Greenspan v. Random House (copyright, D. Mass. 2012)

7/31/2019 Greenspan v. Random House (copyright, D. Mass. 2012)

1/46

1

With the pa rt ies consen t , this case was reass igned to th e un dersigned for all pu rposes,

inclu ding tr ial and th e entry of judgmen t, pu rsu an t to 28 U.S.C. 636 (c).

AARON GREENSPAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-

12000-RBC1

RANDOM HOUSE, INC.,

MEZCO, INC.,

BENJ AMIN MEZRICH,

COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.

a/ k/ a SONY PICTURES

a / k / a COLUMBIA TRISTAR MOTION

PICTURE GROUP,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERON MOTION OF RANDOM

HOUS E, INC., MEZCO, INC., AND

BENJ AMIN MEZRICH TO DIS MIS S

WITH PREJUDICE (# 1 7 ) AND

DEFENDANT

COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES,

INC.S


2/46

2

MOTION TO DIS MIS S COMPLAINT

(# 2 2 )

COLLINGS, U.S .M.J .

I. Int rod uct ion

Events anent the creation of Facebook in 2003-2004 and the

webs ites s u bs equ ent d evelopm ent h ave been th e su bject of a great

dea l of written com m enta ry, a m ovie an d su bs ta n tial lit igat ion. Th is

case, filed seven years after Facebookwas lau nched, is perha ps th e

latest example of this phenomenon.

On Novem ber 18, 201 1, pro s e plaintiff Aaron Greenspan

(Greenspan) filed a five-count complaint seeking damages and

injunctive relief against defendants Random House, Inc. (Random

Hou se), Mezco, In c. (Mezco), Ben jam in Mezrich (Mezrich ), a n d

Colu mb ia P ic tures Indu st r ies , Inc . a / k / a Sony Pic tu res a / k / a

Columbia Tristar Motion Picture Group (collectively, Columbia

Pictu res). Greens pa n , a 2004 gra du at e of Harvard Un iversity, is th e

au th or of a book en tit ledAu thorita s : On e S tud ent's Harvard A d m is s ion s

an d the Foun d ing of the Facebook Era ("Au thorita s "). (#1 16, 26)

Ran dom Hou s e, a New York corporation , is th e pu blish er of a book,


3/46

2

Mezrich is a Mass ach u setts res ident who is a l leged to b e a cont ractor or other agent of

Rand om Hous e, an d is an own er and/ or agent of Mezco. (#1 19 )

3

A Mas sach u setts corporat ion, Mezco is al leged to be a l isted owner of th e copyrights in Th e

Accid en ta l B illion a ires . (#1 18)

3

The Accid en tal Billiona ires : The Foun d ing of Facebook : A Ta le of S ex,

Money , Ge n ius , and Betray a l (The Accid en ta l Billiona ires ), a u th ored

by Mezrich 2 . (#1 2 , 4, 17) According to th e allega tion s of th e

complaint, The Accid en ta l B illiona ires is a n u n a u th orized der iva tive of

[Greenspans] non-fiction bookAu thorita s . (#1 2)

Mezco3 and Random House purportedly sold derivative rights,

including motion picture rights, in The Accidental Billionaires to

Colu m bia Pictu res, a Delawa re corporation registered to do bu siness

in Mass ach u set ts . (#1 3, 20) Colu m bia Pictures m ade an d released

a movie, The S ocial Netw ork (The Film), based on The Accidental

Billion a ires . (#1 3)

As a resu lt of th e defend an ts action s, th e plain tiff h a s a dvan ced

claims of copyright infringement in violation of the United States

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (Count I, II, III), unfair

competition and false advertising in violation of section 42(a) of the

La n h a m Act, 1 5 U.S.C. 112 5(a ) (Coun t IV), an d a st a te la w cla im of


4/46

4

Defend an ts Mezrich, Mezco an d Ran dom Hous e ha ve fi led a motion t o str ike th e exhibits

proffered by the plaintiff (#33) to which Greenspan has filed a response (#34).

4

defamation (Count V).

Defend a n ts Mezrich, Mezco, an d Ran dom Hou se h ave moved to

dism iss with p reju dice all cou n ts of th e com plain t pu rs u an t to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (#17), and have filed a memorandum of law (#18) and

an affidavit (#19) in support of their motion. Defendant Columbia

Pictu res sep a ra tely h a s filed a Rule 1 2(b)(6) m otion (#2 2) togeth er with

a m emora n du m of law (#23 ) an d a n affida vit (#24 ) in su pport th ereof.

The p laint iff ha s su bm it ted a com bined respons e to the defenda nts

dispositive m otions (#29 ) a long with a m emora n du m in law (#29 ) an d

certain exhibits 4 (#2 9 Exh . A-E). With leave ha vin g been gran ted (s ee

Electronic Order en tered 02/ 13/ 12), both Colu m bia Pictures a nd

Mezrich, Mezco a n d Ran dom Hou s e filed rep ly br iefs. (## 39 , 40 ) Ora l

argum ent was heard on Febru ary 16 , 2012, and a t th is ju ncture the

m otions to dism iss ar e rea dy for decision .

II. Th e Fa ct s

According to the allegations of the complaint, while an

u n dergrad u at e at Harvard Un iversity in 20 03, Greens pa n d eveloped an

origin a l website called h ou seSYSTEM with a comp onen t webs ite ca lled


5/46

5

Th e Fa cebook. (#1 23 ) Th erea fter pla in tiffs cla ss m a te, Ma rk

Zu cker ber g (Zu cker ber g"), developed a webs ite, n ow ca lled Faceb ook,

In c. (Faceb ook), wh ich in corpora ted som e of Green sp a n s idea s. (#1

2 3 ) A r esou n din g su cces s a fter it s la u n ch , Zu ckerbergs Fa cebook

h as h u n dred s of m illions of u sers worldwide. (#1 24 ) Greensp an

alleges that Zuckerberg systemically excluded Plaintiff from any

recognition for contributions to his success and from the company

Pla in tiff h a d in directly h elped crea te. (#1 2 5) Moreover, th e

plaintiffs pu blic opp osition to Zu ckerb ergs fa ilu re to a dd res s pr iva cy

an d secu rity problems on Facebook pu rportedly im pa ired Greensp an s

own career prosp ects. (#1 25)

In order to clear the controversy surrounding the origins of

Facebook, Greenspan wrote his memoir, Au thorita s . (#1 26 ) An

attempt to have Au thoritas published by the Doubleday division of

Rand om Hou se was rejected. (#1 28) On J u ne 1, 2008, Greens pan

self-published Au thorita s ; a copyrigh t on th e book h ad been r egistered

in th e plaint iffs n a m e with th e Un ited Sta tes Copyrigh t Office on Apr il

13, 200 8. (#1 29)

Google, In c. (Google) re fu sed to a dvertis eAu thorita s becau se the


6/46

6

su btitle in clu ded th e word Fa cebook, which Google cons idered to be

a tra dem a rk. (#1 3 0) Greens pa n res pond ed by petit ionin g th e United

Sta tes Tra dem a rk Office to ca n cel two of Faceb ooks regist ered

tra dem a rk s for th e term FACEBOOK. (#1 3 0) In May of 20 09 ,

Greenspan, his company Think Computer Corporat ion, Zuckerberg

an d Facebook reach ed a confiden tia l sett lemen t. (#1 31)

At th e end of J u ly, 200 8, defend an t Mezrich conta cted Greensp an

seeking the p laintiffs as sista n ce on a book a bou t th e origin s of

Fa cebook. (#1 32 ) Th e pla in tiff declin ed to help Mezrich, bu t ins tea d

referred h im to the webs ite for Au thorita s . (#1 33 ) On J u ly 14,

200 9, Ran dom Hous e pu blish ed the book pen n ed by Mezrich en tit led

The Accidental Billionaires . (#1 36) Au thorita s was l is ted as a

secondary source in The Accid en ta l Billiona ires . (#1 38 ) Colu m bia

Pictures produced the Film based on The Accidental Billionaires a n d

releas ed it on October 1, 20 10 . (#1 5 5, 61)

All three works, Au thorita s , The Accidental Billionaires a n d t h e

Film, detail certain meetings between Lawrence Summers, former

pres iden t of Harvard Un iversity, an d Harvard s tu den ts. (#1 6 2) In

Au thorita s the meeting described involved the plaintiff while in Th e


7/46

7

Acciden ta l B illion a ires and the Film, the students involved were

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss. (#1 62)

Fur ther facts sh al l be a dded d u rin g the cou rse of the d iscu ss ion

as necessa ry.


