Opinion ID: 787823
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Filtering of Unprotected Elements

Text: 27 Although there is no clear line separating protected from nonprotected work, two principles help to guide that determination in this case. See Kohus, 328 F.3d at 855-56. First, copyright protection extends only to expression of ideas and not to ideas themselves. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217, 74 S.Ct. 460, 470, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954) (Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea — not the idea itself.). Ideas are free to the world, and one person's idea can be appropriated by another with impunity. Taylor v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, 115 F.Supp. 156, 157 (S.D.Cal.1953). [N]o author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work — termed expression — that display the stamp of the author's originality. Feist Publ'ns, 499 U.S. at 350, 111 S.Ct. at 1290 (quoting Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 547, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2224, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The abstraction test articulated by Judge Learned Hand in Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (1930), provides some guidance in divining protected expression: 28 Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his ideas, to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended. 29 Id. at 121. The test itself does not identify protectible elements of a work, but instead is a tool for accomplishing that task. Kohus, 328 F.3d at 855. 30 Second, the principle of scenes a faire excludes copyright protection for incidents, characters or settings which are as a practical matter indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given topic. Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 616 (7th Cir.1982); see also 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright (Nimmer) § 13.03[F][3] (2004). For example, parties, alcohol, co-eds, and wild behavior are natural elements in a story about a college fraternity. Similarly, [e]lements such as drunks, prostitutes, vermin and derelict cars would appear in any realistic work about... policemen in the South Bronx, and therefore are not afforded copyright protection. Walker v. Time Life Films, 784 F.2d 44, 50 (2d Cir.1986); see also Murray Hill Publ'ns, Inc., 361 F.3d at 319-20 (citing examples). 31 Stromback relies upon numerous examples to support his claim of substantial similarity between the works. As Stromback concedes, however, many of these elements are superficial, e.g., the Hell/dungeon setting, the sequence of certain events (main characters leaving Hell, battling their brother, the attempted killing of the main character), racial allusions and a love interest. These are common themes and ideas throughout literature and are beyond any level of abstraction at which copyright protection might begin to attach. See Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir.2002) (Familiar stock scenes and themes that are staples of literature are not protected.). The same is true for character traits or descriptions such as whacked, odd, misfit, evil, or conflicted; themes, such as saving the world, the battle between good and evil, sibling rivalry or familial secrets and issues, and racial issues; scenes, such as parties; concepts, such as a dam or barrier between Earth and Hell; and plots, such as foiling the antagonist's attempt to rule the world. See generally Nichols, 45 F.2d at 122 (A comedy based upon conflicts between Irish and Jews, into which the marriage of their children enters, is no more susceptible of copyright than the outline of Romeo and Juliet.); Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 53 F.Supp.2d 38, 49 (D.D.C.1999) (The general concept of an interracial relationship ... is not copyrightable.) (citing Matthews v. Freedman, 157 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir.1998)). These elements are too general to qualify for copyright protection.