Connection lost
Server error
CAVALIER v. RANDOM HOUSE, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Authors sued publishers for copyright infringement, alleging children’s books copied their submitted works. The court found the overall stories were not substantially similar, but held that two specific illustrations—a moon night light and stars on clouds—were similar enough to proceed to trial.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the Ninth Circuit’s application of the extrinsic/intrinsic test for substantial similarity, demonstrating that even if a work as a whole is non-infringing, copying discrete, protected artistic elements within the work can still constitute copyright infringement and create a triable issue of fact.
CAVALIER v. RANDOM HOUSE, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs Wanda and Christopher Cavalier created and copyrighted children’s stories featuring an anthropomorphic moon character, Nicky Moonbeam. From 1995 to 1998, they submitted over 280 pages of materials, including stories, character designs, and illustrations, to defendants Random House and CTW. One submission included a design for a board book with a built-in ‘moon night light’ on an extended back cover. Another included an illustration of stars wearing hats while relaxing on clouds. After rejecting the Cavaliers’ submissions, the defendants published ‘Good Night, Elmo’ and ‘Good Night, Ernie,’ which were board books featuring Sesame Street characters. ‘Good Night, Elmo’ included a built-in moon night light on its extended back cover, and ‘Good Night, Ernie’ contained an illustration of stars wearing winter caps relaxing on clouds. The Cavaliers sued for copyright infringement, alleging the defendants’ books copied their protected expression. The defendants did not contest copyright ownership or access to the Cavaliers’ work, leaving substantial similarity as the sole issue.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can individual artistic elements within a literary work be found substantially similar for copyright infringement purposes even when the works as a whole are not?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants regarding the literary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui o
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can individual artistic elements within a literary work be found substantially similar for copyright infringement purposes even when the works as a whole are not?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent on the granularity of copyright Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo conseq
Legal Rule
To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership and copying. Copying Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Legal Analysis
The court applied the Ninth Circuit's two-part substantial similarity test. First, analyzing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A work can be non-infringing as a whole, but still infringe