532:
dissection and expert testimony are appropriate. Moreover, this question may often be decided as a matter of law. The determination of when there is substantial similarity between the forms of expression is necessarily more subtle and complex. As Judge Hand candidly observed, "Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the 'idea,' and has borrowed its 'expression.' Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc." Peter Pan
Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2 Cir. 1960). If there is substantial similarity in ideas, then the trier of fact must decide whether there is substantial similarity in the expressions of the ideas so as to constitute infringement. The test to be applied in determining whether there is substantial similarity in expressions shall be labeled an intrinsic one depending on the response of the ordinary reasonable person. See International Luggage Registry v. Avery Products Corp., supra, 541 F.2d at 831; Harold Lloyd Corp. v. Witwer, 65 F.2d 1, 18–19 (9 Cir. 1933). See generally
417:
the work. In determining whether use is substantial, courts look not only at the proportion of duplication in comparison to the relative size of the works, but also to such considerations as the creativity of the copied material, its use in both works and its centrality to either. Only when a work rises to a level of "substantial similarity" does it infringe to the point of being legally actionable. As there is no clear line on how much duplication is necessary to reach "substantial similarity", the question is determined on a case-by-case evaluation. A showing that features of the two works are
491:
subjective response that an ordinary person forms on comparing two works as to whether substantial similarity exists. These have been criticized as unreliable in that ordinary observers may not have enough familiarity with copyright concepts to recognize those elements not copyrightable, such as idea, and might also not recognize where superficial alterations fail to efface infringement. By contrast, dissection tests seek infringement only in those specific copyrightable elements within a work. The tester in these cases considers factors like the
31:
624:(1977), in which McDonald's was found infringing on the characters created by the Kroffts as the Kroffts had shown that the firm that created the McDonald's characters had been in earlier discussions with the Kroffts, thus proving access and lowering the bar on similarity. Other Circuits have formally rejected the rule, and no case on the rule has been heard at the Supreme Court.
345:
used after it has been shown that a defendant had copied to determine if what had been copied is legally actionable or amounts to misappropriation. Some courts use "striking" or "probative" instead of "substantial" to describe the level of similarity needed in the first context to avoid confusion. The second meaning, which
Justice
514:(1970). The test is subdivided into the "extrinsic test", wherein a complex analysis is conducted of the concepts underlying the work, and the "intrinsic test", wherein within the judgment of an ordinary person the expression of the works are compared. The differences between the two were defined in 1977 by
416:
exception, reaching a threshold that is "substantial" both qualitatively and quantitatively. While actionable infringement is more likely to be found where greater levels of similarity exist, substantial similarity has also been found where the portion copied was small but constituted the "heart" of
344:
Confusion arises because some courts use "substantial similarity" in two different contexts during a copyright infringement case. In the first context, it refers to that level of similarity sufficient to prove that copying has occurred, once access has been demonstrated. In the second context, it is
617:
that has at times been accepted by a few of the
Circuit Courts, notably within the Ninth Circuit which deals with many of the cases of the entertainment industry since it covers California. The inverse ratio rule holds that the more an alleged infringer had access to a work, the lower the threshold
462:
describes two different tests for substantial similarity, "fragmented literal similarity" and "comprehensive non-literal similarity", which have been widely adopted and utilized by U.S. courts. Either test may result in a finding of infringement. Fragmented literal similarity occurs when fragmented
668:
appeal in 2020, the Ninth
Circuit specifically took the time to overturn its stance on the inverse ratio rule "Because the inverse ratio rule, which is not part of the copyright statute, defies logic, and creates uncertainty for the courts and the parties, we take this opportunity to abrogate the
627:
The inverse ratio rule has been frequently used in several entertainment-based lawsuits when it is difficult to prove substantial similarity, which had made it a point of concern since the burden of access is much easier to satisfy and can make nearly any similarity easy to show. Two recent cases
531:
is extrinsic because it depends not on the responses of the trier of fact, but on specific criteria that can be listed and analyzed. Such criteria include the type of artwork involved, the materials used, the subject matter, and the setting for the subject. Since it is an extrinsic test, analytic