8/46

8

III. Th e S t a nd a rd of Review

A Ru le 1 2(b)(6) m otion to dism iss ch a llen ges a pa rtys comp la in t

for fail ing to state a claim. In deciding such a motion, a court must

a ccept a s tr u e all well-plead ed fa cts s et forth in t h e com plaint a n d

dr a w all rea s ona ble in feren ces th erefrom in th e plea der s fa vor.

Haley v. City of Bos ton , 65 7 F.3 d 39 , 46 (1 Cir., 20 11 ) (qu otin gArtus o

v. Vertex Pharm , Inc., 63 7 F.3 d 1, 5 (1 Cir., 2 01 1)). [T]h e com plain t

m u st con ta in su fficient factu a l m at ter . . . to sta te a claim to relief th at

is plausible on its face. Ha ley , 657 F.3d at 46 (quoting As hcroft v.

Iqb a l, 566 U.S. 662, ____, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (further

in tern a l qu otat ions a n d citation om itted ) (a ltera tion in origin a l)). Wh en

cons ider in g a m otion to dism iss , a cou rt m ay au gm ent th ese facts an d

in ferences with da ta p oin ts glean ed from d ocu m ent s incorporated into

the complaint, matters of public record, and facts susceptible to

ju dicia l n ot ice. Haley , 657 F.3d at 46 (cit ing In re Colon ia l Mortg.

Bank ers Corp ., 32 4 F.3 d 1 2, 1 5 (1 Cir., 200 3)).

IV. Di s cus s ion

A. Copyright Infringement

The first three counts of the complaint, claims for copyright


9/46

9

infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious

copyrigh t infringem ent resp ectively, sh all be a ddr ess ed in ta n dem .

To su cceed on a claim of copyrigh t in fringem ent Green sp an m u st

show that (1) he had ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) the

defend an ts copied con stitu ent elem ents of th e work t h at ar e origin al.

Feist Pub lications , Inc. v. Rura l Teleph one S ervice Co., Inc. , 499 U.S.

34 0, 36 1 (19 91 ). Th e pla in tiffs r egis tr a tion ofAu thorita s with th e U.S.

Copyright Office constitutes prima facie evidence of ownership and

origin a lity of th e work a s a wh ole.Joh ns on v. Gord on , 409 F.3d 12, 17

(1 Cir., 20 05 ). Sin ce th e defen da n ts h a ve n ot ch a llen ged the va lidity

of Green spa n s copyright in Au thorita s , the first requirement for a

copyrigh t infrin gem ent cla im is n ot at issu e h ere.

The motions to dismiss address the second requirement, to wit ,

wheth er Green sp an alleges su fficient facts to esta blish , or from which

it cou ld plau sibly be in ferred, th a t th e defend an ts copied h is origin al

work . Th is s econ d elem en t of a copyright infringem en t cla im in volves

a two-step inquiry. Airfram e S y s tem s , Inc. v . L-3 Com m unica tion s

Corp., 658 F.3d 100, 105-06 (1 Cir. , 2011); Situation Management

S y s tem s , Inc. v. ASP. Cons ulting LLC, 560 F.3d 5 3, 58 (1 Cir. , 20 09);


10/46

10

Joh ns on , 409 F.3d a t 18 . As explained b y th e Firs t Circu it , in order to

establish actionable copying:

First , the plaintiff must show that copying

actually occurred. This showing entails proofthat , as a factual matter , the defendant copied

th e plaintiffs copyrigh ted m a terial. Second , th e

plaintiff must establish that the copying is

actionable by proving that the copying of the

copyrighted material was so extensive that i t

rendered the infringing and copyrighted works

su bs ta n tia lly similar .

Joh ns on , 409 F.3d at 18 ( internal ci tat ions and quotat ion marksomitted); Airfram e S y s tem s , 658 F .3d a t 105; S ituation Man agem ent,

560 F .3d a t 58 .

In other words, [n]ot all factual copying constitutes legally

action ab le copyrigh t infrin gem ent; th e a ctu al copyin g m u st be

extens ive enou gh to ren der th e works su bs ta n tially sim ila r.Airfram e

Sy s t e ms , 658 F.3d a t 106 (qu otin g Crea tions Un lim ited , Inc. v. McCain ,

112 F.3d 814, 816 (5 Cir., 1997)).

In his com plaint , Green spa n focus es on a n accou nt of a m eet ing

involving Lawrence Summers (Summers) in The Accidental

Billion a ires as being similar to an account of a meeting involving

Sum mers in Authoritas . (#1 39 ) Th e pla in tiff a lleges a n u m ber of th e

similarit ies between the two accounts including descriptions of the


11/46

11

reception ar ea, th e receptionists con du ct, Su m m ers office, Su m m ers

conduct and manner , the appearance and conduct of Summers

as sistan t , and th e respons e of the stu dents in the meet ings. (#1 43)

Greens pa n also con tends tha t th e accou n t of Zu ckerbergs s tatem ent

in an Adm in istr at ive Boar d h earing in th e Film is similar to an accoun t

of h is own fru st ra tion s in Au thorita s . (#1 63) Th e qu estion is wheth er

the facts alleged in the complaint about these two incidents are

su fficient to sh ow or su pport a plau sible in ference th at t h e defend an ts

a ctu a lly copied t h e pla in tiffs work, a n d th a t s u ch copyin g is

actionable. See S ituation Mana gemen t, 560 F .3d a t 58 ; Joh ns on , 409

F.3d a t 19 .

i. Actua l Copy ing

Greens pa n m ay sh ow actu a l copyin g throu gh direct eviden ce of

copying or through circumstantial evidence of (1) the defendants

access to the copyrighted work, and (2) the substantial similarity

between th e a llegedly in fringin g an d copyrighted work s. Joh ns on , 409

F.3d a t 18; Lotus Dev. Corp . v. Borla nd In t'l, Inc. , 49 F.3d 80 7, 813 (1

Cir., 19 95 ), affd, 516 U.S. 233 (1996).

The plaintiff has alleged that Au thorita s was pu blish ed in J u ne


12/46

5

The F i rs t Circui t has ha d occas ion to n ote that :

A copyright in fringem en t claim ma y involve two differen t

as ses sm en ts of similarity - one to deter min e wheth er copying in fact

occurred and the other to evaluate whether i t amounted to

infringement - an d we ha ve observed tha t confu sion h as a risen from

th e du al u se of th e term su bs tan tially similar to refer to both

i s sues , Yan ke e Cand le Co. v. Bridge w ater Can dle Co., 259 F .3d 25,33 n. 4 (1st Cir . 2001 ); see also Johnson, 409 F .3d a t 18; Ma tthew s

v. Freedm an, 157 F.3d 25, 27 n. 1 (1st Cir . 1998) (noting the two

u ses of [t]h e su bs tan tial similarity ru bric). In Joh ns on , we used

dist inct language for each, stat ing that the fa ct of copying may be

proven inferentially if there is prob ative similarity between th e

works a t issu e (accom pa n ied by proof of acces s), i .e. , th e two works

are so s imi lar that the cour t may infer that there was factual

copying. 40 9 F.3d at 1 8 (quot ing Lotus Dev. Corp . v. Borla nd Int'l,

49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir .1995)) . Copying as a factual matter is

ins u fficien t to pr ove in fringemen t, however, givin g rise to th e secon d

similarity question: whether the copying was sufficiently extensive

to rend er th e two works su bst an tial ly similar , an d th erefore

act ionable. S egrets , Inc. v. Gillm an Knitw ea r Co., 207 F .3d 56, 60

(1st Cir. 2000). Th[is] substantial similarity requirement focuses

holist ical ly on the works in quest ion and entai ls proof that the

copying was s o exten sive th at i t rend ered th e works so similar th at

the later work repres ented a wrongfu l appropriat ion of expression.

