Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Konor Enters., Inc. v. Eagle Publ’ns, Inc., 878 F.2d 138, 140 (4th Cir.1989). Once the copyright owner has established the amount of the infringer’s gross revenues, the burden shifts to the infringer to prove either that part or all of those revenues are “deductible expenses” (i.e., are not profits), or that they are “attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.” Id Although § 504(b) places the burden on the infringer to demonstrate that certain portions of its revenues were due to factors other than the infringement, the in-fringer need not prove these amounts with mathematical precision. See Cream Records, Inc. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 754 F.2d 826, 828-29 (9th Cir.1985); cf. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U.S. 390, 408, 60 S.Ct. 681, 84 L.Ed. 825 (1940) (<HOLDING>). 3. Despite the existence of § 504(b)’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding past profits coupled with other facts and circumstances may establish lost profits (B) holding that there need only be reasonable approximation of recoverable profits (C) holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation (D) holding sentences need only be below the statutory maximum (E) holding lost pension benefits recoverable as front pay
Output (English): holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation