Opinion ID: 805822
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comparing the Texts

Text: The district court carefully compared each of the allegedly infringing texts with the Monastery's Works. On reviewing detailed, side-by-side comparisons of the texts, and specifically noting those sections in which slight variations in the texts were present, it found that no reasonable juror could conclude the Archbishop's versions were not substantially similar -44- to the Works. See Holy Transfiguration II, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 227 & n.4, n.5; Holy Transfiguration I, 685 F. Supp. 2d at 226 & n.13. Our independent review of the Works and the Archbishop's translations confirms the district court's ruling. We agree that the Archbishop's translations are, as a matter of law, substantially similar to the Monastery's Works where his versions differed -- if at all -- only in minor textual variations that would likely cause the ordinary observer to overlook the subtle discrepancies and deem the texts essentially indistinguishable. See Johnson, 409 F.3d at 18; Matthews, 157 F.3d at 28 (substantial similarity requires the disregard of minor differences in favor of major similarity). The Monastery having established both elements of an infringement claim -- i.e., actual copying and actionable copying -- we echo the district court's determination that the Archbishop copied the Works. We thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Monastery as to copyright infringement of the Works. See Johnson, 409 F.3d at 18; Yankee Candle, 259 F.3d at 37 (Although summary judgment is often inappropriate on the question of substantial similarity, where reasonable minds cannot differ, summary judgment is appropriate.) (internal citations omitted).