Joh ns on , 409 F .3d a t 18.

12

of 200 8 a n d, th erefore, wa s a ccessible to th e gen eral pu blic. (#1 29)

It is further alleged that defendant Mezrich contacted the plaintiff

regar ding his kn owledge of Faceb ooks origins a n d Green sp a n

res pon ded by referrin g Mezrich to th e website forAu thorita s . (#1 3 2,

33 ) La st ly th e plaintiff a ss erts th a tAu thorita s is lis ted a s a second ary

source in the bibliography of The Accidental Billionaires . (#1 38)

These al leged facts , taken as t rue, are adequate to show that the

defen da n ts en joyed a ccess to plaintiffs copyrigh ted work .

Proba tive sim ila rity5 requ ires th a t a su fficien t d egree of sim ila rity


13/46

Ma g Jew elry Co., Inc. v . Ch erok ee, Inc. , 496 F.3d 1 08, 11 5 n .7(1 Cir ., 2007 ).

6

Further examples al leged by Greenspan but not detai led herein are insufficient to

demon strat e proba tive similari ty between the protected elements of th e plaint iffs work an d th e

defend an ts works.

13

exist s between th e copyrigh ted work a n d t h e allegedly in fringin g work

to give rise to an inference of actual copying. Joh ns on , 409 F .3d a t

18; Lotus , 49 F.3d a t 813 . According to th e Firs t Circu it ,

[ t]he resemblances relied upon as a basis for

finding probative similarity must refer to

cons titu en t elem en ts of th e [copyrigh ted ] work

th at ar e origin al. Th u s, in exam in in g wh ether

actual copying has occurred, a court must

engage in dissection of the copyrighted work by

separating its original, protected expressive

elements f rom those aspects that are not

c o p y r i g h t a b l e b e c a u s e t h e y r e p r e s e n tu n protected idea s or u n origin al express ions .

Joh ns on , 409 F.3d a t 18 -19 (in tern al cita tions omitted).

Thus, the similarit ies between the protected elements in the

copyrigh ted work a n d th e allegedly in fringin g work m u st b e exa m in ed.

Greenspan alleges, in ter a lia ,6 th e followin g s im ila rities b etween

Au thorita s a n d The A ccid en ta l B illiona ires :

(1 ) Th e s u b tit le for The A ccid en ta l Billiona ires in clu des th e

ph ra se Fou n ding of Facebook," similar to the u se of


14/46

14

Fou n din g of th e Fa cebook in Au thorita s .

(2) Th e cha pter headings Harvard Yard an d Veritas in

The Accid en ta l Billiona ires ar e sim ilar to the cha pter

h ead in g Th e Ca rs of Har va rd Ya rd in Au thoritas a n d

exactly the sa m e as th e cha pter h ead in g Verita s in

Au thorita s .

(3) The A ccid en ta l Billiona ires accou n t of stu dents si tt in g

in wait out side of Su m m ers office a n d th e locat ion of

th e office - sitting next to each oth er on a couch th a t

felt as old as Massachusetts Hall itself ...[t]he

entrance to the bui lding was perpendicular to

University Hall, where th e legend ar y sta tu te of J ohn

Harvard stood.. . - is similar to the account in

Au thorita s of a s tu den t waiting an d th e offices locat ion

- I was sitting on a plush beige sofa in an office in

Massachuset ts Hall , a small rectangular bui lding

lodged s n u gly next to Harvard Yar ds J ohn ston Gate.

(4) In The Accidental Billionaires what a receptionist is

said to have stated The president will see you now,


15/46

15

is s im ilar to the woma n in Au thorita s saying, The

Presiden t will see you in a m omen t.

(5) Th e descr ipt ion of the fu rn itu re in Su m m ers office in

The Accid en ta l Billiona ires - There were

bookshelves. . .a huge wooden desk.. .antique-looking

side tables. . .an Oriental carpet. . .a Dell desktop

com pu ter - is s im ilar to the a ccou n t in Au thorita s -

There was a computer . . .on a desk. . .and the dark

African m as ks resting on th e sh elves."

(6 ) Descr ip t ions o f Sum mers a ss is t an t in The Accid enta l

Billion a ires - a pleasant-looking African American

wom a n ...who wa s du tifu lly ta king n otes - is sim ila r

to th e des cription s in Au thorita s - n otebook in h a n d,

ready to record my thoughts and emotional

st a te...a n African -Am erica n wom a n .

(7 ) Des cr ip tion s of S u m m e rs in The A ccid en ta l Billiona ires

- Th e disda in in Su m m ers s voice wa s p a lpa ble a n d

his chubby hand - is similar to the description in

Au thorita s - I had never observed such palpable


16/46

16

impatience before and he was fat , chubby, and

slow.

(8 ) Th e a ccou n t s of S u m m er s s t a t em e n t s a n d m a n n er in

The Accidental Billionaires - He.. .stared at the

broth ers with pu re dista ste in h is eyes. Wh y are you

h ere? ; So wh a t d o you wan t m e to d o ab ou t it; an d

I don t s ee th is a s a u n ivers ity iss u e - ar e sim ila r to

the accounts in Au thoritas - What can I do for

you ?...His t one indicat ed th a t I was a lrea dy bein g

ridiculed; Well, Aaron, what do you want me to

do?; an d I do not s ee th e ins ta n ce of d is res pect

here.

(9) Th e descriptions of th e st u den ts resp ons es in th e

meeting with Summers in The Accidental Billionaires

- his face turning red; He felt...betrayed. By this

m an , by th e system; an d Tyler sta red a t th e ma n in

sh ock - ar e similar to th e des cription s in Au thorita s

- setting my cheeks on fire; my hatred for the

system "; an d I was sh ocked.


17/46

17

Com plaint #1 43.

Greenspan also alleges that in the Film, the scene of the

Adm in ist ra tive Boa rd h ear in g in wh ich Zu ckerb erg sta tes , As for an y

ch a rges s tem m in g from t h e brea ch of secu rity, I believe I des erve som e

recogn ition from th is Boar d is similar to the a ccou n t on pa ge 27 0 of

Au thorita s wh ere th e plain tiff des cribes h is offerin g of pr oof th a t I h a d

voluntarily informed the Admissions Office of multiple vulnerabilities

in th eir s ystem s. (#1 63)

It m u st firs t be determ in ed wha t a sp ects of th e exam ples a bove,

if any, deserve copyright protection as the plaintiff 's original

expressions. See Johnson , 409 F.3d at 19. The determ ina t ion of

wheth er a n elemen t of a copyrigh ted work is a n origin a l expression is

for th e cour t to decide. Ya nk ee Can d le Co., Inc. v. Brid gew ater Can d le

Co., LLC, 25 9 F.3d 25 , 34 n .5 (1 Cir., 200 1). Th e origin a lity

requirement for copyright protection is not particularly rigorous.

Origin al, as th e term is u sed in copyrigh t, m ean s only tha t th e work

was ind epend ently created b y th e au th or (as opp osed to copied from

other works), and that i t possesses at least some minimal degree of

creativity. S ituation Man agem ent, 560 F.3d a t 60 (qu otin g Feist, 499


18/46

18

U.S. at 345). Thereafter those protected elements must be compared

a gain st th e defen da n ts work s for p roba tive sim ila rity. See Situation

Ma nage m en t, 560 F .3d a t 59; Joh ns on , 409 F .3d a t 19; CMM Cable

Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coas t Prop erties , Inc. , 97 F.3d 1504, 1515 (1 Cir. ,

1996).

