ÿWPCy@ ’܈kã5˹æ¿6׆ž0Y×oâ^‚ÿ(Gr¤¥úѹņFMѧŠv _SkÐC¼Ú95ؤ±Q&Ææa…\´lΧ/XŒôŸßé‘!ÅLwC;É­§[»™”‹“?«3|Q¹=y(¿šµ_Ûæ4„p€²§î%ÃO×ÝÄpS0áõ1ñÀ€Òêõè´7!­½æ‘)}i®ìÚ4e'ŠžiÇÃå(ûïÓå Ó²-{¥û*'Éݯ²M6ÕÅWð5úõ§Ø{ÉåÃI ûîÕ UF ^ Y we 4i } Œ mŽ b¥ N­ 0æ¯ U00• 0DÅ b  ü' #$ž&Ä3ÉÉÉÉÉÉEü%fþ%a&&&_&&&&&&&&&&&&s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)s)c{)^Þ+g<.¹£1;\7A—9—9—9—9—9 BØ;Ø;„õ;˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÎáA Z6Times New Roman Regularˆ(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(ÎáA Z‹6Times New Roman Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular´¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular¡¨f.s Êu—-?,}£backup3|x4ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(wG2i$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€÷ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ1Šˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<è\( 9Z+Courier (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- Ñ ° Ñ òÝ ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=ÓÔ€XxXˆˆ¹Ôà ` àPace€later€formed€a€subsidiary€of€WCP,€The€Willows€atÐ ° ÐWinchester,€LLC,€and€transferred€ownership€of€the€site€to€thatÐ †Ö Ðentity,€which€Danielson€also€named€as€a€defendant.€€In€addition,Ð \¬ Ðthe€condominiums€were€marketed€by€WCP€under€the€brand€name€of€anÐ 2‚ Ðaffiliated€company,€Starter€Sales.€€ò òó óWe€refer€to€all€of€theseÐ X Ðentities€collectively€as€"WCP." ÷Ý ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=ÓÔ€XxXˆˆ¹Ôà ` àThe€authorship€and€ownership€of€copyright€in€the€plansÐ ° Ðhad€been€an€issue€at€earlier€stages€in€this€litigation,€but€WCPÐ †Ö Ðforegoes€these€arguments€on€appeal. øÝ ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àThe€1976€Act€also€reduced€the€importance€of€publication.€Ð ° ÐPreviously,€the€publication€of€a€work€had€marked€the€point€at€whichÐ †Ö Ðits€federal€copyright€protection€began,€but€after€the€1976€Act,Ð \¬ Ðfederal€copyright€attached€at€the€moment€a€work€was€first€created.€Ð 2‚ ÐòòSeeóó€17€U.S.C.€ðð€301(a)€(setting€preemption€at€point€when€work€isÐ X Ð"fixed€in€a€tangible€medium").€€Copyright€attached€to€the€drawingsÐ Þ. Ðat€issue€here€when€they€were€first€drafted€„„€in€the€parlance€ofÐ ´  Ðcopyright,€when€they€were€first€"fixed"€on€paper.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€ððÐ Š Ú Ð101. ”Ý ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àòòFoad€Consultingóó€bases€its€very€similar€framework€onÐ ° Ðprinciples€of€California€contract€law,€because€it€holds€that€stateÐ †Ö Ðlaw€governed€the€interpretation€of€the€contract€there.€€270€F.3d€atÐ \¬ Ð826„28.€€The€author€of€òòEffects€Associatesóó,€writing€separately,Ð 2‚ Ðcriticizes€this€rationale.€€òòId.óó€at€832„34€(Kozinski,€J.,Ð X Ðconcurring).€€The€circumstances€of€that€case€are€different€from€theÐ Þ. Ðone€at€hand,€and€we€need€not€delve€into€this€aspect€of€theÐ ´  Ðanalysis.òòóó ûÝ ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àÔ_ÔDanielsonÔ_Ô€argues€that€Ô_ÔWCPÔ_Ô€has€waived€these€arguments€byÐ ° Ðfailing€to€discuss€them€in€its€opening€brief€to€us.