490:
The various other tests devised to determine substantial similarity can essentially be broken down into two categories: those that rely on the impressions of ordinary observers and those that rely on "dissection" by experts. Some tests combine elements of both. Ordinary observer tests rely on the
314:
were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to
382:
placed by the plaintiff that appear in the defendant's work. For example, fake names or places are often inserted in factual works like maps or directories to serve as proof of copying in a later infringement case since their appearance in a defendant's work cannot be explained away by innocent
358:
Direct evidence of actual copying by a defendant rarely exists, so plaintiffs must often resort to indirectly proving copying. Typically, this is done by first showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or
409:
Substantial similarity is the term used by all courts to describe, once copying has been established, the threshold where that copying wrongfully appropriates the plaintiff's protected expression. It is found when similarity between the copyrightable elements of two works rises above the
359:
substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not, for example, through "coincidence, independent creation, or a prior common source". Some courts also use "probative similarity" to describe this standard. This inquiry is a question of fact determined by a
603:, compares the elements of software at increasing levels of abstraction, from machine instructions to program function, excluding those elements not copyrightable, such as those approaches dictated by efficiency or the fundamental operation of computers, to evaluate similarity.
669:
rule in the Ninth
Circuit and overrule our prior cases to the contrary." The Supreme Court denied to hear the challenge to the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit's new stance to ignore the inverse ratio rule as case law in future copyright cases within the jurisdiction.
467:. It is more limited than comprehensive copying, involving briefer elements such as a stanza of a song or an image. Comprehensive non-literal similarity may occur even in the absence of verbatim duplication of copyrighted elements when, in the words of
507:
The total concept and feel test relies on the subjective evaluation of observers who consider the question of whether the total concept and feel of one work is substantially similar to another. The idea of "total concept and feel" was introduced in
578:
is primarily utilized to test fiction, comparing elements of plot and character between two works to see if substantial similarity exists. The more similarities exist between the two, the more likely the court will determine infringement.
400:
stated that even absent a finding of access, copying can be established when the similarities between two works are "so striking as to preclude the possibility that the plaintiff and defendant independently arrived at the same result."
562:, the Ninth Circuit expanded the extrinsic test to include the analysis expression as well as ideas. The Court found that analytical dissection of expression was necessary to identify expressions for comparison in the intrinsic test.
445:
for the defendant, closing a case without finding infringement. Since "substantial similarity" can require careful evaluation, however, infringement cases usually lead to full inquiry with appropriate tests developed by the courts.
536:§ 143.5. It is intrinsic because it does not depend on the type of external criteria and analysis that marks the extrinsic test.... Because this is an intrinsic test, analytic dissection and expert testimony are not appropriate.
310:, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if
523:
620:
349:
referred to in 1997 as the more proper use, defines "the threshold for determining that the degree of similarity suffices to demonstrate actionable infringement" exists, "after the fact of copying has been established."
552:
infringed in "total concept and feel" on a line of masks produced by BSS. Particularly the intrinsic test has met criticism as extending copyright beyond the protection of expression into the protection of ideas.
454:
A number of tests have been devised to determine substantial similarity. These may rely one or both of expert or lay observation and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.
593:
The primary test utilized in comparing computer programs, the "abstraction-filtration-comparison test" is also called more simply the "filtration test". The test, which was devised by the
1085:
599:
923:
664:". A jury found there was no substantial similarity, and the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, with specific instructions asking on ruling on the inverse ratio rule. On the
341:. Under the doctrine of substantial similarity, a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered.
1129:
853:
594:
480:
1260:
1038:
95:
797:
With respect to the copying of individual elements, a defendant need not copy the entirety of the plaintiff's copyrighted work to infringe, and he need not copy verbatim.