Non e of th e expre s s ion s in (1) or (2) des erve copyright pr otection

beca u se th e ph ra se fou n ding of is a clich expr ess ion con veyin g th e

origin of something, Harvard Yard is the name of a location, and

Veritas is s im ply th e La tin tr a n slat ion of th e word tru th . Simila rly,

the statement the president will see you, in (4) does not deserve

copyrigh t pr otection s in ce it is a clich expres sion u sed to con vey th e

idea th a t an ind ividu al is rea dy for a m eetin g. Nor ar e the words

pa lpa b le a n d ch u bb y in (7) pr otected. Copyrigh t pr otection d oes

n ot exten d to fra gmen ta ry words a n d ph ra ses a n d to form s of

expres sion dictat ed s olely at fu n ctiona l cons idera tions on th e groun ds

that these materials do not exhibit the minimal level of creativity

n ecessa ry to warra n t copyrigh t pr otection. CMM Cab le R ep , 97 F.3d

at 1519 (citations omitted).

Idea s ca n n ot be copyrighted . Concrete Mach . Co., Inc. v. Clas s ic


19/46

19

La w n Orn am en ts , Inc., 84 3 F.2d 600 , 606 (1 Cir. , 19 88 ). Su ch

protection would inhibit subsequent authors from building on or

im provin g u pon th e ideas con veyed. S ee Feis t, 499 U.S. at 3 49-50; s ee

also Matthews v. Freedman , 157 F.3d 25, 27 (1 Cir., 1998) ([T]he

underlying idea...even if original, cannot be removed from the public

realm; but i ts expression.. .can be protected.). Facts cannot be

copyrighted. Feist, 499 U.S. at 34 7. Copyrigh t la w pr ovides pr otection

only to th e au th ors origin al expres sion of su ch facts a n d ideas. Feist,

499 U.S. at 347; Joh ns on , 409 F.3d at 19. Th erefore, althou gh th e

idea of sitting in wait for a m eetin g an d th e fa ct th a t Su m m ers office

is in Mas sa chu setts Hall in (3) ar e not p rotected, Greens pa n s origin al

expres sion u sing the cou ch an d location of th e bu ildin g sh ould enjoy

copyrigh t pr otection. Th e fu rn itu re in Su m m ers office descr ibed in (5)

is a n u n pr otected fa ct; h owever, th e pla in tiffs origin a l expres sion of

th e facts th rou gh h is ch oice to in clu de pa rticu lar deta ils would enjoy

copyrigh t p rotection .

As to Green sp an s descr iption of Su m m ers as sista n t in (6), th e

fa ct of h er eth n icity is n ot pr otected; h owever, t h e p la in tiffs origin a l

expression of the idea of an assistant taking notes should enjoy


20/46

20

copyrigh t protection . Rega rd in g th e pla in tiffs a ccou n ts in (8), the

fra gm ented ph ra ses wha t d o you wa n t m e to do? an d I dont s ee ar e

n ot protected; however, Greens pa n s origin al express ion of Su m m ers

u n welcoming ma n n er a n d ina bility to see th e stu den ts poin t of view

wou ld enjoy copyrigh t p rot ection. Th e idea of being u ps et at th e

syst em in (9) is n ot protected ; however, Green sp a n s origin a l

expres sion of su ch idea sh ou ld enjoy copyrigh t protection . Fin a lly, th e

idea of being frustrated at anticipated punishment for exposing

security flaws is not protected; however, the plaintiff 's original

expression of his frustrations should enjoy copyright protection.

The plaintiffs allegations in (3), (5), (6), (8), and (9), and his

a llega tion of sim ila rity between Zuck erb ergs Adm in ist ra tive Boa rd

hear in g an d h is own fru s t ra t ions , taken a s t ru e , may demons t ra te a

sufficient degree of similarity to allow the Court to find that there is

pr oba tive simila rity between th e defen da n ts work s a n d th e pla in tiffs

pr otected expres sions . However, th e requ irem en t of pr oba tive

similar ity is s omewha t ak in t o, bu t different th an , the requ irem ent of

substant ial s imilar i ty that emerges at the second step in the

progression. Joh ns on , 409 F.3d at 18. The qu est ion is wheth er the


21/46

21

copying ofAu thoritas was sufficiently extensive to render the works

substantially similar, and therefore actionable. Segrets, Inc. v.

Gillm an Kn itw ea r Co., Inc., 207 F.3d 56, 60 (1 Cir.), cert. d en ied, 531

U.S. 82 7 (20 00 ); T-Peg, Inc. v. Verm ont Timb er Works , Inc . , 459 F.3d 97,

11 2 (1 Cir., 20 06 ).

ii. Actiona ble Copy ing

Plaintiff m u st sh ow a ctiona ble copyin g throu gh eviden ce th at th e

a ctu a l copyin g is so exte n s ive th a t it ren dered th e in fringin g a n d

copyrigh ted works su bs ta n tially sim ila r. Joh ns on , 409 F .3d a t 18

(quoting Segrets , 207 F .3d a t 60; Airfram e S y s tem s , 658 F.3d at 1 05).

As expla in ed b y the First Circu it,

Substantial similarity between the

copyrighted work and the allegedly infringingwork is assessed by comparing the protected

elem en ts of th e plaint iffs work a s a whole

agains t the defend an ts work. Th e fact fin der

gauges this element by applying the ordinary

observer test , u n der wh ich su bs ta n tia l similar ity

is foun d if a reas ona ble, ordin ar y observer,

upon examination of the two works, would

conclude that the defendant unlawful ly

a pp ropr ia t ed th e p la in t iffs p r o tec ta b leexpression.

Airfram e S y s tem s , 6 58 F.3d a t 106 (intern al citat ions an d qu otat ion

marks omitted).


22/46

22

Put another way, [t]he inquiry focuses not on every aspect of the

copyrigh ted work, b u t on th ose a sp ects of th e plain tiffs work [th a t] a re

protectible [sic] under copyright laws and whether whatever copying

took place a ppr opriat ed th ose [protected] elem ents . T-Peg, Inc., 459

F.3d at 112 (in tern al cita tions an d qu otation m a rks om itted). An

overall impression of similarity is not enough [i]f such impression

flows from similarit ies as to elements that are not themselves

copyrightable. Johnson , 409 F .3d a t 19 .

The similarities in (3) and (6) stem from the underlying ideas

ra th er tha n th e express ions of su ch ideas. Th e idea of sit t in g in wait

in Mas sa chu setts Hall creates th e im pres sion of similar ity between Th e

Acciden ta l Billion a ires a n d Au thorita s . It can n ot be sa id tha t

com pa rin g the d efend an ts expres sion of th at idea - con veyin g the a ge

of the couch and the location of Massachusetts Hall based on its

proxim ity to an oth er bu ilding an d a sta tu te - with th e plain tiffs

expression - conveying the feel of the couch, the shape of

Massachusetts Hall , and its location in proximity to Johnston Gate -

that there was copying so extensive that an ordinary observer could

con clu de th a t th e defend an ts u n la wfu lly app ropriat ed th e plaintiffs


23/46

23

expres sion . Likewise, th e idea of a n as sista n t ta king n otes an d the

fa ct of h er eth n icity create t h e im pr ess ion of sim ila rity between t h e two

works. However, th e defend an ts expres sion of th e as sista n t takin g

n otes of wha t is s a id in th e meetin g comp a red to t h e pla in tiffs

expres sion of th e ass ista n t seein g in to his th oughts an d em otions d oes

not su pport a d eterm ina t ion th at th e copyin g was s o extensive tha t a n

ordinary observer could conclude that there was unlawful

ap propriation . So, too, the idea of bein g fru str at ed at th e poss ibility

of punishment for exposing flaws in a system creates the similarity

between th e Film s a ccoun t of Zu ckerb ergs Adm in ist ra tive Boa rd

h ea ring an d th e accou n t of th e plain tiffs a ctions in Au thoritas .

However, it is n ot reas ona ble to believe th a t a n ordina ry obs erver cou ld

conclude that the expression of this frustration in the Film -

Zu ckerberg con veyin g it to th e Boar d - was an u n lawfu l a ppr opriat ion

of the plaintiffs expression in Au thorita s - offering of proof that the

plaintiff voluntarily disclosed the systems vulnerabilities to the

Admissions Office.