€€But€these€areÐ †Ö Ðcross„appeals,€and€Ô_ÔWCPÔ_Ô€was€the€prevailing€party€on€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€ActÐ \¬ Ðissue€before€the€district€court.€€The€onus€is€not€on€Ô_ÔWCPÔ_Ô€to€seek€toÐ 2‚ Ðhave€its€victory€re„examined€on€the€grounds€that€the€district€courtÐ X Ðawarded€it€on€too€narrow€a€basis.€€Rather€Ô_ÔDanielsonÔ_Ô,€in€itsÐ Þ. Ðcapacity€as€cross„appellant,€challenged€the€district€court€ruling.€Ð ´  ÐÔ_ÔWCPÔ_Ô€then€replied,€having€attacked€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act€claim€under€RuleÐ Š Ú Ð50€both€during€and€after€trial. )Ý ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àOn€appeal,€Danielson€challenges€the€district€court'sÐ ° Ðdecision€to€allow€these€experts€to€testify€at€trial.€€We€review€forÐ †Ö Ðabuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòKumho€Tire€Co.óó€v.€òòCarmichaelóó,€526€U.S.Ð \¬ Ð137,€152€(1999).€€We€find€no€such€abuse;€Barsky€and€Hawkes€are€bothÐ 2‚ Ðexperienced€professionals€with€relevant€expertise.€€Meanwhile,€WCPÐ X Ðappeals€the€district€court's€decision€to€exclude€certain€parts€ofÐ Þ. Ðthe€testimony€it€wanted€to€elicit€from€Hawkes,€especially€herÐ ´  Ðestimate€that€the€contribution€of€a€site€plan€to€a€condominiumÐ Š Ú Ðproject€is€no€more€than€10„15€percent€of€its€total€appeal.ò òó ó€€GivenÐ ` ° Ðthe€lack€of€foundation€offered€for€this€particular€number,€we€thinkÐ 6 †  Ðthe€district€court€was€within€its€discretion€to€limit€Hawkes'sÐ  \  Ðtestimony€in€this€manner.€€At€a€second€trial,€if€one€is€required,Ð â 2  Ðòòseeóó€òòinfraóó€Part€Ô_ÔIV.CÔ_Ô,€WCP€might€do€a€better€job€of€establishing€theÐ ¸  Ðbasis€for€this€opinion,€or€might€offer€other€experts€or€evidence€toÐ ŽÞ  Ðsupport€it.€€More€importantly,€when€the€jury€is€given€the€properÐ d´  Ðstandard€rather€than€instructed€to€look€for€mathematical€exactness,Ð :Š  Ðit€will€be€less€important€for€WCP€to€produce€a€precise€numericalÐ `  Ðfigure.øÀTABLE A UÝ ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àFarese€had€previously€paid€Danielson€for€servicesÐ ° Ðrendered€through€June€5,€1987.€€Activity€from€that€date€until€JulyÐ †Ö Ð3,€including€completion€of€the€covenant€drawings€on€June€11,€wasÐ \¬ Ðbilled€in€the€first€invoice€under€the€contract,€dated€July€15,Ð 2‚ Ð1987.€ò ò€ó óThe€contract€describes€the€schematic€design€phase,€whichÐ X Ðamounted€to€15€percent€of€the€contract€price,€ò òó óas€including€siteÐ ì< Ðplans€like€the€covenant€drawings.ò òó ó  YÝ ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=ÓÔ€XxXˆˆ¹Ôà ` àThis€case€is€also€not€covered€by€the€Architectural€WorksÐ ° ÐCopyright€Protection€Act€of€1990,€because€the€drawings€were€createdÐ †Ö Ðbefore€the€statute's€effective€date.€€òòSeeóó€Pub.€L.€No.€101„650,€ððÐ \¬ Ð706,€104€Stat.€5089,€5134€(1990). TÝ ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àIf€the€district€court€was€correct€that€the€jury'sÐ ° Ðcopyright€damages€included€$120,000€of€actual€damagesòòóó,€then€itÐ †Ö Ðappears€that€the€jury€deducted€the€full€amount€for€real€estateÐ \¬ Ðcommissions€and€did€no€apportionment€at€all. ]Ý ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=ÓÔ€XxXˆˆ¹Ôà ` àDanielson€argues€that€WCP€waived€this€issue€by€failing€toÐ ° Ðobject€again€to€the€reiterated€instruction.