SEABOLT

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

• SID & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDONALD'S Corp. & Needham, 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …the protected expression. No court or commentator in making this search has been able to improve upon Judge Learned Hand’s famous “abstractions test” articulated in Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F. 2d 119 (2 Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902, 51 S.Ct. 216, 75 L.Ed. 795 (1931): “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 g…
• Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …ssential to any protection of literary property ... that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations.” Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119, 121 (2d Cir.1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902, 51 S.Ct. 216, 75 L.Ed. 795 (1931). The problem with computer programs is that "between the one extreme of no similarity and the other of complete and literal similarity lies the line marking off the boundaries of 'substantial similarity.'" 3 Nimm…
• Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2010)
  …tures, L.C., 527 F. 3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir.2008). Wrongful appropriation is typically shown by proving a “substantial similarity” of copyrightable expression. See Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119, 121 (2d Cir.1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902, 51 S.Ct. 216, 75 L.Ed. 795 (1931). Because substantial similarity is an extremely close question of fact, see Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F. 2d 464, 468 (2d Cir.1946), summary judgment has traditionally been frowned upon in copyright litigation, see…