Gregorini v. Apple Inc. — Ninth Circuit Upholds Servant Copyright Defense Verdict

Background

Filmmaker Francesca Gregorini wrote, directed, and produced the independent film The Truth About Emanuel. She sued Apple, M. Night Shyamalan, and several production companies and producers, alleging that the first three episodes of the Apple TV+ series Servant copied protectable elements of her film. A copyright plaintiff ordinarily must show both that the defendant had access to the earlier work and that the two works are substantially similar in protectable expression.

The case had already reached the Ninth Circuit once. In 2022, the court reversed an early dismissal because reasonable jurors could disagree about substantial similarity. After the case returned to the Central District of California, the parties completed discovery and tried the claims to a jury. The jury found for the defendants. Gregorini appealed again, challenging how the trial judge instructed the jury on access and how the court handled a jury question about the meaning of “widely disseminated.”

The Court’s Holding

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the defense verdict. As an initial matter, the panel held that Gregorini adequately preserved her objection to the access instruction. Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 generally requires a distinct on-the-record objection, the court does not demand a pointless formality when the trial judge already understands the disputed issue, the objecting party’s position, and the requested alternative. Gregorini had repeatedly argued that industry-specific notoriety could establish access and had proposed an instruction defining widespread dissemination. The panel therefore reviewed the instruction under the ordinary standards rather than limiting review to plain error.

On the merits, the district court acted within its discretion by giving Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 17.18. That instruction told jurors that access could be shown either through a chain of events connecting the plaintiff’s work to the defendant’s opportunity to see it or through wide dissemination of the work. The panel concluded that this formulation accurately stated Ninth Circuit law. The trial judge was not required to add a more detailed definition of “widely disseminated,” because the evidence needed to establish dissemination varies from case to case. The instruction also left Gregorini ample room to argue that commercial success or saturation within the entertainment industry made access likely.

The panel likewise rejected the argument that the trial judge had to answer the jury’s request for a definition before accepting its verdict. Near the end of the day, the judge planned to hear the parties’ positions on a response the next morning. The jury then reached a unanimous verdict without further guidance. The jurors were polled, and Gregorini offered no evidence that the verdict was coerced. Unlike cases in which a court gave an incorrect supplemental instruction or refused to clarify a genuine ambiguity, the record showed that the jury no longer needed an answer to reach its decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Ninth Circuit’s model copyright instruction permits proof of access through either a connecting chain of events or widespread dissemination.
• A trial judge need not define “widely disseminated” more precisely when the instruction correctly states the law and counsel can argue how the evidence fits that standard.
• A jury’s unanswered question does not automatically invalidate a verdict when the jury later reaches a unanimous decision without additional instruction and there is no evidence of coercion.
• An objection to jury instructions can be preserved without a ritual repetition when the court has already been fully informed of the objection, its grounds, and the proposed alternative.

Why It Matters

The decision leaves intact a jury verdict clearing the creators and distributors of Servant of copyright infringement. More broadly, it illustrates the practical difficulty of proving access to an independently produced work. A plaintiff may rely on industry-specific exposure rather than mass-market popularity, but the model instruction does not promise a detailed legal definition that converts notoriety into access. The persuasive work remains with the evidence and counsel’s presentation to the jury.

For film, television, and other creative-industry disputes, the ruling also underscores that an appellate court will distinguish between an instruction that misstates copyright law and one that simply leaves a fact-intensive concept for the jury. The memorandum is unpublished and is not precedential except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, but it is a useful guide to how the court evaluates preservation, model instructions, and mid-deliberation jury questions in copyright trials.

Surfaced via newsletter intake: CourtListener Alerts.