Running Man Lawsuit Epic Games
Running Man Lawsuit Epic Games: Jaylen Brantley and Jared Nickens (collectively referred to as “Brantley”) filed a civil action against Epic Games Inc (“Epic Games”) on the ground of unauthorized appropriation of their dance “Running Man” (“Emote”) at the United States District Court for The District of Maryland (“District Court”) with 8 causes under Lanham Act including invasion of right of privacy/publicity, unfair competition, unjust enrichment etc., and sought compensation as well as injunctive relief. Epic Games is the creator and developer of the Fortnite video game franchise, a free-to-play online multiplayer video game that allows up to one hundred players to play together in a single match and further allows each player to select as well as create their own individualized, extensively customizable avatar. Online avatars, by way of a simple command, can be made to perform various type of emotes.
Origins of the Running Man Dance
Brantley averred that in the year 2016, they created and popularized a dance move called Running man, which was often performed in between the basketball games at the University of Maryland and which subsequently also got viral on social media. It was their case that as on the date of filing the instant suit the dance move had more than 100 million views on Youtube and thousands of people had even posted videos of themselves performing the said dance move. Brantley claimed that Kevin Vincent and Jeremuiah hall, two high school students, are the ones who actually created the said dance move and that Brantley simply performed/copied the dance video, which they saw on Instagram. Brantley, nevertheless, asserted that the “Running Man” had become synonymous with them. Running Man Lawsuit Epic Games:
Allegations Against Epic Games
Since Fortnite is free to play, the game is mainly financed by players who buy customizations for their virtual avatars. These include costumes, equipment, and unique emotes. Epic Games produced and introduced the “Running Man” emote. It could be purchased for five dollars on the Fortnite electronic storefront as part of a package. Brantley asserted that Epic Games created the emote through unauthorized copying of their Running Man dance move. He claimed that Epic earned wrongful profit by selling it. As a result, Brantley filed a civil action in the district court. The court dismissed the case on Epic Games’ counter motion.
The court referred to Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006) ruling and pointed out that, as per the test of sufficiency a pleading must meet the standard of Rule 8(a) which require a complaint to contain factual contents which are more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.”
District Court Observations
The Court further observed that the allegations must be construed in the light, most favorable to the plaintiff. The counter contention of Epic Games was that claims for Lanham Act are precluded from the Copyright Act and that the Plaintiffs failed to allege existence of a valid trademark to claim reliefs under the Lanham Act.
Copyright Preemption and Choreographic Work
The Court observed that the Copyright Act expressly preempts a broad array of claims, and that The Running Man is subject matter of copyright under Sections 102 and 103 of the Copyright Act. The Copyright protection covers original works of authorship in any tangible medium of expression. Such works can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated directly or through a machine or device. It includes choreographic works. However, it does not include the idea embodied in a work.
It was further observed that copyright preemption is broader than the protection of copyright. The Plaintiff at this stage argued that the Running Man was a dance and not a choreographic work and therefore it could not be a subject matter of copyright. But the district court referring to the case Pellegrino v. Epic Games, Inc rejected this argument of the plaintiff and held that the “Running Man” constitutes subject matter of Copyright. In the Pellegrino case, the court held that copying the step of turning legs and feet while playing saxophone was well within the scope of copyright.
Failure to Establish a Valid Trademark
The Plaintiffs in the instant suit brought the claims under the Lanham Act and Common Law Trademark. However, they failed to point out any particular section of the Lanham Act under which they were claiming relief. Based on arguments about misappropriation and public confusion, the Court evaluated the dispute under Section 43(a). The Court considered the Supreme Court’s discussion distinguishing the Lanham Act and Copyright Claims. It noted that provisions on “origin of goods” under Section 43(a) refer only to producers of tangible goods. They do not apply to the author of an idea, concept, or communication in those goods.
In the Pellegrino case, confusion arose over who originated the Signature Move in the “Phone It In” emote. Epic did not credit Pellegrino as the dance’s creator. It was noted that a claim about the origin of an idea in a tangible good falls under copyright law, not the Lanham Act. In this case, the Plaintiffs did not show any confusion about the producer of a tangible good. They also failed to argue that the Running Man dance was a valid trademark. Additionally, they did not prove that it identified a good or service.
Court’s Decision and Dismissal
Federal trademark law defines the term “trademark” to include any “word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof” that is used to identify and distinguish unique goods or service, and Plaintiffs failed to satisfy these requirements.
The district court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims because they did not demonstrate a valid trademark. The claims regarding invasion of the right of privacy, publicity, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment were also dismissed. These claims were dismissed on the ground of preemption under copyright law. Similarly, the issue of unfair competition and false designation was dismissed. The claim did not fall under the domain of the Lanham Act. Instead, it fell under the domain of copyright law.
