961 F. Supp. 2d 218
D.D.C.2013Background
- Gaines holds a registered copyright for GIRLP, an illustrated instructional manual for lottery betting slips (1999).
- Gaines alleges the District printed commemorative Mega Millions tickets in early 2012 that allegedly derive from GIRLP.
- Gaines claims the District’s actions infringe his copyright by creating a derivative work; the District moves to dismiss.
- Court analyzes whether ideas vs. expression are protected and whether substantial similarity supports infringement.
- Court ultimately dismisses Gaines’s copyright claim for lack of protectable subject matter and insufficient similarity.
- Gaines’s derivative-work/contract-related theories are considered but rejected; summary judgment motion is denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ideas are subject to copyright protection | Gaines argues elements from GIRLP are used | District: ideas are not protectable under §102(b) | Gains claim fails; ideas not protected |
| Whether the District’s Mega Millions ticket constitutes a derivative work | District used GIRLP business plans to create tickets | No protected elements; not a derivative work | No infringement; not a derivative work |
| Whether Gaines can amend via opposition to the motion to dismiss | Opposition brief supports contract claim | Cannot amend complaint through opposition; contract claims not properly before court | Gaines contract claims not proper; dismissed |
| Whether the FAR applies and exhaustion required for District contract claims | Gaines seeks FAR-based remedy | FAR not applicable to District of Columbia agency; exhaustion required | No jurisdiction over contract claims; FAR inapplicable |
| Whether Gaines is entitled to summary judgment on copyright or contract claims | Gaines seeks relief for alleged district-initiated GIRLP implementation | No genuine issues; claims fail as a matter of law | Summary judgment denied to Gaines; District’s motion to dismiss granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (idea/expression dichotomy; ideas not protected by copyright)
- Harper & Row, Publ’rs v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (ideas, not facts or ideas, are protectable; promotes public domain)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirement of plausible factual allegations to survive dismissal)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Arbitraje Casa De Cambio v. United States Postal Serv., 297 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D.D.C. 2003) (prohibits amending complaint via opposition to motion to dismiss)
- Jones & Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 797 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2011) (administrative exhaustion required for District contract claims)
- Whitehead v. CBS/Viacom, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) (test for substantial similarity focuses on total concept and feel)
- Atkins v. Fischer, 331 F.3d 988 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (substantial similarity evaluation)