428:
The substantial similarity standard is used for all kinds of copyrighted subject matter: books, photographs, plays, music, software, etc. It may also cross media, as in
1206:
315:
determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.
660:
hearing, the full Ninth
Circuit concurred with all but the inverse ratio rule. In the "Stairway to Heaven" case, the trust accused Led Zeppelin of copying Spirit's "
487:
that a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar".
290:
80:
1400:
441:. In situations where "reasonable minds could not differ" in the opinion that substantial similarity of expression does not exist, a court may make
198:
588:
1554:
1231:
907:
510:
156:
1573:
1303:
University of Puget Sound Law Review, Vol. 16, Issue 1 (Fall 1992), pp. 319-372 Bierman, Ellen M. 16 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 319 (1992-1993)
213:
115:
558:
283:
1089:
1531:
1510:
1491:
1418:
1190:
790:
765:
975:
1223:
Intellectual
Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights
1362:
245:
70:
1446:
809:
Latman, Alan (June 1990). ""Probative
Similarity" as proof of copying: toward dispelling some myths in copyright infringement".
193:
276:
390:
Generally, copying cannot be proven without some evidence of access; however, in the seminal case on striking similarity,
373:
If the plaintiff's work contains an unexpected or idiosyncratic element that is repeated in the alleged infringing work.
515:
656:", both with substantial similarity and on the inverse ratio rule. While the three-panel Ninth Circuit agreed, on an
1483:
1034:
951:"Who speaks Latin anymore? Translating de minimis use for application to music copyright infringement and sampling"
1256:
1178:
100:
719:
877:
105:
75:
65:
1578:
1389:
1367:
683:
492:
324:
311:
176:
849:
661:
549:
518:
22:
30:
421:
similar does not bar a finding of substantial similarity, if such similarity as does exist clears the
1182:
1172:
496:
329:
To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she
811:
613:
571:
533:
476:
166:
1066:
is a 10-volume treatise that is considered the leading secondary source on
American copyright law.
1451:
1423:
1200:
828:
649:
468:
392:
366:
Courts have relied on several factors to aid in a striking similarity analysis. Among these are:
250:
60:
40:
1550:
1527:
1506:
1487:
1447:"Led Zeppelin Win 'Stairway to Heaven' Copyright Battle as Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case"
1227:
1221:
1186:
903:
899:
893:
786:
761:
653:
1341:
1081:
820:
575:
442:
379:
338:
307:
161:
1093:
678:
459:
430:
171:
990:
545:
397:
218:
181:
110:
55:
1567:
1543:
715:
641:
633:
628:
signaled changes in the Ninth's attitude towards the inverse ratio rule: the suit of
346:
240:
135:
1051:
645:
637:
463:
copyrightable elements are copied from a protected work in a manner not allowed by
266:
235:
230:
203:
125:
85:
1521:
1477:
892:
Biederman, Donald E.; Edward P. Pierson; Martin E. Silfen; Janna
Glasser (2007).
475:, one work appropriates "the fundamental structure or pattern" of another. Judge
629:
225:
151:
120:
412:
950:
618:
for establishing substantial similarity. The rule was enshrined by Ninth in
186:
130:
50:
652:". In the first case, a jury found for Gaye's estate on the similarity of "
1545:
Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference
464:
262:
208:
45:
1346:
1329:
1253:
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.
1125:
832:
524:
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.
1520:
Merryman, John Henry; Elsen, Albert Edward; Urice, Stephen K. (2002).
621:
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.
90:
1419:"Led Zeppelin Scores Big Win in 'Stairway to Heaven' Copyright Case"
868:, 543 F. Supp. 466, 482 n.10, 214 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 417 (D. Neb. 1981).
824:
756:
McCarthy, J. Thomas; Roger E. Schecter; David J. Franklyn (2004).
437:
Substantial similarity is a question of fact that is decided by a
386:
Obvious or crude attempts to give the appearance of dissimilarity.
