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

Heading: Subject Matter Requirement

Text: 47 The subject matter requirement of Section 301 is satisfied if a work fits within the general subject matter of Sections 102 and 103 of the Copyright Act, regardless of whether it qualifies for copyright protection. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805 F.2d 663, 676 (7th Cir.1986) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, at 131, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5747). In Wrench, this court joined several other circuits in holding that for purposes of preemption, the scope of the Copyright Act's subject matter is broader than the scope of its protection. Wrench, 256 F.3d at 454-55. Stromback's claims meet the subject matter requirement because The Keeper poem and screenplay fall squarely within the range of materials protected by the Copyright Act; that is, they are both original literary works fixed in [a] tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Stromback does not dispute that the poem and screenplay meet the subject matter requirement, but he does argue that his commercial misappropriation claim avoids preemption on this basis because it relates to the time, effort, and money that [Stromback] expended as well as NLC's unauthorized uses of Stromback's efforts. (Appellant's Br. at 55-56.) This argument ignores the principle cited above, that the subject matter of copyright is broader than its protections. Thus, Stromback's citation to Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 338, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991), for the proposition that there is no copyright protection for sweat of the brow efforts is not germane to the subject matter inquiry. Moreover, even assuming that Stromback's time, effort, and money constitute a separate element of his claim, it would still be within the subject matter of copyright because the claim is based upon NLC's unauthorized use of The Keeper poem and screenplay. Cf. Nat'l Basketball Ass'n, 105 F.3d at 848 (We hold that where the challenged copying relates in part to the copyrighted broadcasts of the games, the subject matter requirement is met as to both the broadcasts and games.). Moreover, Stromback's argument that Section 106 of the Copyright Act does not grant a copyright owner the exclusive right to use a work is sophistry. See Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772, 787 (5th Cir.1999) (Use of a copyrighted work by one who does not own the copyright constitutes infringement under federal law, provided the use falls within the scope of a copyright owner's exclusive rights.) (footnote omitted).