2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-30-2005 

# Ka y B e rry Inc v

. T a y lor G i ft s Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3809

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" K a y Be rry Inc v

. T a y lor G i fts Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 578. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/578P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N O
. 04- 3809

___________ KAY BER RY, I NC.

A ppel l ant v. T A Y L O R G IF T S , IN C .; BANDW AGO N, I NC.

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i vi l N o. 03- 1305) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W
. A m brose

___________ A r gued M ay3, 2005 B E F O R E : M c K E E , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d W E IS , C irc u it J udges ( Fi l ed: A ugus t30, 2005)2 A ndr ew B
. K at z ( A r gued) Fo x , Roth s c h i l d , O’ Br i e n & Fr a n k e l , LLP 2000 M arketSt r eet 10 Fl oor th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 W i l l i am L
. St ang Fo x , Roth s c h i l d , O’ Br i e n & Fr a n k e l , LLP 625 L i ber t yA venue 29t h Fl oor Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f orAppel l ant W i l l i am E
. H i l t on ( A r gued) Gau t h i e r& Con n o r s , LLP 225 Fr ankl i n St r eet Sui t e 3300 B os t on, M A 02110 Jo h n R
. M cG inley , Jr. Ec k e r t , Se a ma n s , Che r i n & M e l l o t , LLC 600 G r antSt r eet 44t h Fl oor Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel l ees3 ___________ OP I NI ON

___________ V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge B ef o re u s is an ap p ea l from an o rde r gra n ti n g su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof the def endant

- A ppel l ees on a copyr i ght i nfr i ngementcl ai m . A ppel l antK ayB err y , I nc. ( “K ayB err y ”) cl ai m s t hatA ppel l ees T ay l orG i ft s , I nc. ( “Tay l or ”) and B andw agon, I nc. ( “B andw agon”) i nfr i nged i t s copyr i ghton its sc u lp tu ra l w o rk – a g a rd e n ro c k c a st w ith a p o e m f o u n d in t he publ i c domai n. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent aft erdet erm i ni ng t hatK ayB err y ’ s copyr i ghtr egi s t r at i on w as in v a lid a n d th a t th e sc u lp tu ra l w o rk w a s n o t en tit led to copyr i ghtpr ot ect i on. W e w i l l r ever s e. I . F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND AND P ROCE DURAL

HI S TORY K a yB e rryd e sig n s, m a n u f a c tu re s, m a rk e ts a n d se lls “G ar den A cce ntR ocks , ” w hi ch i tdes cr i bes as decor at i ve, cement - cas t , out doors cul ptur es typi cal l yr es embl i ng r ocks or ston es, i n scribe d w ith w ri ti n g s. O n Ju ly7 , 1 9 9 7 , K ayB erry appl i ed fora copyr i ghtr egi s t r at i on fori t s ent i r e l i ne of G ar den A cce ntR ocks
. I tpr ovi ded i t s G ar den A cce ntR ock C at al og ( t he “Cat al og”) as the documents peci m en forthe r egi s t r at i on. T he C at al og i dent i fi ed ea ch s cul ptur e by num berand fe atur ed a de s cr i pt i on and phot ogr aph of e ach4 i ndi vi dual w or k. T he U ni t ed St at es C opyr i ghtO ffi ce i s s ued K ayB err ya C opyr i ghtR egi s t r at i on C ert i fi cat e ( t he “C er t i fi cat e”) w i t h an ef fec t i ve dat e of J ul y1, 1997. T he C er t i fi cat e i dent i fi ed the s cope of the C ert i fi cat e’ s s ubj ect m at t eras s i m pl y“[s ] cul ptur al w or ks w i t h des i gn and t ext
. ” O ne of K ayB err y ’ s bes t - s el l i ng G ar den A cce ntR ocks i s Scul ptur e N o. 646, a r ect angul arobj ecthavi ng a s t one- l i ke app earance and a verse i nscri bed on the fa ce. T he v ers e appea r s i n fi ve l i nes , i ns cr i bed i n a r i ght

- l eani ng fontw i t h t he fi r s tl et t erof ea ch w or d capi t al i zed:

I f Tears C ould B ui ld A Stai r w ay, A nd Mem or i es A L a n e , I ’ d

Wa lk R ig h tUp To Heave n A nd B r i ng Y o u H o m e A g a in (A p p ell an t A p p . at 8.) D u ri n g 2 0 0 3 , B an d w ag o n b eg an su p p ly ing to T ay lor, a n d T a y lo r b e g a n m a rk e tin g a n d s e llin g , a “ M e m o ry S to n e ,” w hi ch w as s i m i l art o K ayB err y ’ s Scul ptur e N o. 646. L i ke Scul ptur e N o. 646, t he M emorySt one w as a r ect angul ar o b j e c twi t h a s t o n e - l i k e a p p e a r a n c e f e a tu r i n g th e e x a c ts a me v erse that ap p ea rs on S cu lpture N o . 6 4 6
. T h e M em o ry S to n e ’s v e rse w a s a lso laid o u t in th e sa m e f iv e -lin e f o rm a t,5 each w ord al so beg an w i t h a cap i t al l et t er, and the en t i re ver se a ls o a p p e a re d in a ri g h t- le a n in g f o n t. K ayB err ys ued Tay l orand B andw agon forcopyr i ght i nfr i ngementand moved fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on p r o h i b i t i n g t h e Ap p e l l e e s f r o m s e l l i n g th e M e mo r yS t o n e . On D ece m ber8, 2003, a U ni t ed St at es M agi s t r at e J udge i s s ued a R epor tand R ecomm endat i on s ugges t i ng thatthe D i s t r i ct C our tdenyK ayB err y ’ s m ot i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed t he M agi s t r at e’ s R epor tand R ecomm endat i on, w i t hout change , i n an or derdat ed February23, 2004. A taboutt he s ame t i m e, on February6, 2004, A p p ell ee s h ad fil ed an am en d ed m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm enton t he i nfr i ngementcl ai m . O n A ugus t2, 2004, the M agi s t r at e i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on s ugges t i ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tgr antthe mot i on. O n A ugus t30, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s t r at e J udge’ s R epor tand R ec o m m en d ati o n as it s o w n o p inion an d g ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f A p p e lle e s . T h is tim e ly ap p e a l f o llo w e d
. I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1331 and 1338( a)
. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand e m p lo yth e sa m e a n a ly sis re q u ire d o f th e D istric t C o u rt to det erm i ne w hethert her e ar e anyi s s ues of m at er i al fac tthat w oul d enabl e the nonmovi ng par t yt o pr evai l
. H ami l t on v. L eavy , 117 F. 3d 742, 746 ( 3d C i r . 1997)
. Sum m aryj udgm ent6 i s appr opr i at e w hen “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand .
. . t he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 56( c)
. A tthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age, w e vi ew al l evi dence and cons i der al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng pa r t y . A nd e r s on v. Li be r t yLobb y , I nc . , 47 7 U. S. 2 4 2 , 2 5 5 (19 8 6 ). III . A N A L Y S IS