438:
434:, where a sculptor was found to have infringed on a photograph.
360:
1171:
American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (1990).
370:
Uniqueness, intricacy, or complexity of the similar sections.
376:
The appearance of the same errors or mistakes in both works.
927:, 471 U.S. 539, 105 S. Ct. 2218, 85 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1985)
1291:
1109:
924:
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
819:(5). Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.: 1187–1214.
1052:"Georgetown Law Library: Copyright Law Research Guide"
724:. Vol. 3 (September 2009 ed.). Thomson West.
600:
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
976:"Tweedledum and Tweedledee: Plagiarism and copyright"
758:
McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property
473:
McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property
1397:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
611:The inverse ratio rule test is an idea proposed in
1542:
1015:
898:(5 ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. p.
1363:"Appeals Court Won't Rehear "Blurred Lines" Case"
1476:Albert, G. Peter; Laff; Whitesel; Saret (1999).
895:Law and business of the entertainment industries
846:Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.
319:Substantial similarity in copyright infringement
785:. Practising Law Institute. p. §1:1, 1–2.
640:, and the suit brought by a trust for the band
1142:
1140:
1138:
337:the work, and the level of copying amounts to
1501:Keller, Bruce P.; Cunard, Jeffrey P. (2001).
1054:. Georgetown University Law Library. May 2007
284:
8:
1287:
1285:
1272:
1205:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1158:
1146:
1105:
1103:
1101:
595:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
481:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
760:(3 ed.). BNA Books. pp. 576–577.
81:Integrated circuit layout design protection
1311:
1309:
751:
749:
747:
745:
743:
291:
277:
18:
1345:
1526:(4 ed.). Kluwer Law International.
1479:Intellectual property law in cyberspace
783:Substantial similarity in copyright law
710:
708:
706:
704:
702:
700:
698:
694:
199:Limitations and exceptions to copyright
143:
21:
1198:
1026:
1024:
589:Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test
583:Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test
544:in 1999 in determining that a line of
1503:Copyright Law: A Practitioner's Guide
1279:, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1509 (N.D. Ill. 1999)
1277:BSS Studio, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation
542:BSS Studio, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation
511:Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co
157:Artificial intelligence and copyright
7:
1315:
936:
116:Supplementary protection certificate
559:Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp
974:Levy, Neil A. (Fall–Winter 1998).
14:
1406:from the original on Jun 2, 2023.
1226:. DIANE Publishing. p. 104.
949:Blessing, David S. (2004-04-01).
881:, 154 F.2d 464 (2nd Circuit 1946)
1523:Law, ethics, and the visual arts
1016:Merryman, Elsen & Urice 2002
866:Midway Mfg. Co. v. Dirkschneider
246:Outline of intellectual property
71:Indigenous intellectual property
29:
1417:Maddaus, Gene (March 9, 2020).
1361:Gardner, Eriq (July 11, 2018).
1220:Lehman, Bruce A. (1995-10-01).
1445:Aswad, Jem (October 5, 2020).
1:
1334:UCLA Entertainment Law Review
1330:"The Law of Ideas, Revisited"
1174:ASCAP Copyright Law Symposium
1505:. Practising Law Institute.
570:The pattern test created by
16:Standard in US copyright law
1574:United States copyright law
955:William and Mary Law Review
781:Osterberg, Eric C. (2003).
516:United States federal judge
503:Total concept and feel test
194:Idea–expression distinction
1595:
1484:Bureau of National Affairs
1390:"Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin"
983:CINAHL Information Systems
586:
540:This test was utilized in
458:Noted copyright authority
322:
1179:Columbia University Press
1092:December 4, 2004, at the
1273:Keller & Cunard 2001
1159:Keller & Cunard 2001
1147:Keller & Cunard 2001
736:2 Law of Copyright §14:5
1031:Litchfield v. Spielberg
106:Plant genetic resources
76:Industrial design right
66:Geographical indication
1541:Stim, Richard (2007).
