Shame on You Productions, Inc. v. Banks, No. 16-55024 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseIn May 2014, Defendants distributed the film Walk of Shame. Weeks earlier, SOYP sent letters to Defendants alleging that the film included elements copied from a screenplay, "Darci’s Walk of Shame," written by SOYP’s president, Rosen; that Rosen’s screenplay was sent to Banks, the star of Walk of Shame, in 2007; that Rosen met with Banks to discuss the project; and that Rosen wanted Banks to star in his movie, but Banks never replied after the meeting. SOYP sued, alleging copyright infringement. Several discovery disputes arose; SOYP filed eight motions to compel production of documents. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the rejection of the suit on the pleadings, finding no substantial similarity between the works. Defendants then moved for attorney’s fees and costs. Judge Morrow, who had adjudicated the merits, held a hearing, Before the hearing, she issued an unsigned tentative order awarding Defendants $314,669.75 in fees and $3,825.15 in costs. After the hearing, she issued a minute order stating that Defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part and that a final order would issue. Judge Morrow retired without issuing a final order. Judge Phillips issued a final order, awarding Defendants the amount stated in the tentative order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, noting the court’s discretion under 17 U.S.C. 505, that SOYP’s subjective beliefs regarding its outcome were irrelevant, and that other factors did not outweigh the objective unreasonableness of SOYP’s litigating position.
Court Description: Copyright / Attorneys’ Fees. The panel affirmed the district court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees to defendants under 17 U.S.C. § 505 following the dismissal of a copyright infringement claim concerning the film Walk of Shame. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees because the copyright claim was objectively unreasonable, and other factors, although mixed, did not combine to outweigh the objective unreasonableness of the claim under Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016). The district court did not err in holding that the copyright claim and a contract claim were interrelated and declining to apportion fees. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the fees.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.