“ T o e s ta b lis h a c la im o f c o p yri g h t in f

ri n g e m e n t, a p lain tiff m u st e sta b lish : (1 ) o w n e rsh ip o f a v a lid c o p yrig h t; and ( 2) unauthor i zed c opy i ng of or i gi nal el ement s of the pl ai nt i ff’ s w or k. ” D un & B r ads t r eetSoft w ar e Servs . , I nc. v. G rac e C o n su lt ing , Inc
. , 3 0 7 F
. 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). In gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees , the D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed on a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on w hi ch concl uded that : ( 1) K ayB err ydi d nothave a val i d r egi s t r at i on o v e r its m u lti p le w o rk s b e c a u se th e yw e re n o t su f f icie n tly re late d , (2 ) S c u lp tu re N o . 6 4 6 c o n tain e d n o c o p yrig h tab le s ubj ectm at t er , and ( 3) Scul ptur e N o. 646 embodi ed an expr es s i on t hatw as i ns epar abl e fr om an under l y i ng i dea. For t he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e w i l l r ever s e.

A . K ay B err y ’ s R egi s t rat i on W e b eg in b yad d ressing the v ali d ityo f K ayB erry ’s copyr i ghtr egi s t r at i on. A ccor di ng t o 17 U
. S. C
. § 411( a) , “no act i on fori nfr i ngementof the copyr i ghti n anyU ni t ed St at es w or k s hal l be i ns t i tut ed unt i l pr er egi s t r at i on orr egi s t r at i on of th e c o p yrig h t cla im h a s b e e n m a d e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is7 title .” S e e W e ll- M a d e T o yM f g . C o rp . v . G o f

f a In t’ l C o rp ., 354 F. 3d 112, 115 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ; X oom , I nc. v. I m agel i ne, I n c . , 3 2 3 F
. 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 3 ( 4 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. Ka yBe r r yc l a i ms t hatScul ptur e N o. 646 w as pr oper l yr egi s t er ed under C er t i fi cat e of Regi s t r at i on V A 857- 542, w hi ch cove r s “G ar den A cce ntR ocks , ” des cr i bed as “[s ] cul ptur al w or ks w i t h des i gn an d text. ” A lon g w ith R eg istrati o n V A 8 5 7 -54 2 , K ayB erry depos i t ed i t s G ar den A cce ntR ocks cat al og, w hi ch fe atur ed pi ctur es and des cr i pt i ons of m or e than one hundr ed s c u l p tu r e s , i n c l u d i n g S c u l p tu r e No
. 6 4 6
. Ka yBe r r yc l a i ms th a t th is re g istra tio n c o v e rs S c u lp tu re N o . 6 4 6 a lo n g w ith a ll o f th e o ther w o rks f

ea tured in the ca tal o g . T h e D istri ct C o u rt di s agr eed, r eas oni ng t hatthe i ndi vi dual w or ks fea tur ed i n t he cat al og w er e notval i dl yr egi s t er ed bec aus e theyw er e not s uffi ci ent l yr el at ed t o eac h othert o qual i fyforr egi s t r at i on as a g r o u p o f

w o r k s a s r e q u i r e d b y1 7 U
. S
. C
. § 4 0 8 ( c ) ( 1 )
. We bel i eve thatt hi s r eas oni ng i m pr oper l yi gnor ed the governi ng copyr i ghtr egi s t r at i on r egul at i ons and ca us ed the D i s t r i ct C our tt o eval uat e K ayB err y ’ s r egi s t r at i on underthe i ncorr ect s t atut or ypr ovi s i on. 1 . G r oup R egis tr ati on I ni t i al l y , K ayB err yar gued thati t s G ar den A cce nt R ocks w er e pr oper l yr egi s t er ed as a gr oup of r el at ed w or ks p u rsu a n t to 1 7 U .S .C . § 4 0 8 (c )(1 ). T h e sta tu te s tate s in re lev a n t p a rt: T he R egi s t erof C opyr i ght s i s author i zed to speci fyby r egul at i on t he admi ni s t r at i ve cl as s es i nt o w hi ch w or ks ar e t o be pl ace d fo rpurpos es of depos i tand8 r eg ist rat i on, and the natur e of the copi es or phonor ecor ds t o be depos i t ed i n the var i ous cl as s es s peci fi ed. T he r egul at i ons m ayr equi r e orp erm i t , for par t i cul arcl as s es . . . a s i ngl e r egi s t r at i on fora gr oup of r el at ed w or ks

.

