Opinion ID: 2817831
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ablon's Revenue

Text: In his motion for an accounting, Greene referred generally to the evidence at trial to support his contention that Ablon engaged in speaking programs outside of MGH for which he was likely compensated. The district court rejected this argument, stating, Greene does not identify the evidence that would tie the Treating Explosive Kids copyright to compensation that Ablon was 'likely' to have received. Greene, 2013 WL 4714344, at . We agree that the record does not support this claim. Even if Ablon were compensated for these speaking engagements, Greene has not 25 We note that Congress knew well how to speak of value instead of profits, as in the fourth fair use factor: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107. -41- provided evidence that Ablon's compensation would have been tied to his use of expression from Treating Explosive Kids as opposed to, for example, the underlying ideas. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery . . . .); Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (explaining the idea/expression dichotomy and describing it as one of two 'traditional contours' of copyright protection (quoting Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 221 (2003))).26