Opinion ID: 659340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proof of Actual Copying

Text: 14 LSI argues that the district court erred in finding that it had actually copied K-T's Licensed Materials, rather than copying other materials--possessed by third parties--that contained the same information. We find this argument to be without merit. 15 As direct evidence of copying is uncommon, plaintiffs generally demonstrate copyright infringement indirectly or inferentially by proving that (1) defendants had access to the copyrighted works, and (2) there is a substantial similarity between infringed and infringing works. 4 These copyright issues of access and substantial similarity are findings of fact and are consequently reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. 5 In this case, the district court found that both Vroom and Jago had access to the Licensed Materials. As Vroom helped develop and write those materials, and as Jago relied on them in developing the MPO program, that finding is not clearly erroneous. Indeed, it is factually correct. 16 LSI, however, insists that K-T never demonstrated that LSI literally copied the specific materials that were licensed to K-T. But LSI's dogged insistence is nonsensical. Even if LSI did lift the offending expression from third party sources, its reproduction of that expression for commercial purposes may be infringing. Language copied from those third party sources was itself copied or derived from K-T's Licensed Materials, and its legality depends on copyright law. In other words, even if LSI copied a copy of K-T's Licensed Materials, such copying may still constitute infringement. Copying a copy of copyrighted materials is a cognizable contravention of the Copyright Code. 6 17 LSI does not dispute that there is substantial similarity between the MPO program and K-T's Licensed Materials. Indeed, LSI admits that the MPO program incorporates the same eight questions and five processes that the district court characterized as the heart and soul of the V-Y Model, which was licensed to K-T. Thus, the district court's finding that MPO is substantially similar to K-T's Licensed Materials is not clearly erroneous. In summary, neither the district court's finding that LSI had access to K-T's Licensed Materials, nor its finding that MPO program was substantially similar to those materials is clearly erroneous. Consequently, the district court's finding that LSI copied K-T's Licensed Materials is not clearly erroneous. 18