1 7 U
. S
. C
. § 4 0 8 (c)(1) (2 0 0 5 ). R ely ing o n B eh n am Jew elry C orp. v. A r on B as ha C orp. , 45 U
. S. P. Q
. 2d 1078, 1087- 88 (S. D
. N
. Y
. 19 97 ), K ayB errycl ai m ed thatw hen C on gress enac t ed § 408( c) , i ts peci fi cal l yat t empt ed t o l i ber al i ze the copyr i ghtl aw s s o as t o al l ow a gr oup of w or ks t o be r egi s t er ed t ogether , undera s i ngl e r egi s t r at i on, as l ong as they w e re m in im a llyc o n n e c ted . K a yB e rrya rg u e d th a t, un d e r th is perm i s s i ve s t andar d, i t s w or ks w er e s uffi ci ent l yr el at ed and t her efor e val i dl yr egi s t er ed as a gr oup of w or ks underthe appl i cabl e s t atut or ypr ovi s i on. A l t ho ug h w e agree t hat § 408 (c) repr esent s a l i ber al i zat i on of the copyr i ghtl aw s , i tdoes notdefi ne the r equi r ement s fora val i d copyr i ghtr egi s t r at i on. T he appl i cabl e s ubs ect i on s t at es onl ythat“[t ] he r egul at i ons m ay re q u ire o r p e rm it, f

o r p a rticu lar c las se s . . . a sin g le r egi s t r at i on fora gr oup of r el at ed w or ks

. 17 U
. S. C
. § 4 0 8 (c )( 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

“ It is e lem e n tar yth a t th e m e a n in g o f a sta tu te m u st, in th e f irst in sta n c e , b e so u g h t in th e lan g u a g e in w h ich th e a c t is fr amed, and i f thati s pl ai n, and i f the l aw i s w i t hi n t he cons t i tut i onal author i tyof the l aw - m aki ng bodyw hi ch pas s ed9 it, th e so le f

u n c tio n o f

th e c o u rts is to e n f

o rc e it ac c o rd in g to i t s t erm s . ” C ami net t i v. U ni t ed St at es , 242 U
. S. 470, 485 (1 9 1 7 ). H e re , the lan g u a g e p lain lyd o e s n o t g ra n t to a ll copyr i ghtappl i cant s a gene r al r i ghtt o r egi s t era gr oup of w or ks undera s i ngl e r egi s t r at i on. O urconcl us i on thatthe pl ai n l anguage of § 408( c) ( 1) m er el yal l ow s the R egi s t erof C opyr i ght s t o det erm i ne w hattypes of w or ks ar e el i gi bl e for gr oup r egi s t r at i on i s confi r m ed bythe more s t r i ngent l anguage of § 408( c) ( 2) , w hi ch mandat es thatthe R egi s t erof C opyr i ght s es t abl i s h r egul at i ons perm i t t i ng gr oup r egi s t r at i on of w or ks appea r i ng i n per i odi cal s . See 17 U
. S. C
. § 408( c) ( 2) ( “W i t houtpr ej udi ce t o the gene r al author i t ypr ovi ded under cl ause (1), t he R egis t er of C op yri gh t s shal l est abli sh reg u lat ion s . . . . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e R e g iste r o f

C o p yrig h ts h a s e x e rc ise d th e a u th o rity del egat ed by§ 408( c) ( 1) bypr om ul gat i ng rul es al l ow i ng for gr oup r egi s t r at i on for“aut om at ed dat abas es , ” “r el at ed s e ri a ls ,” “ d a ily n e w s p a p e rs ,” “ c o n tr ib u tio n s to p e ri o d ic a ls ,” “dai l ynew s l et t er s , ” and “ publ i s hed phot ogr aphs
. ” See 37 C .F .R . § § 2 0 2 .3 (b )(4 )-(9 ). K a yB e rry , h o w e v e r, d e sc rib e s its G ar den A cce ntR ocks as “s cul ptur al w or ks
. ” Si nce the R egi s t erof C opyr i ght s has notpr om ul gat ed r egul at i ons a l l o wi n g f

o rg r o u p r e g i s t r a t i o n o f s c u l p tu r a l wo r k s , we concl ude thatK ayB err y ’ s r egi s t r at i on i s notval i d underthe curr ent gr ou p regi strat i on provis i on s.

2 . Single W

ork R egis tr ati on K ayB err yal t ernat i vel ycont ends thati t s copyr i ght re g is tr a tio n is v a lid a s a “ s in g le w o rk ” u n d e r 3 7 C .F .R . §“‘P u b li ca ti o n ’ is the distr ibu ti o n o f co p ies
. . . o f a w o rk 1 to th e p u b lic b ysa le o r oth e r tra n sf e r o f o w n e rsh ip , o r b yre n tal, l eas e, or l endi ng. T he offer i ng t o di s t r i but e copi es . . . t o a gr oup o f p e rso n s f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

f u rth e r d istrib u tio n , p u b lic per form ance , orpubl ic d ispl ay , cons t i tut es publ i cat i on. ” 17 U. S. C. § 1 0 1
. “ ‘ Cop i e s ’ a r e ma t e r i a l o b j e c t s . . . i n w hi ch a w or k i s fi xed byany m ethod now know n orl at erdevel oped, and from w hich the w ork can be percei ved , repr od uced , or ot herw i se c o m m u n ic a te d . . . .” Id . T h e re f o re , u n d e r t h e s e d e f

in itio n s , a copyof Scul ptur e N o. 646 w as publ i s hed i n t he C at al og. 10 202. 3( b) ( 3)
. T hi s pr ovi s i on des cr i bes a s i ngl e w or k, “[i ] n t he cas e of publ i s hed w or ks , ” as “al l copyr i ght abl e el ement s that are o therw ise reco g n izab le as se lf-co n tai n ed w o rks, th at are i ncl uded i n a s i ngl e uni tof publ i cat i on, and i n w hi ch the c o p yri g h t c la im a n t is th e s a m e .” 3 7 C .F .R . § 20 2. 3(b)( 3)( i )( A ). T he clas si c exam ple of a si ng l e w ork i s a boar d game. T he boar d, the pl ay i ng pi ece s , and the i ns t ruct i ons m ayal l be i ndi vi dual l yent i t l ed t o copyr i ght pr ot ect i on, buts i nce theyar e pac kaged a s a s i ngl e uni t( t he g a m e itse lf