€€Given€that€WCP€offeredÐ †Ö Ðan€instruction€on€apportionment,€objected€to€the€original€charge,Ð \¬ Ðand€raised€this€issue€again€in€its€post„verdict€motion€for€a€newÐ 2‚ Ðtrial,€we€will€consider€it€preserved€for€appeal.€€Even€if€thereÐ X Ðwere€waiver,€it€would€simply€limit€our€review€to€clear€error,€andÐ Þ. Ðthat€standard€would€be€satisfied€here.ò òó ó ¯Ý ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àWe€are€unpersuaded€by€Ô_ÔDanielsonÔ_Ô's€argument€thatÐ ° Ðapportionment€is€not€appropriate€because€the€entire€development€wasÐ †Ö Ð"intertwined"€with€the€infringed€site€plans.€€Ô_ÔDanielsonÔ_Ô€cites€onlyÐ \¬ Ðone€case€to€us€in€support€of€this€notion,€òòBusiness€Trends€Analysts,Ð 2‚ ÐInc.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔFreedoniaÔ_Ô€Groupóó,€700€F.€Supp.€1213,€1241€(Ô_ÔS.D.N.Y.Ô_Ô€1988),Ð X ÐòòÔ_Ôaff'dÔ_Ôóó€887€F.2d€399€(2d€Cir.€1989).€€That€case€is€simplyÐ Þ. Ðinapplicable:€the€court€there€found€the€record€"absolutely€bereftÐ ´  Ðof€any€proof"€from€defendants€on€apportionment.€€òòId.óó€€Its€referenceÐ Š Ú Ðto€intertwining€referred€to€the€lack€of€any€evidence€that€wouldÐ ` ° Ð"sensibly€and€responsibly€extricate€the€gold€from€the€dross."€€òòId.óó€Ð 6 †  ÐIn€contrast,€the€evidence€in€the€case€before€us€allows€a€sensibleÐ  \  Ðand€responsible€apportionment. 1Ý ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=ÓÔ€XxXˆˆ¹Ôà ` àThis€finding€obviates€the€need€for€us€to€considerÐ ° Ðseparately€WCP's€appeal€of€the€denial€of€its€motion€for€a€newÐ †Ö Ðtrial,€which€was€predicated€on€damages€issues;€our€holding€has€theÐ \¬ Ðsame€effect. 7Ý ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=ÓÔ€XxXˆˆ¹Ôà ` àAs€an€alternative,€in€the€event€that€the€decision€toÐ ° Ðreduce€the€jury's€copyright€damages€award€were€later€reversed,€theÐ †Ö Ðdistrict€court€also€ordered€a€Ô_ÔremittiturÔ_Ô€of€the€same€amount.ò òó ó d zÝ ƒi$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€—ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€ˆ¹ˆ†ˆÔÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XxXˆˆ¹ÔÓ=€—ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àDanielson€attempts€to€augment€its€arguments€on€appeal€byÐ ° Ðalleging€that€the€element€of€"rascality"€in€a€chapter€93A€claimÐ †Ö Ðadds€enough€to€escape€preemption.€€Normally,€we€will€not€entertainÐ \¬ Ðan€argument€on€appeal€of€summary€judgment€that€was€not€raisedÐ 2‚ Ðbefore€the€district€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòOrtizóó€v.€òòGaston€County€Dyeing€Mach.Ð X ÐCo.óó,€277€F.3d€594,€597€(1st€Cir.€2002).€€In€any€event,€a€label€suchÐ Þ. Ðas€"rascality"€is€a€dubious€basis€for€the€extra€element€required€toÐ ´  Ðsurvive€preemption.€€òòSeeóó€òòData€Gen.óó,€36€F.3d€at€1165€(citing€òòMayeróóÐ Š Ú Ðv.€òòJosiah€Wedgwood€&€Sons,€Ltd.óó,€601€F.€Supp.€1523,€1535€(S.D.N.Y.Ð ` ° Ð1985)).