Opinion ID: 805822
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Short Phrases

Text: The Archbishop attempts to guide us in the appropriate textual incisions he asserts are warranted. Specifically, he argues the district court erred in its comparison of the Works to the Archbishop's versions; instead of comparing the respective texts as a whole, the court should have performed the requisite triage pursuant to which it would have discovered that the only elements unique to the Works are, at most, short phrases, single words, and expressions that are obvious. Because copyright protection cannot extend to such elements, the Archbishop claims it likewise cannot extend to the Works. We are not convinced that the district court's application of the ordinary observer test here was inappropriate or that a deeper dissection analysis was warranted. An examination of each of the district court's orders shows that it considered the respective works as a whole while also narrowing in on their -39- particular textual variations (where present),17 ultimately concluding that the slight textual differences between the two [texts] are insufficient as a matter of law to render the Archbishop's versions not 'substantially similar' to the infringed portions of the Works copyrighted by the Monastery. Holy Transfiguration Monastery II, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 227; see Holy Transfiguration Monastery I, 685 F. Supp. 2d at 226 (noting the minuscule differences between the respective parties' versions of the St. Isaac texts are insufficient as a matter of law to render the website copy . . . not 'substantially similar' to the version copyrighted in the St. Isaac Work). Moreover, while both this court and the Copyright Office have generally recognized that short phrases may not be subject to copyrightability, see 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a) (listing as works not 17 For instance, the district court noted the following specific differences in the works' translations: [R]egarding Psalm 3 of the Psalter Work, the Monastery's phrasing without cause has been replaced by vainly in the Archbishop's corresponding website document. In addition, there are slight textual differences between portions of the Monastery's Prayer Book Work and the corresponding text posted on the Archbishop's website (e.g., the Archbishop changes Friend of Man to Lover of man throughout the document). Holy Transfiguration Monastery II, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 227 n.5 The Archbishop's copying [of the St. Isaac Work] omitted footnotes and a total of three words, added a question mark, and changed the spelling of six words. It also added six quotation marks, and changed some headings. Holy Transfiguration Monastery I, 685 F. Supp. 2d at 226 n.13. -40- subject to copyright [w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; [and] mere listing of ingredients or contents); see also CMM Cable, 97 F.3d at 1519, applicability of this law very much turns on the specific short phrases at issue, as not all short phrases will automatically be deemed uncopyrightable, see CMM Cable, 97 F.3d at 1520 n.20 (acknowledging that not all short, simple, declarative sentences fall within the meaning of [37] C.F.R. § 201.1(a)); Syrus v. Bennett, 455 F. App'x 806, 809 (10th Cir. 2011) ([A] short phrase may command copyright protection if it exhibits sufficient creativity.) (quoting 1 Nimmer § 2.01[B], at 2-17). As so often is the case, context matters.18 Here, we have no context to analyze. Aside from briefyet-undeveloped citations to relevant case law, the Archbishop fails to identify -- whether below or on appeal -- the alleged 18 Compare Applied Innovations, Inc. v. Regents of the U. of Minn., 876 F.2d 626, 635 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding test statements in copyrighted psychological test sufficiently original to be copyrightable as derivative works); Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 98 (2d Cir. 1987) (noting although ordinary phrases might not be copyrightable, their use in a sequence of expressive words does not cause the entire passage to lose protection) with ATC Distrib. Grp., Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700, 706-10 (6th Cir. 2005) (denying copyright protection to part numbers and transmission parts catalog partly because did not show originality required for copyright protection); Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp., 390 F.3d 276, 28687 (3d Cir. 2004) (similar); Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 541-43 (6th Cir. 2004) (rejecting copyrightability of toner loading software program and lock-out code because lacked creativity warranting protection). -41- short phrases which he contends are not copyrightable. Judges are not mindreaders. To properly assess whether the alleged short phrases are subject to protection, we must know what they are. We have often admonished counsel that it is not the job of this court to do [appellant's] work for him. United States v. Rodríguez, 675 F.3d 48, 59 (1st Cir. 2012); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). In contrast to the cases to which appellant cites, which specifically reference the contested short phrases and thoroughly explain why those are or are not subject to copyright protection, the Archbishop has left us to sift through the parties' respective translations and weed out the alleged short phrases that he contends represent the only original (yet not copyrightable) portions of the Works. Left alone with a plethora of ancient religious texts and phrases, we cannot properly know those phrases the Archbishop wants us to touch versus those we should not. And we need not so decipher on our own. We thus deem the Archbishop's dissection argument as to the copyrightability of the Works waived. Rodríguez, 675 F.3d at 59; Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17.