), itis a p p ro p ria te to a llo w th e c o p yrig h t o w n e r to re g iste r th e e n tire g a m e , an d p ro tec t th e in d iv id u a l ele m e n ts th ro u g h th a t sin g le r e g istra tio n . K a yB e rryc laim s th a t it s copyr i ghtr egi s t r at i on cover s i t s cat al og depos i t , and that Scul ptur e N o. 646, w hi ch w as publ i s hed i n t he ca t al og, i s an in d iv id u a llyre c o g n iza b le e lem e n t o f th a t sin g le w o rk a n d is t her efor e ent i t l ed t o t he bene fi t s of r egi s t r at i on underthe “Si ngl e W or k” pr ovi s i on. 1 “Si ngl e W or k” r egi s t r at i on i s s epar at e and di s t i nct fr om “G r oup R egi s t r at i on. ” The gr oup r egi s t r at i on pr ovi s i ons11 w ere en ac ted p u rsua n t t o 1 7 U
. S
. C
. § 4 0 8 (c)(1), an d w ere bas ed on C ongr es s ’ s des i r e t o l i ber al i ze the r egi s t r at i on pr oces s . See H
. R
. R ep. N o. 94- 1476, at154 ( 1976) , r epr i nt ed in 1 9 7 6 U
. S
. C
. C
. A
. N
. 5 6 5 9 , 5 7 7 0
. T h e sin g le w o rk r egi s t r at i on pr ovi s i on, bycontr as t , w as pr om ul gat ed pur s uant t o t he l anguage of 17 U
. S. C
. § 408( a) , w hi ch s t at es that“the ow nerof copyr i ghtorof anyexcl us i ve r i ghti n t he w or k m ay o b ta in re g is tr a tio n o f

th e c o p yri g h t c la im . . . .” 1 7 U .S .C . § 408( a) ( emphasi s added)
. T hi s pr ovi s i on codi fi ed the pr eexi s t i ng C opyr i ghtO ffi ce pr act i ce of al l ow i ng copyr i ght ow ners t o regi st er m ult i ple w orks pub l i shed togetheras a sin g le w o rk f

o r a sin g le f

e e . S e e R e g istra tio n o f C laim s to C opyr i ght , 43 Fed. R eg. 965, 966 ( J an. 5, 1978) ( codi fi ed at 37 C
. F. R
. pt
. 202)
. A tthe t i m e thi s pr ovi s i on w as es t abl i s hed, t he C opyr i ghtO ffi ce ha d “r es erved fori m pl ement at i on i n a se p a ra te p ro c e e d in g , the p o ss ib ili tyo f p ro v id in g f

o r ‘a sin g le r egi s t r at i on fora gr oup of “r el at ed w or ks ”[’ ] underpar agr aph ( c) ( 1) of s ect i on 408. ” I d. T he s i ngl e w or k r egi s t r at i on r egul at i on i s di s t i nctfr om t he gr oup r egi s t r at i on r egul at i on and has di ffe r entqual i fy i ng r equi r ement s . T he s i ngl e w or k r egi s t r at i on r egul at i on i s s i l ent on w hethert he i ndi vi dual , s el f- cont ai ned el ement s of the “s i ngl e w or k” be “ r el at ed” i n or dert o be r egi s t er ed. I ns t ead, s i ngl e w or k r egi s t r at i on r equi r es , i n t he ca s e of publ i s hed w or ks , t hatal l of the s el f- cont ai ned w or ks be “i ncl uded i n a s i ngl e uni tof publ i cat i on” and s har e the s ame copyr i ght claim an t. 3 7 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 2
. 3 (b)(3 )(i )(A ). I n B enham Je w el r y , 45 U
. S. P. Q
. 2d at1087- 88, the D istri ct C o u rtco n fu sed the re q u ir em en ts fo r si n g le w o rk12 re g istra tio n a n d g ro u p re g istra tio n . T h e c o u rt e rro n e o u sly concl uded thatt he s i ngl e w or k r egul at i on w as pr om ul gat ed p u rsu a n t to 1 7 U .S .C . § 4 0 8 (c ) n o t 4 0 8 (a ) a n d f a iled to n o te the d ist inct reg u lat o ryreq u ir em en ts fo r si n g le w o rk r egi s t r at i on and gr oup r egi s t r at i on. I d. A l t hough B enham J ew el r yquot ed the s i ngl e w or k r egi s t r at i on r egul at i on, i ncl udi ng i t s r equi r ementof a “ s i ngl e uni tof publ i cat i on, ” the c o u rt re p e a ted lym e n tio n e d a n d d isc u ss e d th e re q u ire m e n ts for“s i ngl e r egi s t r at i on form ul t i pl e r el at ed w or ks ” orgr oup r egi s t r at i on. I d. In addit i on t o co nfu si ng the regu l at oryprovis i on s, B enham Je w el r yconduct ed an a nal y s i s thatcombi ned the req u ir em en ts of