Green spa n an d th e defenda n ts express th e facts of the layou t of

Su m m ers s office in (5) th rou gh th eir ch oices to includ e certa in pieces


24/46

7

[T]h e doctrin e of scen es a faire den ies copyrigh t pr ote ction to u n origina l elemen ts of

recurring stock scenes.Dunn v . Brow n, 517 F. Sup p.2d 5 41, 54 5 (D. Mass . , 200 7) (cit ing CMM

Cable Rep . , 97 F.3d at 1 522 n . 25).

24

of fu rn itu re. However, the u se of th e desk, sh elves, an d com pu ter fall

with in t h e doctrin e of scen es a fa ire7 as inh erent ch ara cter ist ics of an

office and thus do not lead to a plausible inference of infringement.

The d efen da n ts ch oice ad ditiona lly to in clu de a n tique-looking s ide

ta bles a n d a n Orient al carpet a s comp ar ed to the p laintiffs expres sion

in clu ding da rk Afr ican m as ks u nd ercuts an y notion tha t th e copying

was s o exten sive tha t an ordin a ry observer cou ld con clu de th at t h ere

was unlawful appropriation.

The substantial similarity inquiry also looks to the extent of

copyin g from th e copyrigh ted work. S ituation Man agem ent, 560 F.3d

a t 5 8. If th e poin ts of diss im ila rity n ot on ly exceed th e poin ts of

similarity, but indicate that the remaining points of similarity are,

with in th e cont ext of pla in tiffs work , of m in im a l im porta n ce, eith er

qu a n tita tively or qu a lita tively, th en n o in fringemen t res u lts . T-Peg,

Inc. , 45 9 F.3d at 11 2-13 (qu otin g 4 Nim m er & Nim m er, Nim m er on

Copyright, 13 .03 [B][1][a ] (20 06 )). Alth ou gh both Green spa n a n d th e

defendants use similar phrases to express the idea of Summers


25/46

25

u n welcoming m a n n er, h is ina bility to see the s tu den ts poin t of view,

and the students being upset at the system in (8) and (9), the five

sen tences th at con vey th ese idea s a re qu an tita tively a n d qu alita tively

ins u bsta nt ial in the context of Au thoritas a s a whole. An y copyin g

claimed based on (8) and (9) simply was not so extensive that an

ordinary observer could conclude that the defendants unlawfully

a pp ropr ia ted t h e plaintiffs origin a l expres sions .

[S]u bs ta n tial similar ity is as ses sed by compa ring th e pr otected

elem en ts of th e plaintiffs work a s a whole aga in st th e defen da n ts

work. Situation Management, 560 F .3d a t 59. Greenspa n an d the

defend an ts u se similar as pects to expres s th e two differen t m eetin gs

with Summers, including descr ibing the recept ion area, Summers

office, Su m m ers con du ct an d m an n er, Su m m ers as sista n ts

appeara nce an d condu ct, an d th e s tu dents respons es in the m eet ings .

However , th ere is no dispu te tha t Greens pan s b ook a nd the

defen da n ts work s were des cribin g two differen t m eetin gs which t ook

place at different t imes, involved different student participants and

different s u bject ma tter. Th ese meetin gs were bu t a very m in im al part

of th e va riou s work s a s a wh ole. In cont ext, wha tever simila rity th ere


26/46

26

may be, it is too quantitatively and qualitatively insignificant to be

deem ed su bs tan tial . Greens pa n h as n ot a lleged su fficient fa cts to

establ ish tha t a reasona ble, ordin ary observer cou ld con clu de tha t th e

defen da n ts u n la wfu lly app ropr ia ted th e plaintiffs origin a l expres sion s.

For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff has failed to state a

cla im for copyright in fringem en t. Abs en t a n a ctiona ble cla im for direct

copyright infringement, the claims for contributory or vicarious

in fringem ent m u st also fail. Th e Su prem e Cou rt ha s explain ed th at :

On e in frin ges cont ribu torily by in ten tiona lly

in du cin g or encou ra gin g direct infrin gemen t, s eeGers hw in Pub. Corp. v. Colum bia Artis ts

Ma nage m en t, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (C.A.2

19 71 ), an d in frin ges vica rious ly by pr ofitin g from

direct infringement while declining to exercise a

right to stop or limit it, S hapiro, Be rns tein & Co.v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (C.A.2

1963). Although [t]he Copyright Act does not

expressly render anyone liable for infringement

com m itted by an other , S ony Corp. [of Am erica] v.

Univers al City S tud ios, [Inc.] 464 U.S. [417], at

434, 104 S.Ct. 774 [1984], these doctrines of

secondary liability emerged from common law

principles and are well established in the law,

id., at 486, 104 S.Ct . 774 (Blackmun, J . ,dissenting); Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222

U.S. 55 , 62-63 , 32 S.Ct. 20, 56 L.Ed. 9 2 (191 1);Gers hw in Pub. Corp. v. Colum bia Artis ts

Ma nagem ent, supra , at 11 62; 3 M. Nim m er & D.


27/46

27

Nim m er, Copyrigh t 12 .0 4[A] (20 05 ).

Metro-Gold w y n-Ma y er S tud ios Inc. v . Grok s ter, Ltd ., 545 U.S. 913, 930 -

31 (20 05 )(footn ote om itt ed).

As th ese defin ition s s u ggest, in order t o hold a defen da n t secon da rily

liable someone else must have directly infringed on the copyright

h older s righ ts . Wolk v. Kod ak Im aging Netw ork , Inc ., ___ F. Su pp .2d

___. ___, 2 01 2 WL 112 70 , *23 (S.D.N.Y., J a n . 3 , 2 01 2)(citing Faulkner

v. Nat l Geograph ic Ente rs. , Inc., 40 9 F.3 d 2 6, 4 0 (2 Cir.)([T]h ere c a n

be n o con tribut ory in frin gemen t a bs ent actu al in frin gemen t.), cert.

denied, 546 U.S. 1076 (2005)); Ma tthew Bend er & Co. v. W es t Publ'g

Co., 15 8 F.3d 69 3, 70 6 (2 Cir., 1 99 8)(rejecting plaintiffs contr ibu tory

in fringem en t cla im , in pa rt, b ecau se t h e plaintiff h a s failed to iden tify

any primary infringer), cert. d en ied, 52 6 U.S. 1 15 4 (19 99 )); see a lso

Els evier Ltd . v. Ch itik a , Inc. , ___ F. Supp.2d ___. ___, 2011 WL

60 08 975 , at *4 (D. Mas s. , Dec. 2, 2 01 1). Cou n ts I throu gh III of th e

complaint shall be dismissed.


28/46

28

B. Lanham Act Violations

Plaintiffs four th cla im is t h at th e defend an ts u s ed u n fair

competition and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. 1125(a), in the marketing ofThe Accidental Billionaires a n d

th e Film . (#1 102 )

The Lanham Act prohibits misleading representations in

commercial advertising. S ee 1 5 U.S.C. 11 25 (a ). Th e Firs t Circu it

has delineated the cause of action:

To prove a fa lse a dvertising cla im u n der th e

La n h am Act , a plaint iff m u st d emons trate th at

(1) the defendant made a false or misleading

description of fact or representation of fact in a

commercial advertisement about his own or

an others produ ct; (2) th e m isr epresen ta tion is

material, in that it is likely to influence the

purchasing decision; (3) the misrepresentationactually deceives or has the tendency to deceive

a substantial segment of i ts audience; (4) the

defendant placed the false or misleading

statement in interstate commerce; and (5) the

plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a

resu lt of th e m isr epresen ta tion, eith er by direct

diversion of sales or by a lessening of goodwill

associated with i ts products.

Cas hm ere & Cam el Hair Mfrs . Ins titute v. S ak s Fifth Ave. , 284 F .3d 302,

310-11 (1 Cir.), cert. den ied, 53 7 U.S. 10 01 (200 2).


