Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): from the “striking” similarities between the works. Id. This rule only applies, however, where “as a matter of logic, the only explanation [for the similarities] between the two works must be ‘copying rather than ... coincidence, independent creation, or prior common source.’ ” 4-13 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.02[B] (2009) (citations omitted). Conversely, under the “inverse ratio rule” recognized by the Ninth Circuit, courts “require a lower standard of proof of substantial similarity when a high degree of access is shown.” Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 485. To benefit from this rule, Plaintiff must offer proof of access which is greater than or “more compelling than that which is offered in the usual copyright case.” Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1176 (C.D.Cal.2001) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). Conversely, where 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because literary works including compilations and derivative works are within the subject matter of copyright state common law that purported to protect a work for which plaintiffs copyright action was unsuccessful was preempted (B) holding that repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works even without direct economic benefit is sufficient for a court to find commercial use (C) holding that younger abstention was appropriate while the case works its way through the state appellate process (D) holding that the inverse ratio rule did not apply because the general unavailability of plaintiffs works es pecially those that were unpublished other than by way of their alleged 1994 and 1995 submissions to defendants makes access to plaintiffs copyrighted works somewhat less than might be available in a large number of cases (E) holding that the plaintiffs allowance of customers to create derivative works for noncommercial purposes did not impliedly license commercial competition
Output (English): holding that because literary works including compilations and derivative works are within the subject matter of copyright state common law that purported to protect a work for which plaintiffs copyright action was unsuccessful was preempted