g rou p reg istrati o n an d sing le w o rk r egi s t r at i on. T he courtconcl uded thatthe j ew el r yw as suffici entl y“rel at ed” b oth becau se i tw as “m arket ed as a s i ngl e l i ne” a nd s har ed the s ame “bas i c des i gn” and ha d other v isu a l ele m e n ts in c o m m o n . Id . at 1 0 8 8 . B e c a u se it i m pr oper l ym el ded the “s i ngl e uni tof publ i cat i on” requi rem ent of si ng l e w ork regi strat i on and the “rel at edn ess” r equi r ementof gr oup r egi s t r at i on, B enham Je w el r yconcl uded t hatt he “s i ngl e uni tof publ i cat i on” r equi r ementw as s u p e rf lu o u s w h e re th e w o rk s a t is s u e w e re s u f f ic ie n tly re la te d
. Id . T h is c o n c lu sio n is in c o rre c t b e c a u se re late d n e ss is n o t a r equi r ementfors i ngl e w or k r egi s t r at i on. A s w e have s how n, t he s i ngl e w or k r egi s t r at i on r egul at i on ar i s es fr om a di ffe r ent s t atut or ypr ovi s i on t han the gr oup w or k r egi s t r at i on r egul at i on and, as a r es ul t , w e ca nnoti gnor e the s i ngl e uni tof p u b l i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n ta s d i d B e n h a m J e w e l r y. I n D onal d B ruce & C o. v. B
. N
. M ul t i C om C orp. , 964W e f u rth e r n o te th a t w e a re u n a b le, o n th is re c o rd , to 2 det erm i ne w hetherScul ptur e N o. 646 w as fi r s tpubl i s hed i n the K ayB err y ’ s cat al og. T he governm ent , i n an am i cus cur i ae br i ef s ubm i t t ed at our r eques t , s t at ed t hat onl y t hos e i ndi vi dual w or ks f irst p u b lish e d in th e sin g le w o rk w ill b e c o v e re d b yth e sin g le w o rk re g istrati on, ci t i ng U
. S. C opyr i g h t O ff ice, C o m p en d ium II: C om pendi um of C opyr i ght O ffi ce Pr act i ces § 607. 01 at600- 11 13 F. Supp. 265, 268- 69 ( N
. D
. I l l
. 1997) , the courtm ade a s i m i l aranal yt i cal err or . I n t hatcas e, the courts ai d t hatthe g rou p reg istrati o n p rov isi o n fo r “sing le reg istrati o n fo r a gr oup of r el at ed w or ks ” w as ati s s ue r atherthan the pr ovi s i on fora s i ngl e w or k. I d. at268. H ow ever , dur i ng i t s di s cus s i on o f th e re lat ed n ess re q u ir em en t of g rou p reg istrati o n , the c o u rt i n D on al d B ruce con si dered w hetheri ncludi ng otherw i se unr el at ed w or ks i n a “s i ngl e uni tof publ i cat i on” mi ghts at i s fy t he r el at ednes s r equi r ementforgr oup r egi s t r at i on. I n other w o rd s, th e c o u rt su g g e ste d th a t in c lu d in g item s in a sin g le u n it o f p u b lic a tio n m ig h t s e rv e a s a p ro x yf o r r e la te d n e s s . T h is w o u ld im p ro p e rlym e ld th e g ro u p re g istra tio n a n d sin g le w o rk re g is tr a tio n re q u ir e m e n ts
. B o th B e n h a m Je w e lrya n d D o n a ld B ru c e f a il t o ac co u n t fo r th e f

u n d am en tal d ist inction b etw ee n sing le w o rk r egi s t r at i on under37 C
. F. R
. § 202. 3( b) ( 3) , and gr oup re g istra tio n u n d e r 3 7 C .F .R . § 2 0 2 .3 (b )(4 ). T h is d istin c tio n is s i gni fi cant
. I n t hi s i ns t ance , K ayB err y ’ s gar den ac centr ocks m aynotbe s uffi ci ent l y“r el at ed” buttheyw er e i ncl uded i n a s i ngl e uni tof publ i cat i on and the copyr i ghtcl ai m anti s the s ame so, r egar dl es s of thei rr el at ednes s , theym aybe r egi s t er ed pur s uantt o t he s i ngl e w or k r egi s t r at i on r egul at i on. 2( 1984) ( “W or ks t h at ar e otherw i s e r ecogni zabl e as s el fcont ai ned m ay b e r egi s t er ed on a s i ngl e appl i cat i on and upon p a ym e n t o f

a sin g le f

e e , if th e ya re f

irst p u b lish e d in a sin g le uni tof publ i cat i on and the copyr i ght cl ai m ant of al l w or ks i n t he uni ti s t he s ame. ”) ( emphasi s added)
. T he governm entcl ai m ed t hatt o t he ext entt hatt he s i ngl e w or k cont ai ns bot h new and p re e x is tin g m a tte r, i t is a “ c o m p ila tio n ” o r a “ d e ri v a tiv e w o rk .” See 17 U
. S. C
. § 101 ( 2005)
. A ccor di ngl y , i tcont ended, t he copyr i ght “ext ends onl y t o t he m at er i al contr i but ed byt he author of s uch w or k, as di s t i ngui s hed fr om the pr eexi st i ng m at er i al em p loy ed in the w o rk.” S ee 1 7 U
. S
. C
. § 1 0 3 (b) (2 0 0 5 ). Fur t herm or e, t he gover nm ent cl ai m ed, “[t ] he copyr i ghti n s uch w or k i s i ndepende ntof, and does notaffec t
. . . anycopyr i ght pr ot ect i on i n t he pr eexi s t i ng m at er i al
. ” See i d. O n re m a n d , th e D istric t C o u rt w ill n e e d to d e ter m in e in the first instan ce w h ethe r th is prese n ts a b arrier t o K ayB erry ’s r e g i s t r a t i o n . Al t h o u g h th e i s s u e i s n o t b e f o r e u s o n a p p e a l , we not e thatdeci s i ons of thi s C our tand o thers couns el that r egi s t r at i on of a c ol l ect i ve w or k i s s uffi ci ent t o s uppor tan ac t i on fori nfr i ngementof the under ly ing s el f- cont ai ned part s . E duc. T es t i n g Ser vs . v. K at zman, 793 F. 2d 533, 539 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( “A l t hough compi l at i ons o r ‘c ol l ect i ve’ w or ks m ayi ncl ude uncopyr i ght abl e w or ks , as w el l as pr evi ous l ycopyr i ght ed w or ks , t he fa ctt hatt h e reg istr at i on w as forcompi l at i ons does notpr ecl ude pr ot ect i o n fort he mat er i al t her ei n contr i but ed by t he author
. ”) ; s ee a l s o X o o m , I nc. , 323 F. 3d at284 ( ow nerof copyr i ght i n t he col l ect i ve w or k and under l y i ng w or ks w as the s ame and t her efor e coul d m ai nt ai n an act i on fori nfr i ngementof t he under l y i ng w or ks ) ; St r eetw i s e M aps v. V anD am, I nc. , 159 F
. 3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 7 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (w h ere the c o p yri g h t ow n ers a re 14t he s ame, a re gi s t r at i on cert i fi cat e for a l at er w or k i s s uffi ci ent to m aintain a n ac ti o n fo r i n fring em en t of the p re-ex ist ing w o rk). 15 B . Scul pt ure N o. 646 i s ent i t l ed t o C opy ri ght P rot ect i on N ext , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatScul ptur e N o. 6 4 6 l a c k e d a n yp r o t e c t i b l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o rd e s i g n . We di s agr ee. “To qual i fyforcopyr i ghtpr ot ect i on, a w or k m us tbe or i gi nal t o t he author
. . . m ean[ i ng] onl ythatthe w or k w as i ndepende nt l ycr eat ed bythe author( as oppos ed t o copi ed fr om ot herw or ks ) , and thati tpos s es s es atl eas ts om e mi ni m al degr ee of