1368:The Hollywood Reporter
1328:Sobel, Lionel (1994).
684:Idea-expression divide
538:
493:idea-expression divide
331:owns a valid copyright
325:Copyright infringement
312:copyright infringement
304:Substantial similarity
177:Criticism of copyright
101:Plant breeders' rights
1006:Osterberg, §1:1, 1-1.
989:(3/4). Archived from
529:
519:James Marshall Carter
23:Intellectual property
1549:(9 ed.). Nolo.
1078:Bateman v. Mnemonics
1347:10.5070/LR811026302
1064:Nimmer on Copyright
812:Columbia Law Review
614:Nimmer on Copyright
572:Columbia University
477:John M. Walker, Jr.
354:Striking similarity
167:Copyright abolition
1292:Albert et al. 1999
1275:, §11–33, 34. Cf.
1110:Albert et al. 1999
879:Arnstein v. Porter
734:Abrams, Howard B.
721:Patry on Copyright
650:Stairway to Heaven
607:Inverse ratio rule
469:J. Thomas McCarthy
393:Arnstein v. Porter
380:Fictitious entries
259:Higher categories:
251:Outline of patents
1556:978-1-4133-0646-0
1233:978-0-7881-2415-0
909:978-0-275-99205-7
654:Got to Give It Up
301:
300:
1586:
1560:
1548:
1537:
1516:
1497:
1464:
1463:
1461:
1459:
1442:
1436:
1435:
1433:
1431:
1414:
1408:
1407:
1405:
1394:
1386:
1380:
1379:
1377:
1375:
1358:
1352:
1351:
1349:
1325:
1319:
1313:
1304:
1301:
1295:
1289:
1280:
1270:
1264:
1250:
1244:
1243:
1241:
1240:
1217:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1196:
1168:
1162:
1156:
1150:
1144:
1133:
1119:
1113:
1107:
1096:
1075:
1069:
1068:
1060:
1059:
1048:
1042:
1028:
1019:
1013:
1007:
1004:
998:
997:
995:
980:
971:
965:
964:
962:
961:
946:
940:
934:
928:
920:
914:
913:
889:
883:
875:
869:
863:
857:
843:
837:
836:
806:
800:
799:
778:
772:
771:
753:
738:
732:
726:
725:
712:
632:'s estate over "
576:Zechariah Chafee
443:summary judgment
405:Misappropriation
339:misappropriation
333:, the defendant
308:US copyright law
293:
286:
279:
162:Brand protection
96:Peasants' rights
33:
19:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1564:
1563:
1557:
1540:
1534:
1519:
1513:
1500:
1494:
1475:
1472:
1467:
1457:
1455:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1429:
1427:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1403:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1373:
1371:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1314:
1307:
1302:
1298:
1290:
1283:
1271:
1267:
1251:
1247:
1238:
1236:
1234:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1197:
1193:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1157:
1153:
1145:
1136:
1122:Arica v. Palmer
1120:
1116:
1108:
1099:
1094:Wayback Machine
1076:
1072:
1057:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1029:
1022:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1001:
993:
978:
973:
972:
968:
959:
957:
948:
947:
943:
935:
931:
921:
917:
910:
891:
890:
886:
876:
872:
864:
860:
844:
840:
825:10.2307/1122876
808:
807:
803:
793:
780:
779:
775:
768:
755:
754:
741:
733:
729:
714:
713:
696:
692:
679:Derivative work
675:
609:
591:
585:
568:
546:Halloween masks
505:
485:Arica v. Palmer
460:Melville Nimmer
452:
431:Rogers v. Koons
407:
356:
335:actually copied
327:
321:
297:
261:
257:
172:Copyright troll
61:Farmers' rights
41:Authors' rights
17:
12:
11:
5:
1592:
1590:
1582:
1581:
1576:
1566:
1565:
1562:
1561:
1555:
1538:
1532:
1517:
1511:
1498:
1492:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1465:
1437:
1409:
1381:
1353:
1320:
1305:
1296:
1281:
1265:
1257:970 F.2d 106
1245:
1232:
1212:
1191:
1163:
1151:
1134:
1126:970 F.2d 106
1114:
1097:
1070:
1043:
1020:
1008:
999:
996:on 2009-03-19.