Ð 6 †  ÐÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ˆ—ˆˆˆÔÑ  ÑØØÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ‡°¨Õ°ˆˆ—Ôò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ8€xXXdÖdÈ8ÑÓ=€xXÐXdÐd=ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†ˆ—ˆ°°¨Õ1#ÔÔ‡„°„ˆˆ—ÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ#†„°„„„°=#ÔÔ‡„%ô„„„°ÔÔ#†ˆ¹ˆ„„%ô!#ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹ÔÐ „Ô ÐÓ_ÓÌÌßA€j!) °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌÔ#†X8\ XXXx#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔNos.€€€02„1452Ð K › Ѐ€€€€€€02„1533Ð ! q ÐÌà@ˆˆìàJOHN€G.€Ô_ÔDANIELSONÔ_Ô,€INC.ˆÐ Í   ÐÌà@@ @ ìàPlaintiff,€Appellee,€Cross„Appellant,ˆÐ yÉ  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ %u  ÐÌà@¸ ¸ ìàWINCHESTER„CONANT€PROPERTIES,€INC.;ˆÐ Ñ! ÐÓ  ÓTHE€WILLOWS€AT€WINCHESTER,€LLC,Ð §÷ ÐÌà@@<< ìàDefendants,€Appellants,€Cross„Appellees.Ð S£ ÐÌßA€j!) °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO ÐÌà@@ìì ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURT€Ð ä4 ÐFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSÐ º  ÐÌà@@œ œ ìà[Hon.€William€G.€Young,€òòChief€U.S.€District€Judgeóó]Ð f¶ ÐÌßA€j!) °°` dE<` AßÐ b ÐÌà@@„„'ìàBeforeÐ ÷G ÐÌà@@((ìàLynch,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð £ó  ÐStahl,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð yÉ! Ðand€Howard,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð O Ÿ" ÐÌßA€j!) °°` dE<ú!` AßÐ û!K$ ÐÌÓ  Óà ` àòòGary€S.€Ô_ÔMatskoÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòPaul€L.€Feldmanóó,€òòJudithÐ à"0& ÐAshtonóó,€and€òòDavis,€Ô_ÔMalmÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔD'AgostineÔ_Ô,€P.C.óó€were€on€brief€forÐ ¶#' Ðappellants€and€cross„appelleesÔ#†X8\ XXXx“#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔÔ#†ˆ¹ˆXXxÒ#ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹ÔÐ Œ$Ü( ÐÌà ` àòòAnthony€E.€Battelleóó,€with€whom€òòConstruction€LawÐ 8&ˆ!* ÐServicesóó,€òòCharles€R.€Ô_ÔHeuerÔ_Ôóó,€and€òòÔ_ÔHeuerÔ_Ô€Law€Groupóó€were€on€brief€forÐ '^"+ Ðappellee€and€cross„appellant.Ð ä'4#, ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ"j#ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ f*¶%/f*¶% ‹‹ÐÐ SIÊ*&0  fâ@37685„„‰ fâ@‰‹‹SÐÌMarch€6,€2003Ð  +ð&2 ÐÐ RHCv,Æ'3"  fâ@37685  fâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(Ê*&4  (ÐÙ* !ÙÐ  |-Ì(4? ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†X8\ XXXxã #ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔÓ  ÓÓÓØØÑ8€xXXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ€ÑÑ€OaÑÓ=€xXÐXdXÐXd=Óà ` àÔ#†X8\ XXXxæ#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\Ôò òòòóóLYNCH,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€€This€copyright€case€involvesÐ ° Ðunusual€facts,€many€dating€to€the€mid„1980s,€which€greatlyÐ xÈ Ðinfluence€its€result.€€A€real€estate€developer€acquired€a€parcel€ofÐ $t Ðland€covered€by€a€30„year€restrictive€covenant€to€which€a€previousÐ Ð  Ðowner€had€agreed.€€The€covenant€required€that€any€residentialÐ | Ì Ðdevelopment€conform€with€site€plans€submitted€by€the€previousÐ ( x  Ðowner.€€The€new€owner€tried€to€modify€these€restrictions;€when€itÐ Ô$  Ðfailed€to€do€so€it€built€a€condominium€subdivision€that€adhered€toÐ €Ð  Ðthe€site€plans€in€the€covenant.