cr eat i vi t y . ” Fei s tPubl ’ ns , I nc. v. R ur al T el
. Ser v. C o ., 4 9 9 U .S . 3 4 0 , 3 4 5 (1 9 9 1 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A s cul ptur al w or k’ s cr eat i vi t yder i ves fr om the combi nat i on of t extur e, color , si ze, and shape, as w el l as the p art i cularverse i ns cr i bed and the w aythe ver s e i s pr es ent ed. I tm eans n o th in g th a t th e se e lem e n ts m a yn o t b e in d iv id u a llye n tit led to pr ot ect i on; “al l cr eat i ve w or ks dr aw on t he comm on w e llsp rin g th a t is th e p u b lic d o m a in . In th is p o o l ar e n o t o n ly el ement al ‘ r aw m at er i al s , ’ l i ke col or s , l et t er s , des cr i pt i ve fact s, and the catal og ue o f st and ard geo m et ri c form s, bu tal so ear l i erw or ks of artt hat , due t o t he pas s age of t i m e orfor ot herr eas ons , ar e no l ongercopyr i ghtpr ot ect ed. ” Tufenki an I m por t/ E xpor tV entur es , I nc. v. E i ns t ei n M oom j y , I nc. , 338 F. 3d 127, 132 ( 2d C i r . 2003)
. W hen an a uthorcombi nes t hes e el ement s and adds hi s orherow n i m agi nat i ve s park, cr eat i on occur s , and the authori s ent i t l ed t o pr ot ect i on forthe16 r es ul t
. Fei s tPubl ’ ns , I nc. , 499 U
. S. at345. T hi s i s true eve n w hen the authorcontr i but es onl ya mi ni m al amount of cr eat i vi t y . I d. at348 ( fac tual compi l at i ons m aybe c o p yrig h tab le w h e n th e a u th o r “ c h o o se s w h ich f a c ts to i ncl ude, i n w hator dert o pl ace them, and how t o arr ange the col l ect ed dat a s o t hatt heym aybe us ed ef fec t i vel yby r eade r s . ”) ; s ee a l s o R eade r ’ s D i ges tA s s ’ n, I nc. v. C ons ervat i ve D i ges t , I nc. , 821 F. 2d 800, 806 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1987) (al t ho ug h n o elem ent of m agazine cov er – ordi naryl i nes, t ypefa ces , and col or s – i s ent i t l ed t o coyr i ghtpr ot ect i on, the d istin c tiv e a rra n g e m e n t is e n tit led to p ro tec tio n a s a g ra p h ic w o rk ). H er e, K ayB errycl ai m s thati ts el ect ed an i ns pi r at i onal p o e m f ro m th e p u b lic d o m a in , ad a p ted th a t p o e m to m a k e it v isu a llya n d rh yth m ica llya p p e a lin g , an d th e n c a st it o n its ow n s cul ptur al w or k. Forthes e r eas ons , as w el l as thos e s et f o rth a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is q u a n tu m o f c re a tiv ityis suffici ent t o q uali fyfor cop yri gh tprot ect i on . S ee F ei st Publ ’ ns . , 499 U
. S. at348; R eade r ’ s D i ges tA s s ’ n, 821 F. 2d at 806. C . K ay Ber r y’ s C opyr i ght R e gi s t r at i on Does N ot Ex t e nd t o an Idea W e nexttur n ourat t ent i on t o t he s econd pa r tof the i nfr i ngementi nqui r y– w hetherA ppel l ees i m pr oper l ycopi ed Scul ptur e N o. 646, and s peci fi cal l y , w hetherthe expr es s i on K a yB e rryse e k s to p ro tec t h a s m e rg e d w ith a n u n p ro tec tib le i dea. C opy i ng r efe r s t o t he ac tof i nfr i ngi ng anyof the e x c lu siv e rig h ts th a t ac c ru e to th e o w n e r o f a v a lid c o p yrig h t,17 a s s e t f o rth a t 1 7 U .S .C . § 1 0 6 , “in c lu d in g th e rig h ts to di s t r i but e and r epr oduce c opyr i ght ed mat er i al
. ” For d M ot or C o . v . S u m m itM o tor P rod s. , Inc
. , 9 3 0 F
. 2 d 2 7 7 , 2 9 1 (3d C ir
. 1991)
. I tm aybe demonstr at ed bys how i ng thatthe defe ndanthad ac ces s t o t he copyr i ght ed w or k and thatthe or i gi nal and al l egedl yi nfr i ngi ng w or ks s har e s ubs t ant i al si m i l ari t i es. Id. ; see al so D am T hings from D enm ark v. R uss B err i e & C o. , 290 F. 3d 548, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; W hel an A s s ocs . , I nc. v. J as l ow D ent al L ab. , I nc. , 797 F. 2d 1222, 1 2 3 1 -3 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ).