966:
941:
929:
915:
908:
884:
870:
858:
838:
801:
791:
773:
766:
739:
727:
716:Patry, William
693:
691:
688:
687:
686:
681:
674:
671:
608:
605:
587:Main article:
584:
581:
567:
564:
504:
501:
497:scènes à faire
451:
448:
406:
403:
398:Second Circuit
388:
387:
384:
377:
374:
371:
355:
352:
320:
317:
299:
298:
296:
295:
288:
281:
273:
270:
269:
256:
255:
254:
253:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
222:
221:
219:Right to quote
216:
211:
206:
196:
191:
190:
189:
182:Bioprospecting
179:
174:
169:
164:
159:
154:
146:
145:
144:Related topics
141:
140:
139:
138:
133:
128:
123:
118:
113:
111:Related rights
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
78:
73:
68:
63:
58:
56:Database right
53:
48:
43:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1591:
1580:
1579:Copyright law
1577:
1575:
1572:
1571:
1569:
1558:
1552:
1547:
1546:
1539:
1535:
1533:90-411-9882-2
1529:
1525:
1524:
1518:
1514:
1512:1-4024-0050-0
1508:
1504:
1499:
1495:
1493:1-57018-165-9
1489:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1454:
1453:
1448:
1441:
1438:
1426:
1425:
1420:
1413:
1410:
1402:
1398:
1391:
1385:
1382:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1357:
1354:
1348:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1324:
1321:
1318:, p. 211
1317:
1312:
1310:
1306:
1300:
1297:
1294:, p. 232
1293:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1246:
1235:
1229:
1225:
1224:
1216:
1213:
1208:
1202:
1194:
1192:0-231-11060-X
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1141:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1115:
1112:, p. 233
1111:
1106:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1065:
1053:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:736 F.2d 1352
1032:
1027:
1025:
1021:
1018:, p. 457
1017:
1012:
1009:
1003:
1000:
992:
988:
984:
977:
970:
967:
956:
952:
945:
942:
939:, p. 220
938:
933:
930:
926:
925:
919:
916:
911:
905:
901:
897:
896:
888:
885:
882:
880:
874:
871:
867:
862:
859:
855:
851:
847:
842:
839:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
805:
802:
798:
794:
792:1-4024-0341-0
788:
784:
777:
774:
769:
767:1-57018-401-1
763:
759:
752:
750:
748:
746:
744:
740:
737:
731:
728:
723:
722:
717:
711:
709:
707:
705:
703:
701:
699:
695:
689:
685:
682:
680:
677:
676:
672:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
634:Blurred Lines
631:
625:
623:
622:
616:
615:
606:
604:
602:
601:
596:
590:
582:
580:
577:
573:
565:
563:
561:
560:
554:
551:
547:
543:
537:
535:
528:
526:
525:
520:
517:
513:
512:
502:
500:
498:
494:
488:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
461:
456:
449:
447:
444:
440:
435:
433:
432:
426:
424:
420:
415:
414:
404:
402:
399:
395:
394:
385:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
368:
367:
364:
362:
353:
351:
348:
347:Jon O. Newman
342:
340:
336:
332:
326:
318:
316:
313:
309:
305:
294:
289:
287:
282:
280:
275:
274:
272:
271:
268:
264:
260:
252:
249:
248:
247:
244:
242:
241:Public domain
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
200:
197:
195:
192:
188:
185:
184:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
149:
148:
147:
142:
137:
136:Utility model
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
57:
54:
52:
49:
47:
44:
42:
39:
38:
37:
36:
32:
28:
27:
24:
20:
1544:
1522:
1502:
1478:
1456:. Retrieved
1450:
1440:
1428:. Retrieved
1422:
1412:
1396:
1384:
1372:. Retrieved
1366:
1356:
1337:
1333:
1323:
1299:
1276:
1268:
1252:
1248:
1237:. Retrieved
1222:
1215:
1173:
1166:
1154:
1121:
1117:
1082:79 F.3d 1532
1077:
1073:
1063:
1062:
1056:. Retrieved
1046:
1030:
1011:
1002:
991:the original
986:
982:
969:
958:. Retrieved
954:
944:
932:
922:
918:
894:
887:
878:
873:
865:
861:
845:
841:
816:
810:
804:
796:
782:
776:
757:
735:
730:
720:
665:
657:
646:Led Zeppelin
638:Robin Thicke
626:
619:
612:
610:
598:
592:
569:
566:Pattern test
557:
555:
548:produced by
541:
539:
530:
522:
509:
506:
489:
484:
472:
457:
453:
436:
429:
427:
422:
418:
411:
408:
391:
389:
365:
357:
343:
334:
330:
328:
303:
302:
267:Property law
258:
236:Pirate Party
231:Patent troll
214:Paraphrasing
204:Fair dealing
126:Trade secret
86:Moral rights
1340:(1): 9–96.
1088:, 1995.) "
850:126 F.3d 70
630:Marvin Gaye
425:threshold.
226:Orphan work
152:Abandonware
121:Trade dress
1568:Categories
1470:References
1458:October 5,
1239:2012-06-23
1181:. p.
1058:2009-04-07
960:2009-04-06
574:professor
499:doctrine.
423:de minimis
413:de minimis
323:See also:
1316:Stim 2007
1201:cite book
1086:11th Cir.
937:Stim 2007
690:Footnotes
483:noted in
187:Biopiracy
131:Trademark
51:Copyright
1430:March 9,
1401:Archived
1374:March 9,
1263:, 1977).
1261:9th Cir.
1161:, §11–34
1149:, §11–31
1132:, 1992).
1090:Archived
1041:, 1984).
1039:9th Cir.
856:, 1997).
854:2nd Cir.
718:. "§9".
673:See also
495:and the
465:fair use
263:Property
209:Fair use
46:Copyleft
1452:Variety
1424:Variety
1130:2d Cir.
833:1122876
666:en banc
658:en banc
479:of the
383:causes.
1553:
1530:
1509:
1490:
1230:
1189:
906:
831:
789:
764:
662:Taurus
642:Spirit
534:Nimmer
396:, the
91:Patent
1404:(PDF)
1393:(PDF)
994:(PDF)
979:(PDF)
829:JSTOR
644:over
636:" by
550:Kmart
450:Tests
306:, in
1551:ISBN
1528:ISBN
1507:ISBN
1488:ISBN
1460:2020
1432:2020
1376:2020
1228:ISBN
1207:link
1187:ISBN
904:ISBN
787:ISBN
762:ISBN
648:'s "
597:for
439:jury
361:jury
265:and
1342:doi
1183:215
900:688
821:doi
556:In
521:in
471:'s
419:not
1570::
1486:.
1482:.
1449:.
1421:.
1399:.
1395:.
1365:.
1336:.
1332:.
1308:^
1284:^
1255:,
1203:}}
1199:{{
1185:.
1177:.
1137:^
1124:,
1100:^
1080:,
1061:.
1033:,
1023:^
987:17
985:.
981:.
953:.
902:.
827:.
817:90
815:.
795:.
742:^
697:^
527::
363:.
1559:.
1536:.
1515:.
1496:.
1462:.
1434:.
1378:.
1350:.
1344::
1338:1
1259:(
1242:.
1209:)
1195:.
1128:(
1084:(
1037:(
963:.
912:.
852:(
848:(
835:.
823::
770:.
292:e
285:t
278:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