29/46

8

To sup por t the content ion tha t The Accid en tal B illiona ires is n ot a t ru e s tory, Greenspa n

sets forth a l ist of pu rported errors in Sch edu le B to th e comp laint . Th ese errors in clu de things

su ch a s: the u se of th e wron g word in a compu ter science context , to wit , logarith ms instead of

algorith ms ; tha t Mark Zuckerberg l ived in Kirklan d Hou se, n ot Eliot Hou se; a m isspelling of an

ind ividu als las t n am e; the s egmen t of th e plain tiffs web site was called Th e Universal Face Book

an d n ot Universal Hous e Facebook; th e statem ent th at Greens pan got in t roub le for his website

when he was never officially repriman ded; an d th ere was n o booksh elf beh ind th e presiden ts d esk

29

To sta te a n u n fa ir comp etit ion claim, facts su pporting bad faith m u st

also be alleged. Applera Corp . v. Mich iga n Dia gnos tics , LLC, 594 F.

Su pp .2d 15 0, 163 (D. Ma s s., 200 9). Th e plaintiff m u st a llege fa cts

su fficient to show tha t th e defend a nt s u sed m islead in g repres enta tions

in the commercial advertising ofThe Accidental Billionaires a n d t h e

Film tha t in flu enced consu m ers into pu rcha sing those works , an d tha t

th e plain tiff was da m aged by th e defend an ts action s.

Green spa n con tends that th e defendants us ed misrepresenta t ions

in th e comm ercial a dvertising by design at in g The Acciden ta l B illiona ires

a s n onfiction, by bu yin g five-st a r r eviews ofThe Accid en ta l Billiona ires ,

an d by buying bu lk pu rchas es of The A ccid en ta l Billiona ires to propel

th e book u p th e best-sellers l ist . (#1 96, 9 9, 10 0) Th e facts alleged

to support the claim that referring to The Accidental Billionaires a s

nonfiction is a misrepresentation echo the facts alleged to support

defa m a tion , i.e., th e defen da n ts did n ot convey the p la in tiffs r ole in th e

origins of Facebook. 8 (#1 9 8) Th e term n onfiction on ly m ean s th at


30/46

in Mass ach u setts Hall. (#1, Schedu le B) These facts do not su ggest th at The Accidental

Billion a ires is not a n onfict ion b ook.

9

Greensp an essen tially only alleges tha t The Accid en tal B illiona ires is n ot based on the

plaint iffs version of th e facts. Two books m ay both be d esigna ted as non fict ion even th ou gh th eyha ve cont ras t ing accoun ts of the s ame events .

10

In ru l in g on a Ru le 12(b)(6) motion, th e court m ay only rely on th e facts a l leged or

incorporated within th e fou r corners of th e complaint .Riv era v . Ce n tro Me d ico d e Tu ra bo, In c. , 575

F.3d 10, 15 (1 Cir . , 2009). To the extent that the plaint iff proffers addit ional facts in his

memorandum in opposit ion to the disposi t ive motions, those facts cannot be considered.

30

the l i terature is based on true stories or events, not that every

sta temen t is in fact dem onstra bly t ru e. S ee , e . g . ,

wiki.an swers.com/ Q/ Wh at _does_n on_fiction_m ean . Greens pa n does

n ot allege th a t The A ccid en ta l Billiona ire is n ot ba sed on t ru e events. 9

Th e fact th at the d efenda n ts d esign ated The A ccid en ta l Billiona ires to

be nonfiction does n ot su pport a Lan h am Act claim. To th e extent it

is a lleged th a t th e defen da n ts comp en sa ted r eviewers to ga in five-sta r

reviews and made bulk purchases of The Accidental Billionaires to

boost s ales nu m bers , the allegation s ar e conclu sory.10 (#1 99 , 100)

Moreover , there is n o as ser t ion tha t th e pu rported m isrepresen tat ions

m a de by th e defen da n ts , i.e., bu yin g five-sta r reviews an d boosting

sales numbers, influenced, or would likely influence, consumer

pu rch as in g decision s. Las tly, Greens pa n h as n ot alleged dam a ge in a

form recogn ized u n der th e Lan h am Act. Th ere are no facts a lleged


31/46

31

th at t h e defend an ts m isr epresen ta tions h a rm ed th e plaintiffs

bu siness by cau sing the loss of sa les or goodwill as socia ted with its

products . See Cashm ere , 284 F .3d a t 311 . In sh or t , Greens pa n

h a s fa iled t o allege su fficien t fa cts to esta blish a cla im u n der 43 (a ) of

the Lan h am Act .

C. Defa m a tion

Th e plaintiff's fifth cla im is for defa m a tion a gain st th e defen da n ts

for sta temen ts m ad e in The Accid en ta l Billiona ires , omissions in Th e

Acciden ta l B illion a ires and the F i lm, and for s ta tements made by

defendant Mezrich in a C-SPAN interview.

Under Massachusetts law, a claim of defamation requires

Greens pa n to sh ow th at t h e defend an ts a re at fau lt for the pu blication

of a false s ta tem ent of an d concern in g the plain tiff which was cap ab le

of da m aging h is or her r epu tat ion in th e com m u nity an d which either

cau sed econom ic loss or is a ctiona ble with ou t pr oof of econ omic loss .

Stanton v. Metro Corp . , 438 F.3d 119 , 124 (1 Cir . , 2006 ). Thu s, to

su rvive a Ru le 12 (b)(6) m otion to dism iss , th e plaint iff m u st a llege fa cts

sufficient to establish that the defendants made (1) a false and

defa m a tory com m u n icat ion (2) of a n d concer n in g th e plain tiff which is


32/46

11

Greenspan al leges that prior to The Accid en tal B illiona ires an d the F ilm, he h ad made

progress in correct in g the wrongs, i.e., the deta i ls ab ou t h is dispu te with Mark Zuckerberg over

th e plaint iffs involvemen t in Facebooks origin s, th at lead to h is repu tat ion b ein g tarn ished. (#1

76) Th e im plic a t ion fro m th e defen da n ts la belin g th eir wo rks a s n on fict ion is a lle ge d to h ave

32

(3) pu blish ed or sh own to a th ird p ar ty. Carmack v. National R.R.

Pas s en ger Corp . , 486 F. Su pp.2 d 58 , 76 (D. Mas s. , 20 07)(cita tions an d

internal quotation marks omitted).

The plaintiff alleges that he is incorrectly referred to in Th e

Acciden ta l Billion a ires as Grossm an ra th er tha n Greenspa n an d a lso

by the terms kid and some kid, and that such references are

pejora tive. (#1 4 7) In th e plain tiffs view, th e referen ce to his webs ite

in The Accidental Billionaires , i .e. , hardly anyone had paid any

a tten tion to it. . .An d Gr oss m a n s site was n t p a rticu la rly slick, im plied

that his work was irrelevant and of poor quality. (#1 48, 107)

Greenspan contends that the selective omission of his role in the

origins of Fa cebook in The Accidental Billionaires , and the complete

omiss ion of h is role in th e Film , with h eld from th e plaintiff h is pr oper

recogn ition . (#1 5 0, 66 , 69) Defen da n t Mezrich s r epea ted claim s

t h a t The Accid en ta l B illiona ires is tru e by imp licat ion m a gn ified t h e

harm of the aforementioned references to, and omissions of, the

plaintiff.11 (#1 5 2) La stly, the plaintiff a ss everat es th at defend an t


33/46

worked to reverse th is progress. (#1 77)

12

However, [w]here the communicat ion is susceptible of both a defamatory and

non defam atory mean ing, a ques t ion of fact exists for the ju ry. Phelan v. May Dept. Stores, 443

Mass. 52, 57, 819 N.E.2d at 550 , 554 (200 4) (citat ion an d interna l qu otat ion mark s omitted).

33

Mezrich attr ibuted false motives to Greenspan during the C-SPAN

in terview, a n at ionwide broad cas t. (#1 7 4, 111 ) Greens pa n alleges

tha t these s ta tements a nd omiss ions in The A ccid en ta l Billiona ires a n d

th e Film were pu blish ed to a wide ra n ge of pers ons in th e pu blic. (#1

112)

i. Defam atory Meaning

I t is not incumbent upon the court to determine whether the

defenda nts sta temen ts a nd omiss ions a re defam atory, bu t ra ther only

wheth er th e com m u n ication is rea son ab ly su sceptible of a defa m at ory

meaning."12Da m on v. Moore , 520 F.3d 98, 103 (1 Cir.)(alteration,

cita tions a n d in tern al qu otation m ar ks om itted), cert. d en ied, 555 U.S.

