Opinion ID: 727991
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supporting Materials

Text: 62 CMM argues that a side-by-side comparison of WPOR's supporting media--which consists of a newspaper ad, faxes, television advertisements, and on-air script--with CMM's brochures reveals that direct plagiarism of the heart of CMM's work occurred. CMM's Reply Brief, at 9. It further contends that, because the supporting media parroted the WPOR brochure which the district court found likely to be a direct copy, the entry of summary judgment with respect to this media was incongruous error. Id. Upon de novo review, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on WPOR's supporting materials. 63 As an initial matter, we note that, contrary to CMM's characterization, the district court did not find that WPOR's brochure was likely to be a direct copy; rather, it described their striking similarities and subsequently made a sua sponte observation that summary judgment could also--but not quite--go in CMM's favor. CMM Cable Rep., 888 F.Supp. at 197. Not only is this observation not controlling, 24 but it does not necessarily follow that it was incongruous error to treat the supporting materials differently from the brochures just because the brochures' striking similarities (which, as CMM points out, include the expression of the employment metaphor) also appear in the supporting materials. While CMM's KIX brochure and WPOR's supporting materials contain similar--even substantially similar--language, the controlling fact is that this similar language is simply uncopyrightable. As the district court properly concluded, and as we discussed above, the phrases payday, punch in, go on the clock, and begin earning $25 an hour, are uncopyrightable for one or both of two reasons: (i) the employment metaphor is unoriginal to CMM and/or (ii) these elements are made up of uncopyrightable words and short phrases. See CMM Cable Rep., 888 F.Supp. at 198. 64 There is an additional reason, stemming from the fact that the parties are essentially running the same promotion--a direct mail radio promotion using the unoriginal employment metaphor--for which the procedures for participating are the same. CMM points to the following in support of its claim of direct plagiarism of the heart of [its] work, CMM's Reply Brief, pp. 8-9: (i) the newspaper ad contains the same entry form found on the back of Payday Contest brochure and generously borrows from CMM's brochures when it directs the listener to send it in; (ii) the faxes tell the listener that they can win big bucks just for listening; (iii) the television advertisements encourage listeners to punch in on our time clock and earn 25 dollars an hour in the WPOR Payday Contest and to [l]isten, punch in and win; and (iv) the on-air script describes how to participate in the Payday Contest, introducing the idea with the statement that smart people know about the other pay day [sic] with more than [$16,000] up for grabs.... WPOR's Payday Contest. Id. 65 Exposed, the heart consists essentially of how to elements, conveyed through the use of the unoriginal employment metaphor, that inform potential listeners about both the promotion and how to participate. In a somewhat similar scenario, we have previously held that where the rules of a promotional contest of the sweepstakes type were so straight-forward and simple, copyright protection did not extend to those rules. See Morrissey, 379 F.2d at 678 (questioned in Nimmer, § 13.03[B], at 13-81); see also American Dental, 1996 WL 224494 at  12 ([W]hile there are no hard and fast rules about when merger occurs, the consensus is that the 'shorter a phrase is, the less likely it is to have accep[table] substitutes, thus barring protection under the [m]erger [d]octrine.' ) (quoting Paul Goldstein, 1 Copyright § 2.7.3, at 2:100 (2d ed.1996)). Without going so far as to hold that the rules here are uncopyrightable per se under the merger doctrine, see id. (discussing merger doctrine); Concrete Machinery, 843 F.2d at 606-07 (same); Nimmer, § 13.03[B], at 13-81, we nonetheless conclude that CMM cannot succeed on its infringement claim with respect to the text of the supporting materials. We do so under the scenes a faire doctrine as the complained-of similarities consist of unoriginal elements flowing from the undisputed standard and inherent characteristics of direct mail radio promotions and, as such, flow from the logic and necessities of [these radio] game[s]. Barris/Fraser, 5 USPQ.2d at 1891 (stating that to prevail in infringement claim of television show copied material must be more than stock element). 25 66 Thus, while the parties are essentially operating the same promotion, and while WPOR may well have decided to copy the ideas underlying CMM's promotion, WPOR's supporting materials do not constitute actionable copying to the extent that the similarities arise from uncopyrightable elements, such as the unoriginal employment metaphor or de minimis phraseology, or involve standard how to features of a direct mail radio promotion. Because the basis of CMM's infringement claim regarding the supporting materials boils down to alleged copying of uncopyrightable similarities, the district court properly granted summary judgment. This conclusion is not altered by CMM's claim that WPOR's access to other CMM brochures remained a genuine disputed fact. In its Reply Brief, CMM compares its KTK brochure with WPOR's newspaper advertisement, pointing out that its KTK brochure contains a time clock similar to that in WPOR's advertisement, suggesting copying by WPOR of, among other elements, that image. Even assuming, without deciding, that access remained a disputed fact or that WPOR had access to the KTK brochure, we would nonetheless affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the supporting materials. Not only is the image of the time clock an uncopyrightable familiar symbol used to express the unoriginal employment phraseology to get on the clock, the time clocks themselves are not substantially similar. To the ordinary observer, see Concrete Machinery, 843 F.2d at 608-09, CMM's clock is a small stand-alone clock which has two minute hands suggesting movement. Under the face of the clock, it has a slot in which there is a time card sticking out containing a dollar sign. In contrast, WPOR's clock is a larger clock's face with only one stationary minute hand. Also, instead of being a stand-alone image, WPOR's clock is a large background image over which the brochure's and advertisement's text is printed. 67 Furthermore, CMM has failed to show how it was prejudiced by the district court's failure to consider the KTK brochure when it ruled on the supporting materials. CMM states that, while the advertisements closely track the KTK piece in layout and graphics, [ ... it] track[s] the text of KIX most closely, CMM's Reply Brief, pp. 6-7 n. 1, and the court did consider the latter. Moreover, the KTK brochure was actually given to the jury for consideration and, thus, the jury was able to take into consideration the layout and graphics of the KTK brochure when rendering its verdict. Finally, although CMM sought to have its claims with respect to the supporting materials get to the jury, we are hard pressed to think that--in light of its verdict of non-infringement of the brochures--the jury would have found any differently were it to consider the supporting materials. 68