€€The€architectural€firm€that€hadÐ ,|  Ðearlier€designed€those€plans€then€sued€for€copyright€infringementÐ Ø( Ðand€unfair€competition,€and€eventually€won€a€jury€verdict€and€aÐ „Ô Ðjudgment€in€the€district€court€for€over€$1.3€million€„„€essentiallyÐ 0€ Ðall€the€profits€from€the€now„complete€condominium€project.Ð Ü, Ðà ` àThe€corporation€that€built€the€condominiums,€Winchester„Ð ˆØ ÐConant€Properties,€Inc.€("WCP"),€appeals€the€dismissal€of€most€ofÐ 4„ Ðits€affirmative€defenses.€€We€affirm€these€dismissals,€although€inÐ à0 Ðsome€instances€our€reasons€for€affirmance€differ€significantly€fromÐ ŒÜ  Ðthe€district€court's€rationale.€€The€plaintiff€architectural€firm,Ð 8!ˆ" ÐJohn€G.€Danielson,€Inc.€("Danielson")€appeals€some€of€the€court'sÐ ä"4$ Ðrulings€dismissing€its€unfair€competition€claims.€€We€affirm€theseÐ $à& Ðrulings€as€well.€€Finally,€both€parties€appeal€aspects€of€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðdamages€award.€€WCP€argues€that€the€district€court€gave€erroneousÐ è'8#* Ðinstructions€to€the€jury€concerning€the€apportionment€of€profitsÐ ”)ä$, Ðbetween€the€infringing€design€and€other€aspects€of€the€development.€Ð @+&. ÐWe€agree,€vacate€the€damage€award,€and€remand€for€a€determinationÐ ° Ðof€damages€using€the€correct€standards.Ð \¬ ÐÓ  ÓI.€€BackgroundÐ X ÐÓ°ÓA.€€òòFactsóóÐ ´  Ðà ` àIn€the€mid„1980s,€Louis€Farese€was€co„trustee€of€a€trustÐ ` ° Ðthat€owned€a€7.4€acre€parcel€of€land€in€Winchester,€MassachusettsÐ  \  Ð(the€"site").€€ò òó óDanielson€had€worked€on€other€projects€for€Farese,Ð ¸  Ðò òó óand€Farese€hired€Danielson€to€develop€plans€for€the€site.€ò òó óÐ d´  ÐDanielson€in€turn€retained€Donald€Tellalian,€of€TellalianÐ `  ÐAssociates€Architects€and€Planners€("Tellalian€Associates"),€as€aÐ ¼  Ðsubcontractor€to€assist€it€in€its€work€on€Farese's€project.ò òó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àDanielson,€Tellalian€Associates,€and€Farese€consultedÐ d Ðwith€each€other,€Winchester€town€officials,€and€residents€who€livedÐ À Ðnear€the€site€to€determine€the€best€course€for€developing€the€land.€Ð l¼ ÐThey€settled€on€a€condominium€development,€and€showed€some€earlyÐ h Ðdrafts€of€their€plans€to€these€stakeholders,€some€of€whom€suggestedÐ Ä Ðvarious€changes.€€This€process€culminated€in€the€production€ofÐ pÀ  Ðseven€drawings,€dated€June€11,€1987,€depicting€a€70„unitÐ !l" Ðcondominium€development€with€four€residential€buildings€and€aÐ È"$ Ð"clubhouse"€for€community€activities.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àFour€of€these€drawings€are€subjects€of€Danielson'sÐ  &p!( Ðinfringement€claims.€€ò òó óThree€are€site€plans€(labeled€SP„1,€SP„2,€andÐ Ì'#* ÐSP„3)€which€show€the€layout€of€the€site€from€a€bird's€eye€view,Ð x)È$, Ðincluding€footprints€of€buildings,€roads,€parking,€and€greenÐ $+t&. Ðspaces;€they€bear€the€logos€of€both€Danielson€and€TellalianÐ ° ÐAssociates.€ò òó ó€The€fourth€is€an€unlabelled€artist's€rendering€of€theÐ \¬ Ðbuildings€(designated€A„3).€€ò òó óNone€of€these€drawings€had€a€copyrightÐ X Ðnotice€on€them.