Opinion ID: 727991
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Dissection Analysis

Text: 28 CMM first states in a footnote that the district court erred when it applied a dissection analysis of protected and unprotected elements which, while logically used in compilation cases, was inappropriate here. See Lotus Development, 49 F.3d at 812 (requiring a showing of constituent elements of the work that are original). Then, in its reply brief, CMM adds that, because the brochures and, by extension, the supporting materials, combine both fact and fiction, under both Feist and Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985), even if a direct mail brochure is deemed to have factual elements ... WPOR was obligated to disseminate those facts in a manner which did not impede the most expressive elements of CMM's work--its text, its layout and its 'heart'. CMM's Reply Brief, p. 16. Because the brochure design and copy constituted the heart of CMM's work, and because its inability to sell it in the Portland market diminished its copyright value, CMM concludes, copyright infringement occurred through WPOR's brochure and, by extension, its supporting materials. 29 As an initial matter, CMM seems to be making two distinct arguments. The first faults the dissection of the copyrighted and accused works in order to identify protectable elements such that the court might determine as a matter of law whether or not the alleged infringer copied protected elements. The second seems to urge us to find copyright infringement on the ground of unfair use within the meaning of copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. § 107; Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 547 n. 2, 105 S.Ct. at 2223 n. 2. We address only the first, finding the second waived to the extent that it can be interpreted as advancing a fair use argument: CMM is not entitled to raise arguments on appeal that it failed to present to the district court. Equine Technologies, Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc., 68 F.3d 542, 546 (1st Cir.1995) (citing cases). 15 30 As to CMM's first argument, we simply do not agree that the district court's dissection analysis vitiates the letter and intent of copyright law in this case. Rather, it comports with a key tenet of copyright law: [i]nfringement is shown by a substantial similarity of protectible expression, not just an overall similarity between the works. 3 Nimmer § 13.03[F], at 13-124 (footnotes omitted). Indeed, we note that the Copyright Act itself seems to mandate the dissection of works into copyrightable and uncopyrightable elements. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) (1995) (providing that copyright in compilation or derivative work extends only to material contributed by author as distinguished from preexisting material). In other words, [e]ven when [as here] extended similarity exists between [the works] when taken as a whole, the analysis is not finished. To the extent that such similarity inheres in ideas, which are by definition unprotected, or in expression that is not proprietary to plaintiff, then an essential ingredient is lacking from plaintiff's prima facie case. 3 Nimmer § 13.03[B], at 13-67. 31 With this in mind, the district court's alleged application of the dissection analysis can be understood thus: 32 By dissecting the accused work and identifying those features which are protected in the copyrighted work, the court may be able to determine as a matter of law whether or not the former has copied protected aspects of the latter. The court can also determine, in at least a general way, those aspects of the work that are protected by the copyright and that should be considered in the subsequent comparative analysis under the ordinary observer test. Assuming copying of protected aspects is established, the trier of fact can then assess pursuant to the ordinary observer test whether there is substantial similarity between the protected expression and the accused work. 33 Concrete Machinery, 843 F.2d at 608-09 (concrete statues and ornamental articles); see Lotus Development, 49 F.3d at 813 (computer program). 34 The foregoing notwithstanding, we certainly recognize the potential danger ... that courts ... will so 'dissect' the work as to classify all its elements as unprotectable ... [thereby possibly] blind[ing it] to the expressiveness of their ensemble. Jane C. Ginsburg, Four Reasons and a Paradox: The Manifest Superiority of Copyright over Sui Generis Protection of Computer Software, 94 Colum.L.Rev. 2259, 2561 (1994) (noting that when courts distinguish public domain idea from protected expression this danger is not limited to computer software); cf. Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir.1995) (noting that dissection analysis, extended to its logical conclusion when determining work's copyrightability, might result in conclusion of no originality). We do not think, however, that this danger is present in the instant case: at both the preliminary injunction and summary judgment stages, the district court ke[pt] sight of the [brochure] as a whole, Ginsburg, 94 Colum.L.Rev. at 2561, recognized it was undisputedly an original work of CMM, focused on the striking similarities between the parties' brochures, and permitted the infringement question to go to the jury, despite concluding that most--if not all of the text--consisted of uncopyrightable elements. See CMM Cable Rep., 888 F.Supp. at 197. Furthermore, as we discuss below, we do not think that the lower court's approach resulted in the supporting materials being unfairly taken away from the jury or necessarily led to an inconsistent jury verdict. 35 Finally, as we view this case, because the parties do not dispute the validity of CMM's copyrights in its brochures or otherwise appeal from the jury's verdict so finding, resolution of this appeal essentially turns on the infringement issue of whether WPOR's alleged copying was of protected elements and, more specifically, of any original contributions by CMM. At its core, what drives CMM's appeal is the district court's conclusion that the employment metaphor and CMM's expression thereof--the fictional element of Payroll Payoff TM--was not original within the meaning of copyright law. This conclusion resulted in there being very few, if any, copyrightable elements beyond graphics, selection and/or arrangement, upon which the jury could base a verdict for copyright infringement. In turn, the dissection analysis undercut, as we discuss below, CMM's copyright infringement claim regarding WPOR's supporting materials. 36