“ S u b s t a n t i a l s i mi l a r i t y , ” i n tu r n , i s f u r t h e rb r o k e n d o wn i nt o t w o cons i der at i ons : “( 1) w hetherthe def endantcopi ed f ro m th e p lain tiff ’s w o rk a n d (2 ) w h e th e r th e c o p y in g , if pr oven, w ents o faras t o cons t i tut e an i m pr oper appr opr i at i on. ” A t ar i , I nc. v. N or t h A m er i can Phi l i ps C o n su m er E lecs. C o rp., 6 7 2 F
. 2 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 4 (7th C ir
. 1 9 8 2 ), s uper cede d i n par tbyFed. R
. C i v. P. 52( a) ( as amended 1 9 8 5 ). “F irst, th e f

a c t-f in d e r m u st d e c id e w h e th e r th e re is su f f icie n t sim ilarityb e tw e e n th e tw o w o rk s in q u e stio n to co n clud e tha t th e a ll eg ed inf ri n g er u sed the c o p yri g h ted w o rk i n m aki ng hi s ow n. ” W hel an A s s ocs . , 797 F. 2d at1232. A sh o w in g o f

su b sta n tial sim ilarityin th is s e n se , co u p led w ith evi dence t hatt he i nfr i ngi ng authorhad ac ces s t o t he or i gi nal w o rk , p e rm its a f

a c t-f in d e r to in f

e r th a t th e in f

rin g in g w o rk is n o t it se lf o rig in a l, bu t ra th e r is b a se d o n th e o rig in a l. A t th is sta g e o f th e in q u iry , ex p e rt tes tim o n yis p e rm iss ib le to h e lp re v e a l th e sim ilaritie s th a t a la yp e rso n m ig h t n o t o rd in a rily per cei ve. I d. D i r ectevi dence of copy i ng oran admi s s i on by t he i nfr i ngi ng authorw oul d s at i s fythi s t es tas w el l
. D am T hi ngs fr om D enmar k, 290 F. 3d at562.18 “N otal l copy i ng, how ever , i s copyr i ghti nfr i ngement
. ” F e ist P u b l’n s, 4 9 9 U .S . at 3 6 1 . E v e n if a c tu a l co p y in g is p rov en , “the fa ct-find er m u st de cide w ith o u t th e a id o f e x p ert te s tim o n y , b u t w ith th e p e rs p e c tiv e o f th e ‘l a yo b s e rv e r,’ w hethert he copy i ng w as ‘ i l l i ci t , ’ or‘ an unl aw ful a p p ro p ri a tio n ’ o f

th e c o p yri g h te d w o rk .” W h e la n A s s o c s ., 797 F. 2d at1232. T he foc us i n t hi s s econd s t ep i s “w hether t he s ubs t ant i al s i m i l ar i t i es r el at e t o pr ot ect i bl e mat er i al
. ” D am T hi ngs fr om D enmar k, 290 F. 3d at562. “Phr as ed i n an al t ernat i ve fa s hi on, i tm us tbe s how n t hatcopy i ng w ents o far as t o cons t i tut e i m pr operappr opr i at i on, the t es tbei ng the r es pons e of the or di naryl ayper s on. ” U ni ver s al A t hl et i c Sal es C o. v. Sal kel d, 511 F. 2d 904, 907 ( 3d C i r . 1975) ( ci t i ng A rn ste in v . P o rte r, 1 5 4 F .2 d 4 6 4 (2 d C ir. 1 9 4 6 )). P a rt o f th is inq u iryinv o lves d ist ing u ishing b etw ee n the a u tho r’s e x p re ss io n a n d th e id e a o r th e m e th a t h e o r sh e se e k s to conveyorexpl or e. I ti s a funda m ent al pr emi s e of c opyr i ghtl aw thatan authorcan pr ot ectonl ythe expr es s i on of an i dea, butnotthe i dea i t s el f. See 17 U
. S. C
. § 102( b) ; s ee a l s o B akerv. Sel den, 1 0 1 U
. S
. 9 9 , 1 0 3 -04 (18 8 0 ); F ran k li n M int C o rp. v. N at’l W ild lif e A rt E x c h ., In c ., 5 7 5 F .2 d 6 2 , 6 4 -6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). T hus , an authorm aybas e hi s w or k on the s ame i ns pi r at i on as t hatof an e ar l i erw or k, buthe maynot“‘ copythe copy
. ’ ” Fr ankl i n M i nt , 575 F. 2d at65 ( quot i ng B l ei s t ei n v. D onal ds on L i t hogr aphi ng C o. , 188 U
. S. 239, 249 ( 1903) )
. W hen d e te rm in in g w h e th e r t w o w o rk s a re s u b s ta n tia lly sim ila r, a fac t - fi nderm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe l at erw or k i s s i m i l ar beca us e i tappr opr i at es the uni que expr es s i ons of the or i gi nal author , orm er el ybeca us e i tcont ai ns el ement s thatw oul d be19 ex p ec ted w h en tw o w o rks e x p ress the sam e ide a o r ex p lore th e s a m e th e m e . N ear l yeveryw or k i nvol ves a bl end of i dea a nd e x p re ss io n . B e c a u se a n a u th o r c a n o n lyd e m o n stra te su b stan ti al si m il arityb yref ere n cing tho se a sp ec ts of h is w o rk that em b o d yh is creative c o n tr ibu ti o n , h e w il l hav e a m o re d i f f i c u l tt i m e p r o v i n g i n f

r i n g e m e n ti f

h i s w o r k c o n t a i n s o n l y a m in im a l am o u n t o f

o rig in a l ex p re ss io n . U n iv e rsa l A th letic Sal es , 511 F. 2d at908 ( “[B]e t w een the extr emes of c oncede d cr eat i vi t yand i ndepende nteff or t s amount i ng t o no m or e than t h e t r i v i a l , t h e t e s to f

