Hassett v. Hasselbeck
757 F. Supp. 2d 73
D. Mass.2010Background
- Hassett, pro se, sues Hasselbeck and Center Street for copyright infringement over Living with Celiac Disease (2008 edition) and The G Free Diet (2009 edition), claiming compilation copyright and copying.
- Defendants move for summary judgment contending no substantial similarity between Living and G Free; Hassett cross-moves for various reliefs; record includes both editions.
- Court converts motion to summary judgment under Rule 56; orders submission of materials and holds a hearing; Hassett later adds the 2008 edition and additional similarity lists.
- Court dissects the works to identify unprotected elements (ideas, short phrases, unprotected facts) and finds similarities arise from unprotected material.
- Court concludes no substantial similarity after dissection and grants defendants’ summary judgment; other motions become moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Living and G Free have substantial similarity? | Hassett contends substantial similarity exists, including compilation-like copying. | Defendants argue similarities are unprotectable ideas/facts/phrases; no substantial similarity. | No substantial similarity; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Is compilation copyright a valid theory here? | Hassett relies on compilation copyright to prohibit reshuffling copied ideas. | Theory is legally flawed and would revive sweat-of-the-brow doctrine rejected by Feist. | Compilation copyright is not protectable; rejected. |
| Should ideas, facts, and short phrases be excluded from substantial similarity analysis? | Hassett argues that copied ideas/facts/short phrases should show substantial similarity. | These elements are unprotected and must be removed from consideration. | Yes; unprotected elements are removed and do not support infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects original expression; ideas and facts are unprotected)
- Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2005) (protectable expression limited to original, not ideas or facts)
- Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., 259 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2001) (substantial similarity requires protectable expression, not ideas)
- Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000) (quality/quantity of similarity; protectable expression must be identified)
- T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2006) (summary judgment on substantial similarity appropriate when no substantial similarity exists)
- Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2009) (scenes a faire; protectable expression limited to original arrangements)