Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Paul v. Haley

Paul v. Haley

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

September 5, 1991, Argued ; October 19, 1992, Decided

91-05685, 92-07001

Opinion

 [****1044]   [*45]  [**898]   In 1966, the late Alex Haley began a search to trace his family's history in Africa [****1045]  and America which culminated, 10 years later, in the publication of the Pulitzer Prize winning book Roots: The Saga of an American Family (hereinafter Roots). Roots tells the story of Haley's African ancestor Kunte Kinte, who was abducted from his Village in West Gambia at the age of 16 and sold into slavery, and chronicles the lives of six generations of Kunte Kinte's descendants as they make the transition from slavery to freedom in America. Roots was adapted into a widely popular television mini-series which aired in January 1977, attracting some 130 million viewers. A sequel, Roots: The Next Generation, which aired two years later, also drew large audiences. On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the defendants, in preparing Roots for publication and broadcast, misappropriated novel ideas or material contained in an unpublished autobiography written by the plaintiff, Emma Lee Paul. For the reasons which follow, we find, as a matter of law, that no misappropriation of novel ideas occurred,  [***3]  and accordingly, that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiff Emma Lee Paul was born in the small town of  [*46]  Hastings, Florida, in 1930, the twelfth of 13 children. In May 1974 Mrs. Paul submitted an autobiographical manuscript entitled The Bold Truth to the defendant Doubleday Publishing Company (hereinafter Doubleday). Although Doubleday rejected Mrs. Paul's manuscript and returned it to her in December 1974, she repeatedly resubmitted it, explaining that she was drawn to Doubleday because she believed in her heart that the company would ultimately publish her book. When the manuscript was once again returned to Mrs. Paul on November 29, 1978, it was accompanied by a letter from Doubleday editor Pyke Johnson, Jr. indicating that the publisher did not "believe that this is a book that we could sell successfully". Mrs. Paul's autobiography  [**899]  was similarly rejected by several other publishers, including Random House, Pantheon Books, and Time Life Books. Mrs. Paul had obtained a copyright for The Bold Truth in 1976, even though she was ultimately unable to find a publisher for her work.

While [***4]  both Roots and The Bold Truth focus on the lives of black Americans, Roots "covers a much broader canvas" ( Alexander v Haley, 460 F Supp 40, 42), commencing its narrative with the birth of the author's ancestor Kunte Kinte in 1750, and tracing the lives of his American descendants over a 200-year period. In contrast, The Bold Truth is a highly personal account of its author's own experiences as a black woman and as a mother. In her autobiography, Mrs. Paul recounts the story of her life from her childhood as a minister's daughter in the deep South, to her relocation in Long Island where she raised her children and built a home. The Bold Truth centers on Emma Paul's struggle to support herself and her family as a migrant worker, a peddler, and an hourly laborer, and concludes by relating, with great pride, the educational achievements of her 10 children. Although Mrs. Paul acknowledges in The Bold Truth that she has read of "Jim Crow, hate, prejudice, KKK, and lynching", she writes that she has never personally witnessed such prejudice, and her primary emphasis is upon racial harmony. Thus, throughout her work she repeatedly stresses that many white [***5]  people, including those in the rural South, treated members of her family and other black people with kindness.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

183 A.D.2d 44 *; 588 N.Y.S.2d 897 **; 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12114 ***; 25 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1044 ****; 20 Media L. Rep. 2041

Emma L. Paul, Respondent, v. George W. Haley, as Executor of Alex Haley, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

Prior History:  [***1]   Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court (M. Hallsted Christ, J.), entered November 30, 1989 in Nassau County, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Disposition: Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint are granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

CORE TERMS

misappropriated, manuscript, similarities, summary judgment, novel idea, novelty, publisher, plaintiff's claim, television, novel, unfair competition, cause of action, autobiography, defendants', broadcast, amended complaint, implied contract, autobiographical, adaptation, genuine, phrases, slave, words

Copyright Law, Protected Subject Matter, Limited Protection for Ideas, General Overview, Scope of Copyright Protection, Subject Matter, Literary Works, Scope of Protection, Statutory Copyright & Fixation, Original Works of Authorship, Misappropriation of Ideas, Torts, Business Torts, Unfair Business Practices, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Opposing Materials, Burdens of Proof, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Trade Secrets Law, Misappropriation Actions, Independent Development, Governments, Local Governments, Claims By & Against