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

Heading: Availability of Copyright Protection

Text: In his final argument, Ablon contends that expressions three, five, and six from The Explosive Child are not subject to copyright, and therefore the court should not have admitted them into evidence. We take these expressions in turn, reviewing de novo the district court's assessments of copyrightability. Soc'y of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory, 689 F.3d 29, 51 (1st Cir. 2012). First, Ablon argues that expression three from The Explosive Child is not sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. Greene's book posits that, [a]s children develop, they learn that . . . most things in life are 'gray,' and he describes certain children as black and white thinkers stuck in a gray world. As the district court explained, [h]ere the idea is that explosive children suffer from an inflexibility of -50- thought . . . . This idea could be expressed in many ways . . . . Greene v. Ablon, 914 F. Supp. 2d 110, 119 (D. Mass. 2012). In arguing that Greene's expression is not sufficiently original, Ablon isolates the words gray and black and white thinkers from the larger expression, and observes that Greene is far from the first to employ these phrases to contrast ambiguity and precision. True as that may be, the standard for originality in copyright is low. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 346, 362-63 (1991) (explaining that the originality requirement demands only a modicum of creativity). Importantly, the question here is not whether Greene has a copyright in those words taken in isolation, but whether their use in the particular context is protected. See Soc'y of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 689 F.3d at 52 n.18 (citing Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 98 (2d Cir. 1987), for the proposition that although ordinary phrases might not be copyrightable, their 'use in a sequence of expressive words does not cause the entire passage to lose protection'). We agree with the district court that Greene's use of the black/white/gray imagery to describe a characteristic of the explosive child satisfies the low threshold of originality required to earn copyright protection. Ablon similarly argues that expression five from The Explosive Child is not original and therefore not subject to -51- copyright protection.32 Here, the relevant phrase from Greene's work is: you're going to serve as [your child's] tour guide through frustration. Ablon focuses on the words tour guide, contending that they are the only overlap with his slide, which reads, The child has shown he needs someone to serve as his 'tour guide' for navigating problems and regulating emotions. Greene's decision to use tour guide in this context as a shorthand for a parent's role in a child's emotional journey through difficult episodes easily passes the threshold of creativity the law requires. Again, the protected expression at issue is not, as Ablon avers, the words tour guide alone; rather it is the phrase in which those words are contained. We agree with the district court that, considered as a whole, that phrase meets the originality requirement. Finally, Ablon concedes that he copied slide six -- [y]our explanation guides your intervention -- verbatim from The Explosive Child, but argues that Greene's expression is not subject 32 Ablon also asserts that expression five is subject to the merger doctrine. See Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., 259 F.3d 25, 35-36 (1st Cir. 2001) (explaining that, under the merger doctrine, copyright protection is not available for expression when the underlying idea can only be expressed one way). We need not consider merger: Ablon's argument on this point consists wholly of a bare assertion that merger applies. That argument is therefore waived. See Alicea v. Machete Music, 744 F.3d 773, 780 (1st Cir. 2014) ([I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. (quoting United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990))). -52- to copyright because it is a short phrase. Ablon is correct that, as a general matter, certain kinds of short phrases are excluded from copyright protection. The Copyright Office has specified that [w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans are not subject to copyright. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a). However, much turns on the specific short phrases at issue, as not all short phrases will automatically be deemed uncopyrightable. Soc'y of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 689 F.3d at 51-52; see 1 Nimmer § 2.01[B] ([E]ven a short phrase may command copyright protection if it exhibits sufficient creativity.). As the district court explained, [a]lthough the phrase 'your explanation guides your intervention' may not seem like a novel expression, such is not required for copyright protection. Greene, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 120. Greene uses this short, punchy statement to summarize a method for handling explosive children. Indeed, the creativity of the phrase is due in part to its succinct articulation of a complex concept. We agree with the district court that, in context, the phrase is substantial and creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Cf. Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp., 492 F.3d 1377, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding stay calm, if no pulse, start CPR, and give two breaths were each fragmentary phrases not subject to copyright); Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 542 (6th Cir. 2004) (comparing a short computer program of sufficient -53- creativity to other spare, simple, but creative expressions, like the poetry of e.e. cummings); CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1520 (1st Cir. 1996) (holding call in, clock in, and win is an unprotectable slogan); Arvelo v. Am. Int'l Ins. Co., 66 F.3d 306, 306 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding, in an unpublished opinion, that the name Retail Plus is not subject to copyright).33