939 (200 8). Th is is a qu estion of la w to be determined by the cou rt .

Phelan v. May Dept. Stores Co., 443 Mas s. 52, 56, 819 N.E.2d 550 , 554

(200 4). A defa m at ory com m u n ication wou ld tend to in ju re the

plaintiffs rep u ta tion , or h old t h e plaint iff u p t o scorn , h a tred , ridicu le

or contempt, in the minds of any considerable and respectable


34/46

34

segmen t in th e com m u n ity.Da m on , 520 F.3d at 103 (quotin gAm rak

Prods., Inc. v. Morton, 410 F.3d 69, 72 (1 Cir., 2005) (further citation

omitted)). In determ in in g wheth er th e defend an ts sta tem ent s an d

omissions are susceptible of a defamatory meaning, the

communicat ion must be interpreted reasonably, and can be ruled

defa m at ory only if it would lead a reas ona ble reader t o con clu de th at

it con veyed a defam at ory m ean in g. Da m on , 520 F .3d a t 104

(alteration , cita tions an d in tern al qu otation m a rk s omitted). Wh en

u nd ertaking the rea sona ble reader a n alysis , th e sta tement al leged to

be defam atory

must be viewed in its totality in the context in

which i t was ut tered or published and

considering all the words used, not merely a

par t icular phrase or sentence. . . . In making thisdet er m ina tion, we mu s t view [pla in tiffs ]

in terpreta tion of th e com m u n ication rea son ab ly,

an d ca n only ru le th at it is defam at ory if it could

lead a reasonable viewer to conclude that i t

con veyed a defa m at ory m ean in g.. . .Th e words ar e

to be read in their natural sense with the

m ean in g which th ey wou ld convey to m an kind in

general.

Da m on , 520 F.3d at 104-05 (al terat ion, internal ci tat ions and

quotation marks omitted).


35/46

35

The use of an incorrect name to refer to the plaintiff is not

reas ona bly su sceptible of a defam at ory m ean in g. It sim ply is n ot

reas ona ble to in fer th at a r ead er cou ld in terpret th e in correct reference

a s a comm u n icat ion r ega rd in g the p la in tiffs r ole, or la ck th ereof, in

Facebooks origin s. References to Greens pa n by an ina ccur a te

su rn a m e would not tend t o in ju re th e plaintiff's repu ta tion or su bject

the plaintiff to scorn, hatred, r idicule or contempt in the minds of

readers .

Neither is use of the term kid to reference Greenspan

reas ona bly su sceptible of a defam at ory m ean in g. Th e m ean in g

genera lly conveyed with th e term is a youn g per s on, which is, in i ts

n atu ral sense, not derogatory. It m ay be t rue tha t an interpr etat ion of

th e term can be cou pled with cha ra cteristics gen erally ass ociat ed with

people of a you n g a ge su ch a s im m a tu rity or in experien ce. However,

even those character ist ics would not hold Greenspan up to scorn,

h atr ed, r idicu le or con tem pt by th e com m u n ity. Fu rth er, viewed in th e

context of th e com m u n icat ion, th e term kid is em ployed in Th e

Acciden ta l Billion a ires to descr ibe a number of students at Harvard

Univers ity tryin g to bu ild webs ites inclu ding all of th e m a in ch a ra cters


36/46

13

Indeed, Greenspan alleges that viewers of the Film would lack[] any frame of reference

n eeded t o discover the facts involvin g Plain tiffs in volvemen t. (#1 7 0) Fu rth er, th e plain tiff does

not contend that the pu bl ics u na wareness of his role is d ama ging h is repu ta t ion an d career

prospects , but ra th er that the da mage was don e when h e, Greenspan , a t tempted to correct the

record or dispel misap preh ens ion s. (#1 5 3, 78)

36

in th e book a s well as college stu den ts in genera l. (#40 at 4 a n d n . 4)

It is not reasonable to infer that such reference could convey a

defam atory m ean in g rega rding th e plain tiffs repu tat ion to a read er.

Th e defen da n ts ch oice to om it t h e pla in tiffs role in th e origin s of

Fa cebook in The A ccid en ta l Billiona ires an d th e Film is n ot reas onab ly

su sceptible to a defa m at ory m ean in g. Greens pa n does n ot allege facts

to sh ow th at b ecau se h is r ole is n ot men tioned in eith er of th e works,

this omission gives r ise to a plausible inference that a reasonable

rea der cou ld conclu d e th a t th e pla in tiff was irr eleva n t in Faceb ooks

origins.13 However, as su m in g su ch in ference were plau sible, it is n ot

reasonable to infer beyond that that a reasonable reader could

con clu de th at th is would hold th e plaintiff u p to scorn , h at red, r idicu le

or contem pt. Ess ent ial ly Greens pa n con tends th at the ha rm resu lt in g

from th e om iss ions wa s t h at h e was robbed of h is p roper recogn ition

for his role in the origins of Facebook; that is not a claim of

defam at ion . A reas ona ble reader could n ot con clu de th a t th e


37/46

37

referen ces t o, an d om iss ions of, th e plaintiff in The Accidental

Billion a ires and the Film are susceptible of defamatory meaning.

Consequently, i t is not necessary to examine whether the references

an d omissions were of an d concernin g Greenspa n.

ii. Expressions of Opinion

Defam at ion claims can n ot be foun ded on expres sion s of opin ion.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40 (1974) (However

pern icious a n opin ion m ay s eem, we depen d for i ts correction n ot on

the conscience of judges and juries but on the competit ion of other

idea s . (footn ote om itted )). However, a s ta tem en t which on its fa ce is

an opinion may actually be an implied assertion of fact; a speaker

can n ot escap e liab ility by cou ching the s tat em ent in term s of opin ion.

Milk ov ich v. Lora in Jou rn al Co. , 49 7 U.S. 1, 1 9 (19 90 ); Levins k y s , In c.

v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 12 7 F.3d 12 2, 127 (1 Cir., 199 7). [T]h e

releva n t qu estion is n ot wh ether cha llenged lan gu age ma y be described

as an opinion, but whether i t reasonably would be understood to

declare or imp ly prova ble as ser tion s of fa ct. Pha n tom Touring, Inc. v.

Affilia ted Publica tion s , 953 F.2d 724, 727 (1 Cir.) , cert. denied, 504

U.S. 974 (199 2). Th e determ in at ion wh ether a s ta tem ent is one of


38/46

38

fact or opinion is generally considered a question of law. Cole v.

We s tingh ous e B road . Co., Inc., 386 Mas s. 303, 309, 43 5 N.E.2d 1021 ,

1025 , cert. den ied, 45 9 U.S. 103 7 (198 2); Dris coll v. B oa rd of Trus tees

of Milton Academy , 70 Mass. App. Ct . 285, 296, 873 N.E.2d 1177,

1187 -88 (2007 ). Th e Ma ss ach u set ts Su prem e J u dicial Cou rt ha s

writ ten th at :

In deciding whether statements can be

u n ders tood r eas ona bly as fact or opin ion th e

test to be appl ied . . . requires that the court

examine the statement in i ts totali ty in the

con text in wh ich it was u ttered or pu blish ed. Th e

court must consider al l the words used, not

merely a par t icular phrase or sentence. In

addition, the court must give weight to

cau t ionary term s u sed by the person pu blish ing

the s ta tem ent . Fina lly, the cou rt m u st consider

al l of the circumstances surrounding the

statement , including the medium by which thes ta tement is d issemina ted an d th e au dience to

which it is pu blish ed.

Cole , 386 Mas s. at 309, 435 N.E.2d at 1025 (quoting In form a tion

Control Corp. v. Gen es is One Comp u ter Corp., 611 F.2d 78 1, 78 4 (9 Cir. ,

1980)).

The sta temen ts a t iss u e in The Accid en ta l B illiona ires , in context,

ar e: Th en th e Green sp an kid ha d gon e on to develop som ething called

houseSYSTEM that had some social elements involved in it.


