂќ (2) вЂњbe sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appearsвЂќ and (3) be вЂњespecially distinctive and contain some unique elements of expression.вЂќ While the court was satisfied that plaintiffs met the first element, as the characters were represented visually in the bible and pilot episode, the court found plaintiffs failed to establish the other elements. On defendantsвЂ™ motion to dismiss the complaint, the court analyzed the copyright claims through the Ninth CircuitвЂ™s three-part test for protection of a character separate from the work in which it appears, set forth in the 2015 decision DC Comics v. Plaintiffs did not allege copyright infringement in вЂњThe MoodstersвЂќ as a whole work but in the individual characters. Disney Pixar later developed and released the 2015 film вЂњInside Out,вЂќ which details the story of five anthropomorphized emotions living inside an 11-year-old girlвЂ™s mind and grossed over $850 million globally. Starting in 2006, plaintiffs allegedly pitched the work to Disney several times. published a вЂњbibleвЂќ for вЂњThe MoodstersвЂќ in 2005 and posted the pilot episode on YouTube in 2007. вЂњThe MoodstersвЂќ is a cartoon world designed by Daniels with characters that represent specific emotions designated by color - such as sadness (blue) and anger (red). and others involved in the production of Disney PixarвЂ™s animated film вЂњInside Out.вЂќ Plaintiffs alleged that the movie infringed their copyright in four characters and in the ensemble of characters found in a вЂњbibleвЂќ for a proposed animated television show titled вЂњThe MoodstersвЂќ and a pilot episode posted to YouTube. brought claims for copyright infringement and breach of implied-in-fact contract against the Walt Disney Co. District court holds that вЂњMoodstersвЂќ characters created by child-development expert and allegedly copied in DisneyвЂ™s animated film вЂњInside OutвЂќ were not sufficiently delineated or distinctive to be entitled to copyright protection, and that plaintiffвЂ™s implied-in-fact contract claim fails because she published her idea for вЂњMoodstersвЂќ before allegedly pitching her work to Disney, dismissing plaintiffsвЂ™ claims with partial leave to replead.Дenise Daniels, a child-development expert who has appeared on national television, and plaintiff The Moodsters Co.

Inside out the movie copyright