Case4:12-cv-01096-CW Document52 Filed10/17/13 Page1 of 12
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 4
AMANDA LEWIS, Plaintiff,
5 6 7 8 9
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
10
No. C 12-1096 CW
v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 39)
Defendants. ________________________________/ Plaintiff Amanda Lewis brought this copyright infringement
11
action against her former employer, Defendants Activision
12
Blizzard, Inc., and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (collectively,
13
Blizzard).
14
opposes the motion.
15
and oral argument, the Court grants the motion.
Blizzard moves for summary judgment.
16 17
Plaintiff
After considering the parties’ submissions
BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed.
Blizzard is a videogame
18
company that develops, markets, and distributes computer games.
19
Secrest Decl. ¶ 26.
20
Warcraft, a “multiplayer role-playing game, in which thousands of
21
people play simultaneously in a ‘virtual world’ created by
22
Blizzard.”
23
One of its most popular games is World of
Id.
Plaintiff was employed at Blizzard as a “game master” for
24
World of Warcraft from May 2005 through August 2006.
25
¶¶ 2-4.
26
customers’ questions about the game, assisting them when they
27
encountered difficulties with other players or game mechanics, and
28
solving any problems with game functionality.
Lewis Decl.
In that role, she was responsible for answering
Id. ¶¶ 3-5.
Case4:12-cv-01096-CW Document52 Filed10/17/13 Page2 of 12
1
According to the “Game Master Job Description” in Blizzard’s
2
training manual,
3
Game Masters are customer service specialists with expert knowledge of the game who are [] present as characters within World of Warcraft’s epic fantasy setting to provide assistance and guidance to players while also coordinating world functionality. In this capacity, GM’s serve as the direct link between Blizzard and its customers. Additionally, GM’s are responsible for in-game customer support, helping manage our online community, and assisting with the creation of content during the ever ongoing development of the game.
4 5 6 7 8 9
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
Secrest Decl. ¶ 29, Ex. P, April 2005 Training Manual, at 4. Plaintiff received a copy of this manual during an employee training session that she attended during her first week on the job.
Lewis Decl. ¶ 6; Mayer Decl., Ex. U, Lewis Depo. 50:4-:6,
51:11-:20. In July 2005, a Blizzard game writer sent an e-mail to all game masters inviting them to participate in “open auditions” for voiceover work related to World of Warcraft. A, 7/7/2005 E-Mail, at 1.
Farr Decl. ¶ 3, Ex.
Roughly one hundred and twenty game
masters signed up to participate in the auditions, including Plaintiff.
Id.
After Plaintiff auditioned in late July, she was
invited to record a voice for a newly created game character called the “baby murloc.”
Farr Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.
The character was
conceived by Blizzard’s design team as a “cuter, smaller version of the original murloc,” a mythical creature featured in earlier versions of the game.
Id.
Before the recording session,
Blizzard’s sound engineer told Plaintiff that the character would be unveiled at BlizzCon 2005, an annual fan convention, and used in videos to promote the game. 125:18-:24.
Mayer Decl., Ex. U, Lewis Depo.
He did not say whether Blizzard would ultimately use 2
Case4:12-cv-01096-CW Document52 Filed10/17/13 Page3 of 12
1
the recording for any other purpose -- such as to voice any
2
characters within the game itself -- and Plaintiff never asked
3
whether the recordings might be used outside of BlizzCon.
4
Lewis Depo. 104:16-105:4.
5
On September 7, 2005, Plaintiff participated in a recording
6
session at Blizzard’s offices.
7
lasted about ten minutes and yielded roughly five minutes of raw
8
audio recording.
9
subsequently edited the raw recording to produce a condensed set
10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
Id.
11
of sound files.
Lewis Decl. ¶ 12.
Farr Decl. ¶¶ 9, 23.
The session
Blizzard’s sound engineer
Id. ¶¶ 20-21.
Two weeks later, Plaintiff was invited to participate in
12
another recording session to develop a short “dance” song for the
13
baby murloc character using her voice.
14
On September 22, Plaintiff attended a second recording session at
15
Blizzard’s offices.
16
session yielded roughly four minutes of raw audio recording, which
17
Blizzard’s sound engineer once again edited and condensed into
18
smaller sound files.
19
compensated for her participation in both recording sessions at
20
her usual hourly rate and never sought additional compensation for
21
her work on either recording.
22
137:16-138:7.
Id. ¶ 4; Lewis Decl. ¶ 18.
Farr Decl. ¶ 15; Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 19-20.
Farr Decl. ¶¶ 18-21.
The
Plaintiff was
Mayer Decl., Ex. U, Lewis Depo.
23
Sometime in 2006, shortly before she was terminated by
24
Blizzard, Plaintiff discovered that her voice from the recordings
25
had been used to create a baby murloc character that appeared in
26
the game itself.
27
“surprised to find out that [her] voice had been used beyond the
28
scope of what [she] had been told it would be used for,” she did
Lewis Decl. ¶ 23.
3
Although Plaintiff was
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
Case4:12-cv-01096-CW Document52 Filed10/17/13 Page4 of 12
1
not convey her surprise to any of her friends, co-workers, or
2
supervisors.
3
:25; Lewis Decl. ¶ 22.
Mayer Decl., Ex. U, Lewis Depo. 148:5-:24, 151:11-
4
In November 2010, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against
5
Blizzard alleging that the company had infringed her copyright in
6
the baby murloc recordings by using parts of the recordings in the
7
game without her consent.
8
claims against Blizzard in her complaint but those claims were
9
dismissed in October 2012.
Plaintiff also asserted various state
Docket No. 26, Order on Motion to
10
Dismiss Second and Third Claims for Relief, at 13.
11
2013, Blizzard filed the instant motion for summary judgment on
12
Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim for copyright infringement.
In August
13
LEGAL STANDARD
14
Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and
15
disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the
16
evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is
17
clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
18
P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
19
Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.
20
1987).
21
Fed. R. Civ.
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no
22
material factual dispute.
23
true the opposing party’s evidence, if supported by affidavits or
24
other evidentiary material.
25
815 F.2d at 1289.
26
in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.
27
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
Therefore, the court must regard as
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg,
The court must draw all reasonable inferences
28 4
Case4:12-cv-01096-CW Document52 Filed10/17/13 Page5 of 12
are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the
5
outcome of the case.
The substantive law will identify which
6
facts are material.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
7
242, 248 (1986).
8
of proof on an issue at trial, the moving party may discharge its
9
burden of production by either of two methods:
10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment
Where the moving party does not bear the burden
13
The moving party may produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case, or, after suitable discovery, the moving party may show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim or defense to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.
14
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d
15
1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000).
11 12
16
If the moving party discharges its burden by showing an
17
absence of evidence to support an essential element of a claim or
18
defense, it is not required to produce evidence showing the
19
absence of a material fact on such issues, or to support its
20
motion with evidence negating the non-moving party’s claim.
21
see also Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 885 (1990);