39/46

39

Greens pa n h a d even a dded a Universa l Hou se Facebook in to his s ite,

which Mark h ad checked ou t ; h ard ly an yone ha d pa id a ny at tent ion to

it , as far as Edu ar do kn ew.. .An d Greens pa n s s ite was n t pa rticu lar ly

slick, a n d was n t a bou t pictur es a n d p rofiles. Mark s idea was really

differen t." Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires : The Founding of

Facebook a t 80 (20 09 ). A sim ple expres sion of opin ion ba sed on

disclosed or as su m ed n ond efa m a tory fa cts is not itself su fficien t for an

act ion of defam ation , no m atter h ow u n ju st ified an d u nr easona ble th e

opin ion m a y be or h ow derogatory it is. Cole , 386 Mas s . a t 313 , 435

N.E.2d at 1027 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); s ee

also Ly ons v. Globe New s pa per Co., 415 Mass . 258, 262 , 612 N.E.2d

115 8, 116 1 (199 3). However, a ca u se of action for defam at ion m ay

stil l be sustained where an opinion implies the allegation of

undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. Yohe v .

Nu ge n t, 321 F.3d 3 5, 4 1 (1 Cir. , 2003 )(cita tion a n d intern al quota tion

marks omitted); Ly on s , 415 Mas s. at 26 2, 612 N.E.2d 1161.

App lyin g th ese pr in ciples, th e qu a lifier, a s fa r a s Ed u a rd o kn ew,

caut ions the reader that the statement hardly anyone had paid

at tent ion to i t , is ba sed on th e exten t of Edu ar dos kn owledge an d n ot


40/46

40

any undisclosed facts. See Lyons , 415 Mas s . a t 266 , 61 2 N.E.2d a t

1163 (The logical nexus between the facts and the opinion was

su fficiently ap pa ren t to ren der u n reas ona ble an y in ference tha t th e

derogatory opinion must have been based on undisclosed

fa cts .(qu otin g Rest a tem en t (Second ) of Torts 566 , com m en t c,

secon d pa r.)); s ee a ls o King v. Globe New s pa per Co. , 400 Mass . 705,

713, 512 N.E.2d 241, 246 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940 (1988)

an d 485 U.S. 962 (1988 ). Merely becau se a person s igned u p on a

websi te does not necessar i ly mean that the person was paying

at tent ion to the websi te; whether or not anyone paid at tent ion to

Greens pa n s site is a su bjective in qu iry n ot am ena ble to an objective

tru e or false resolu tion. No reas ona ble read er would con clu de th at th e

s ta tements in The Accid en ta l Billiona ires su ggest a n as sertion of fact

a bou t t h e qu a lity of th e p la in tiffs work .

Simila rly, th e st a tem en t was n t p a rticu la rly slick is a figur a tive

a n d h yperbolic com m u n ica tion for which th ere is n o objective eviden ce

to pr ove or disp rove its fa ls ity. Le vins k y s , 127 F.3d at 127 ([A]

sta tem ent n orma lly is n ot actiona ble u n less it con tains an objectively

verifiab le a s ser tion .(footn ote omitted)). [R]h etor ical h yper bole a n d


41/46

41

oth er types of im a gin a tive expres sion th a t writers u se to en liven th eir

prose ar e pr otected. Pha ntom Touring , 953 F .2d a t 727; Levins k y s ,

127 F .3d a t 128.

Defen da n t Mezrich s s ta tem en ts du ring th e C-SPAN in terview, in

con text, were: Th eres b een a lot of lawsu its, n ot ju st Edu ar do a n d th e

Win klevoss es. Th eres th a t oth er big one, th er es th is kid, wh o was

in volved in s ome s ort of la wsu it, a bou t th e n a m e fa ce book. I don t

rem ember how tha t worked ou t . I s ta nd by th e books. An d, you

kn ow, th e th in gs th at people poin t ou t, like, th is is a perfect exam ple

of it. Its a pers on who ha s a p ers ona l beef - with Zuck erb erg or with

Facebook, and they're bringing it out in the way they can in this

conversa tion . It r eally h a s very little to do with m y book." (#1 , Sch edu le

A). A rea son a ble list en er could n ot con clu de th a t defen da n t Mezrichs

statements during the C-SPAN interview implied an assertion of an

u n disclosed fa ct ab out th e pla in tiffs m otives . Mezrich d isclosed h is

knowledge about a lawsuit that took place between Greenspan and

Zu ckerberg as well as the fact th at h e did n ot rem ember the outcome.

Th is is clearly th e ba sis for Mezrich s opin ion t h a t Green sp a n s m otive

for att acking The Accid en ta l Billiona ires was a desire to illu m in at e h is


42/46

42

side of th e disp u te with Zuckerb erg. Wh ether or n ot this was th e

pla in tiffs m otive ca n n ot objectively be proven as t ru e or fa ls e. No

claim for defam at ion is s ta ted.

V. Conclus ion

For all of these reasons, i t is ORDERED that the Motion Of

Ran dom Hous e, In c., Mezco, In c., An d Ben ja m in Mezrich To Dis m iss

With Preju dice (#1 7) be, a n d th e sa m e her eby is, ALLOWED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Columbia Pictures Industries,

In c.s Motion To Dism is s Com plaint (#2 2) be, a n d th e sa m e h ereby is,

ALLOWED. J u dgm en t s h all enter dism iss in g th e com plain t in its

entirety.

/s/ Robert B. CollingsROBE RT B. COLLINGS

Ma y 9 , 2012. Un ited Sta tes Ma gis tra te J u dge


43/46

43

Publisher Information

Note* This page is not part of the opinion as entered by the court.

The docket information provided on this page is for the benefit

of publishers of these opinions.

1:11-cv-12000-RBC Greenspan v. Random House, Inc. et al

Robert B. Collings, presiding

Date filed: 11/18/2011

Date terminated: 05/09/2012

Date of last f iling: 05/09/2012

Attorneys

Kevin T. Baine

Williams & Connolly LLP

725 Twelfth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

202-434-5010

202-434-5018 (fax)

[email protected]

Assigned: 12/23/2011

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representingColumbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

(Defendant)

Marvin N. Cable

Law Offices of Marvin Cable

PO Box 1630

Northampton, MA 01061

413-268-6500

413-268-6500 (fax)

[email protected]


LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representingPro Se Party Aaron Greenspan

884 College Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94303-1303


44/46

44

415-670-9350

415-373-3959 (fax)

[email protected]

(Plaintiff)

Stephen G. Contopulos

Sidley Austin LLP

555 W. Fifth Street

40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90013

213-896-6000

213-896-6600 (fax)

[email protected]


LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICEATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing

Mezco, Inc.

(Defendant)

Random House, Inc.

(Defendant)

Benjamin Mezrich

(Defendant)

Bradley H. Ellis

Sidley Austin LLP

555 W. Fifth Street

40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90013

213-896-6000

213-896-6600 (fax)

[email protected]


LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representingMezco, Inc.

(Defendant)

Random House, Inc.

(Defendant)


45/46

45

Benjamin Mezrich

(Defendant)

Dustin F. Hecker

Posternak, Blankstein & Lund

Prudential Tower

800 Boylston Street

Boston, MA 02199-8004

617-973-6100

617-722-4927 (fax)

[email protected]


LEAD ATTORNEY


(Defendant)

Megan A. Hughes

Williams & Connolly LLP

725 Twelfth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC

202-434-5920

202-434-5029 (fax)

[email protected]


LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE


(Defendant)

Gordon P. Katz

Holland & Knight, LLP

10 St. James Avenue

Boston, MA 02116

617-573-5839

[email protected]: 12/13/2011

LEAD ATTORNEY


(Defendant)


46/46

Random House, Inc.

(Defendant)

Benjamin Mezrich

(Defendant)

Benjamin M. McGovern

Holland & Knight, LLP

10 St. James Avenue

Suite 12

Boston, MA 02116

617-619-9276

617-523-6850 (fax)

[email protected]



(Defendant)

Random House, Inc.

(Defendant)

Benjamin Mezrich

(Defendant)

Documents

Greenspan v. Random House (copyright, D. Mass. 2012)