Opinion ID: 76694
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Decisions by Other Circuit Courts

Text: 37 GLHG points us to the Sixth Circuit's decision in Murray Hill Publ'ns, Inc. v. ABC Communications, Inc., 264 F.3d 622, 635-36 (6th Cir.2001), as support for its assertion that Dunlap's claim for conversion of his idea is preempted by the Copyright Act. Murray Hill, however, does not support GLHG's assertion and, in fact, supports the distinction we have articulated here. 20 38 In Murray Hill, the plaintiffs (companies owned by composer and producer Bobby Laurel) alleged conversion of their ideas and concepts—a theme song, a tag line (This is J.P. on JR in the A.M.), and certain artwork. 264 F.3d at 627, 629. Laurel composed a theme song and a tag line for a radio-DJ friend of his, which was used by the radio station-defendant for nearly five years until the DJ's unexpected death. After the DJ's death, the radio station aired a tribute show that included the familiar theme song. Id. at 628. The tribute show was so popular that the radio station converted it into a 90-minute commercial-free recording for public distribution. Laurel did not give his permission for the theme song to be included in the tribute recording and was not credited with authorship of the song on the recording's packaging. Id. 39 Before the DJ's death, the radio station also allegedly engaged in an ad campaign using the tag line without Laurel's permission. In addition, Laurel alleged that the radio station used artwork on promotional billboards that was copied from a souvenir program distributed at the premier of a movie he produced. Id. at 629. 40 Laurel sued the radio station and its corporate owner in federal district court, alleging violations of the Copyright Act and certain state-law claims, including conversion. The Sixth Circuit noted that any case of federal preemption of state law is highly dependent upon the facts presented and the claims actually pled by the parties. Id. at 636. With this caution in mind, the court reasoned that the theme song was a work that fell within the subject matter of copyright as a musical work under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). In addition, the Sixth Circuit held that the tag line and the artwork, though not amenable to copyright protection for lack of originality, nevertheless fell within the subject matter of copyright because the scope of the Copyright Act's subject matter extends beyond the tangible expressions that can be protected under the Act to elements of expression which themselves cannot be protected. Id. (citation omitted). The Sixth Circuit held that Laurel's conversion claims were preempted by the Copyright Act because, although the [tag line] and the [a]rtwork lack the level of creativity necessary to come within the protection of the Act, each of them is the expression of an idea, which is the essence of the subject matter of the Act. Id. 41 The reasoning of the Murray Hill court supports the distinction we make above with regard to substantive threshold eligibility. Laurel's tag line, theme song, and artwork were all substantively eligible for copyright protection—even though the tag line and artwork ultimately failed to receive protection. Thus, the tag line, the theme song, and the artwork were all within the subject matter of copyright, and the Sixth Circuit correctly held that Laurel's claims for conversion of these works were preempted by the Copyright Act. Id. at 637. 42 In this case, however, we are dealing with a substantive ineligibility, rather than failure of the constitutional requirements of eligibility. See, e.g., Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1287, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991) (The sine qua non of copyright is originality.). Ideas are substantively ineligible for copyright protection and, therefore, are categorically excluded from the subject matter of copyright. Thus, we conclude that a plaintiff's claim for conversion of his ideas—even original ideas expressed in a tangible medium—is not preempted by the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (ideas are manifestly ineligible for copyright protection regardless of the form in which [the idea] is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied).