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

Heading: Similarity to The Explosive Child

Text: Ablon also argues that slides two, four, and five were not sufficiently similar to expression in The Explosive Child for a reasonable jury to have found infringement.30 In our de novo review of the district court's decision to deny Ablon's Rule 50(b) motion, we will not reverse the lower court unless the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, could lead a reasonable person to only one conclusion, namely, that the moving party was entitled to judgment. Lama v. Borras, 16 F.3d 473, 477 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting PH Group Ltd. v. Birch, 985 F.2d 649, 653 (1st Cir. 1993)). In evaluating whether Ablon's slides and the relevant passages from The Explosive Child were substantially similar, the jury had to apply the ordinary observer test. Under that test, two works will be said to be substantially similar if a reasonable, ordinary observer, upon examination of the two works, would 'conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectable expression.' T-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber 30 Here, again, Ablon speaks of probative similarity. However, since Ablon is contesting the jury's ultimate infringement findings, the proper metric of similarity in this context is substantial similarity. See T-Peg, Inc., 459 F.3d at 108 (explaining the copyright infringement framework). -48- Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 112 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 2005)). To be sure, some differences in language exist between slides two, four, and five and the related passages in The Explosive Child.31 In each pair of expressions, however, key words or phrases overlap such that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the later expression was a minimally revised version of the earlier work and not an original articulation of a common idea. Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56, 65 (1st Cir. 2000) (Slight or trivial variations between works will not 31 The slides and passages in question are as follows: Slide two (Reward and punishment programs can teach basic lessons but weren't ever intended to teach complicated skills.) and this expression from The Explosive Child: First, notice that all the categories end with the same word: skills. Pathways can best be thought of as skills that need to be trained. Second, reward and punishment programs don't train the child in any of the skills. (In his brief, Ablon misquotes the slide, replacing programs with systems.) Slide four (Rather, challenging behavior -- including explosions, implosions and everything else in between -- occurs when a demand placed upon someone requires skills to handle the demand in an adaptive manner that person does not fully possess.) and this expression from The Explosive Child: An explosive outburst -- like other forms of maladaptive behavior -- occurs when the cognitive demands being placed upon a person outstrip that person's capacity to respond adaptively. (In his brief, Ablon misquotes the slide, adding the before person.) Slide five (The child has shown he needs someone to serve as his 'tour guide' for navigating problems and regulating emotions.) and this expression from The Explosive Child: That is, you're going to be doing the thinking for your child that he's currently incapable of thinking on his own; you're going to serve as his tour guide through frustration. (In his brief, Ablon misquotes The Explosive Child, omitting doing the, turning the semicolon into a period, and changing serve as his to serves as a.) -49- preclude a finding of infringement under the ordinary observer test. (quoting Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 608 (1st Cir. 1988))). Given the equivalence in language between these portions of the two works, we cannot say that a reasonable jury was foreclosed from finding that slides two, four, and five were substantially similar to Greene's correlative expression in The Explosive Child. Hence, the district court did not err in denying Ablon's motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to those slides.