Hassett v. Hasselbeck
177 F. Supp. 3d 626
D. Mass.2016Background
- Plaintiff Susan Hassett (pro se) authored and copyrighted Living with Celiac Disease (copyright March 2008) and mailed a copy to defendant Elisabeth Hasselbeck in April 2008.
- Hasselbeck published The G Free Diet (2009); Hassett previously sued for copyright infringement twice—first case dismissed for want of prosecution, second resolved by summary judgment for defendants, affirmed by the First Circuit (finding no substantial similarity after filtering unprotectable elements).
- Hasselbeck later published Deliciously G‑Free (2012); Hassett filed this action (Dec. 2014) alleging conversion (and effectively alleging copying of framework, text, recipes, information) and seeking $1,000,000.
- Hasselbeck moved to dismiss, arguing Hassett’s state‑law conversion claim is preempted by the Copyright Act and that Hassett fails to plead actionable copyright infringement (no substantial similarity of protected expression).
- The court sua sponte construed the pro se conversion claim as a copyright infringement claim (liberal construction) and reviewed whether Hassett plausibly alleged ownership and copying of original, protectable elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hassett's conversion claim is preempted by the Copyright Act | Hassett contends Hasselbeck converted her book by using its framework, text, recipes, information | Hasselbeck argues the claim seeks to enforce exclusive rights within §106 and thus is preempted | Conversion claim is preempted; court construes complaint as copyright infringement |
| Whether Hassett plausibly alleged ownership and copying of protectable elements | Hassett asserts ownership and that substantial parts (framework, text, recipes, research) were copied | Hasselbeck contends similarities are unprotectable ideas, scènes à faire, facts, or functional recipe instructions; protected expression not copied | Ownership assumed for motion; copying of protectable elements not plausibly pleaded |
| Whether the works are substantially similar as to protectable expression | Hassett points to overlapping chapters/pages, five similar recipes, and compiled research | Hasselbeck argues differences in structure, style, expression, and that overlapping material is unprotectable (ideas, facts, functional directions) | No substantial similarity once unprotected elements filtered out; dismissal granted |
| Whether recipes, factual compilations, and generic structure are protected | Hassett treats recipes and research compilation as protectable expression | Hasselbeck argues recipes are functional and facts/sequence are unprotectable; genre conventions are scènes à faire | Recipes, facts, and general arrangement are not copyrightable; they do not support infringement claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright protects original expression not facts or ideas)
- T‑Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97 (1st Cir.) (substantial similarity test focuses on protectable elements)
- Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., LLC, 259 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.) (copying + substantial similarity required)
- Hassett v. Hasselbeck, 757 F.Supp.2d 73 (D. Mass. 2010) (prior case analyzing protectable elements and finding no substantial similarity)
- Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez‑Miranda, 562 F.3d 62 (1st Cir.) (scènes à faire doctrine denies protection to genre‑customary elements)
- CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504 (1st Cir.) (short phrases and fragmentary words lack the minimal creativity for copyright)
- Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir.) (recipes with only ingredients and directions lack required originality)
- Nat’l Nonwovens, Inc. v. Consumer Prods. Enters., Inc., 397 F.Supp.2d 245 (D. Mass. 2005) (functional instructions unprotectable)
- Lorenzana v. S. Am. Rests. Corp., 799 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.) (simple recipe/instruction examples not copyrightable)