Greene v. Ablon
914 F. Supp. 2d 110
D. Mass.2012Background
- Greene originated the CPS Approach for resolving parent–child conflicts and authored related materials before this suit.
- Ablon and MGH allegedly used Greene’s copyrighted material in Workshop Materials; Greene asserted copyrights in The Explosive Child and Treating Explosive Kids.
- Greene sued Ablon and MGH in 2009 for copyright infringement and related claims, including a claim that Ablon infringed The Explosive Child.
- The Court previously held that the CPS Approach as an idea is not protectable, but specific expressions in The Explosive Child may be protected.
- The Court must perform a dissection analysis to identify protectable expressions in The Explosive Child before trial.
- The Court addressed joint-work implications of Treating Explosive Kids and whether it affects the dissection of The Explosive Child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there protectable expression in The Explosive Child after dissection | Greene identifies protectable elements in the book | Ablon argues ideas/expressions are not protectable or are merged | Yes, The Explosive Child contains protectable expression |
| Whether the dissection procedure properly isolates protectable elements | Court should dissect to reveal protectable expressions | Dissection risks over- or under-protecting elements | Court may perform dissection recognizing merger/scenes a faire limits |
| Effect of Treating Explosive Kids being a joint work on the dissection | Treating Explosive Kids should not bar dissection of The Explosive Child | Joint-work status may limit protection for shared material | To be addressed at status conference/trial; not resolved on summary judgment |
| Are Plan B-related expressions protectable | Passages describing Plan B are original expressions | Expressions may be mere ideas or commonplace descriptions | Yes, Plan B descriptions and related passages are protectable expressions |
Key Cases Cited
- Soc’y of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory, 689 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2012) (dissection guidance and protecting expression in context)
- Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., 259 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2001) (merger and scenes a faire considerations; limits of protectable expression)
- Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600 (1st Cir. 1988) (limits of originality; protection not extend to unprotectable ideas)
- T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2006) (dissection as method to identify protectable expression; question of similarity thereafter)
- Hassett v. Hasselbeck, 757 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D. Mass. 2010) (dissection of a book; balancing protection of expression)