a p p r o p r i a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l yv a r i e s . ” )
. As one courthas expl ai ned: [ A ] c o p yr i g h to n a w o r k w h i c h b e a r s p r a c t i c a l l y a p h o to g ra p h ic lik e n e ss to th e n a tu ra l ar ticle
. . . is like ly t o pr ove a r el at i vel yw eak c opyr i ght
. T hi s i s nott o s ay t hat , as a mat t erof l aw , i nfr i ngementof s uch a copyr i ghtcannotbe i nferr ed fr om m er e s i m i l ar i t yof appea r ance , butonl ythatthe pl ai nt i ff' s bur den w i l l be t hatm uch more di ffi cul tt o s us t ai n beca us e of the i nt r i ns i c s i m i l ar i t i es of the copyr i ght ed and a ccus ed w orks. F ir s t A m . A rt if

ic ia l F lo w e rs , In c . v . J o s e p h M a rk o v its , In c ., 342 F. Supp. 178, 186 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 1972)
. T he Fi r s tC i r cui thas e n d o r s e d t h i s v i e w , e x p l a i n i n g th a tw h e n th e r e i s o n l y a l i m i t ed numberof w ay s t o expr es s an i dea “ t he bur den of pr oof i s heavyon t he pl ai nt i ff w ho m ayhave t o s how ‘ near i dent i t y ’ betw een the w or ks ati s s ue. ” C oncr et e M ach. C o. v. C lassic L aw n O rna m en ts, Inc
. , 8 4 3 F
. 2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 6 -07 (1st C ir
.20 1 9 8 8 ) (cit ing S id & M artyK rof ft T elev isi o n v . M cD o n ald’s C o rp., 5 6 2 F
. 2 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 7 (9th C ir
. 1 9 7 7 )). I n s om e i ns t ance s , ther e maycome a poi ntw hen an author ’ s expr es s i on becomes i ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om the i dea he s eeks t o convey , s uch thatthe tw o m er ge. E duc. T es t i ng S ervs. v. K at zm an, 79 3 F
. 2d 53 3, 53 9 (3d C i r. 19 86 ). In these ci r cumst ance s , no pr ot ect i on i s avai l abl e forthe expr es s i on; ot herw i s e, t he copyr i ghtow nercoul d eff ect i vel yacqui r e a m onopol yon t he under l y i ng ar torthe i dea i t s el f. I d. M er ger i s r ar e, how ever , and i s gener al l yfound i n w or ks w i t h a ut i l i t ar i an func t i on, i d. ( ci t i ng B r ow n I ns t rum entC o. v. W a r n e r , 1 6 1 F
. 2 d 9 1 0 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 4 7 ) ; M
. M
. Bu s . F o r ms C o rp. v. U arc o , 4 7 2 F
. 2 d 1 1 3 7 (6th C ir
. 1 9 7 3 )). T h is C o u rt h a s n e v e r f

o u n d a n in sta n c e in w h ich a c o m p lete lya e sth e tic expr es s i on m er ged i nt o an i dea. Fori ns t ance , i n M as quer ade N o v elty , Inc
. v . U n iqu e In d u s. , 9 1 2 F
. 2 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 6 (3d C ir
. 1990) , t hi s C our tdeal tw i t h a ca s e i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff s ued t he d efen dan tfor i nfri ng i ng i t s copy ri gh ton hu m orous no se m as ks des i gned t o r es embl e the nos es , s nout s , and bea ks of d if f e re n t an im a ls. A lth o u g h th e iss u e o f su b sta n tial sim ilarity w a s n o t b e f

o re th e C o u rt, w e re c o g n ize d th a t “c o p yrig h ts p ro te c t o n ly ex p re s s io n s o f id e a s a n d n o t id e a s th e m s e lv e s ,” and expl ai ned: B yh o lding that M asq u era d e’s n o se m ask s are copyr i ght abl e, w e do noti nt i m at e thati thas the excl us i ve r i ghtt o m ake nos e masks r epr es ent i ng pi g, el ephantand parr otnos es . O n r emand, i tw i l l be M asquerade’s burden to show that U nique’s no se m as ks i ncorpor at e copi es , i n t he copyr i ghtl aw s ens e,21 of M as quer ade’ s s cul ptur es , r atherthan s cul ptur es that der i ve thei rs i m i l ar i t yt o M as quer ade’ s s cul ptur es m e re lyf ro m th e c o m m o n a lityo f th e a n im a l su b

jec ts b o th re p re s e n t. M as quer ade N ovel t y , 912 F. 2d at671- 72 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itte d ). H e re , as in M a sq u e ra d e N o v e lty , the p ro tec tib le or i gi nal i t yof the al l egedl yi nfr i nged w or k i s t o be found, i f at al l , s ol el yi n i t s appea r ance . K ayB err ycl ai m s thatA ppel l ees in f rin g e d its c o p yrig h t n o t b yu sin g th e sa m e p u b lic d o m a in poem, ori ns cr i bi ng a r ock w i t h t ext , butbycopy i ng the s peci fi c combi nat i on of el ement s i templ oy ed t o gi ve S cu lpture N o . 6 4 6 it s u n iqu e loo k
. A lth o u g h the e v iden ti ary b u r d e n u p o n i ti s h i g h , f o rth e r e a s o n s we h a v e d i s c u s s e d , we c o n c lu d e th a t K a yB e rryis e n tit led to th e o p p o rtu n ityto demonstr at e thatt he M emorySt one i s nei t hera uni que cr eat i on, nort he unavoi dabl e expr es s i on of a c om m on i dea, b u tr a t h e ra n i m p e r m i s s i b l e c o p yo f S c u l p tu r e N o . 6 4 6
. We w ill th e re f

o re re v e rse a n d re m a n d to th e D istric t C o u rt.