Opinion ID: 2974224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: LawMode’s arrangement of forms

Text: Lexis’s arrangement and classification of the forms are also not sufficiently similar to LawMode’s to constitute a copyright violation, even assuming that there is sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection.3 Because Lexis’s classification system is not substantially similar to LawMode’s classification system, it is not necessary to rely on Lexis’s argument that LawMode’s arrangement of forms is not copyrightable. Again, LawMode must provide sufficient evidence to show substantial similarity between its arrangement of the forms and Lexis’s arrangement. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 361. While there are some similarities, they result from both parties’ copying the public Michigan forms index. Lexis did not copy LawMode’s original classification or arrangement. Many of LawMode’s table of contents headings are not original. The website with all Michigan-approved forms already groups forms under headings like “alternative dispute resolution,” “corporate” or “landlord tenant.” LawMode cannot claim creative expression when it used the same obvious classification headings as the Michigan public-domain classification because those classifications are not original. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700, 709 (2d Cir. 1991) (holding that arrangements following conventions that have been used before are not copyrightable). 3 The combination of all the choices made by LawMode (obvious and nonobvious) appears to establish the minimal level of creativity and originality needed for copyright protection. See Key Pub’ns, 945 F.2d at 513-15. Unlike the yellow pages in Feist, LawMode exhibited the minimal degree of creativity, originality, and professional judgment in determining how to categorize the forms to warrant copyright protection. LawMode’s classification system is like the copyrightable classification system in Key Publications, in which the Second Circuit held a yellow pages of businesses of interest to the Chinese community to be copyrightable, because the businesses were classified by the author using some categories created by the author, including “Bean Curd & Bean Sprout Shops” in addition to other obvious choices like “Accountants.” Id. Similarly, LawMode arranged the forms into a table of contents with such entries as “civil litigation,” “debt collection” and “concealed weapon license.” Much like the directory in Key Publications, LawMode’s index displayed some creativity and judgment in deciding which classifications were useful to the Michigan practitioner. For example, LawMode uses the category “concealed weapon license.” A concealed-weapon-license category does not appear on the Michigan index of forms. It appears that LawMode created the category. Thus, LawMode’s classification system appears to display the minimum level of creativity to warrant copyright protection. No. 05-1513 Ross Brovins & Oehmke v. Lexis Nexis Group Page 6 The original classification headings are not copied and, as a whole, Lexis’s and LawMode’s classification systems are not substantially similar. LawMode’s original work can be seen in classifications like “concealed weapon license” or “land contract forfeiture.” Those original classifications are not used by the public-domain Michigan classification. Lexis did not copy the nonobvious and nonpublic-use classifications in its table of contents. Thus, there has been no copying of LawMode’s creative expression. This conclusion is supported by the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Key Publications, 945 F.2d at 516, where the Second Circuit held that the arrangements of two directories were not substantially similar because a consumer faced with the two directories would instantly realize that they were different. Just as in Key Publications, a reasonable fact finder is compelled to conclude that LawMode’s and Lexis’s classification headings are not substantially similar. In sum, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the compilation-copyright claim because there was not sufficient evidence of copying of LawMode’s protectable expression.