Ð ´  Ðà ` àAt€the€time,€the€site€was€not€zoned€for€residentialÐ ` ° Ðdevelopment€ò òó óand€was€covered€by€a€restrictive€covenant€between€aÐ  \  Ðprevious€owner€and€the€Town€of€Winchester€(the€"Town").€ò òó ó€TheÐ ¸  Ðcondominium€plan€could€only€be€completed€if€both€the€zoning€and€theÐ d´  Ðcovenant€were€amended,€and€only€the€Winchester€Town€Meeting€couldÐ `  Ðapprove€either€change.€€ò òó óOn€June€11,€1987€„„€the€same€date€that€isÐ ¼  Ðon€the€seven€drawings€„„€the€Winchester€Planning€Board€voted€toÐ h¸ Ðrecommend€that€the€Town€Meeting€amend€the€site's€zoning€to€allowÐ d Ðresidential€development.€€ò òó óThe€Board€also€entered€into€a€newÐ À Ðrestrictive€covenant€with€Farese,€subject€to€Town€Meeting€approval.€Ð l¼ ÐThis€covenant€would€run€with€the€land€for€30€years,€could€beÐ h Ðaltered€only€by€a€two„thirds€vote€of€the€Town€Meeting,€and€requiredÐ Ä Ðthat€any€residential€development€be€in€accordance€with€the€sevenÐ pÀ  Ðdrawings.ò ò€€ó ó(These€drawings€are€therefore€referred€to€by€theÐ !l" Ðlitigants€as€the€"covenant€drawings.")€€At€the€Town€Meeting€on€JuneÐ ä"4$ Ð15,€1987,€Tellalian€showed€several€of€the€covenant€drawings€on€anÐ $à& Ðoverhead€projector€as€part€of€his€presentation;€some€were€alsoÐ <&Œ!( Ðdisplayed€on€easels€in€the€lobby.€€ò òó óThe€Town€Meeting€followed€theÐ è'8#* Ðâ âBoard's€recommendations€and€approved€both€the€rezoning€and€theÐ ”)ä$, Ðreplacement€of€the€previous€covenant€with€the€restrictive€covenantÐ ° Ðsigned€by€Farese€and€his€co„trustee.ò òó óÐ \¬ Ðâ âà ` àHaving€cleared€this€obstacle,€Farese€and€Danielson€signedÐ X Ða€written€contract€for€the€project€on€June€29,€1987.€ò ò€ó óThe€documentÐ ´  Ðis€a€standard€form€contract€furnished€by€the€American€Institute€ofÐ | Ì ÐArchitects€(AIA),€with€some€modifications€made€by€the€parties.€€TheÐ ( x  Ðcontract€specifies€that€all€plans€remain€Danielson's€property,€ò òó óthatÐ Ô$  Ðplans€are€not€to€be€used€on€other€projects€or€by€other€partiesÐ €Ð  Ðwithout€Danielson's€written€consent,€ò òó óand€that€"[s]ubmission€orÐ ,|  Ðdistribution€to€meet€official€regulatory€requirements€.€.€.€is€notÐ Ø( Ðto€be€construed€as€publication€in€derogation€of€the€Architect'sÐ „Ô Ðrights."ò òó óÐ 0€ Ðà ` àAs€work€continued,€Danielson€created€numerousÐ Ü, Ðconstruction€drawings;€four€of€these,€labeled€C„1,€C„3,€C„4,€and€L„Ð ˆØ Ð1,€are€also€subjects€of€this€litigation.€ò ò€ó óThese€four€drawings€areÐ 4„ Ðmarked€with€several€revision€dates€in€1987€and€1988;€they€depictÐ üL Ðthe€site€layout€with€some€modifications€and€additions,€particularlyÐ ¨ø  Ðengineering€details.€€ò òó óThey€all€bear€logos€of€both€Danielson€andÐ T!¤" ÐTellalian€Associates€but€lack€copyright€notice;€two€of€them€alsoÐ #P$ Ðinclude€the€logo€of€another€Danielson€subcontractor,€MedfordÐ ¬$ü& ÐEngineering€("Medford").ò òó óÐ X&¨!( Ðà ` àSoon€after€construction€began€in€1988,€Farese€encounteredÐ (T#* Ðâ âserious€financial€difficulties.€€The€project€was€abandoned€and€layÐ °)%, Ðdormant€until€1994.€€ò òó óDanielson€has€never€collected€over€$226,000Ð ° Ðthat€Farese€owes€it€for€work€completed€under€the€contract.ò òó óÐ \¬ Ðâ âà ` àIn€1993,€Robert€Pace€became€interested€in€buying€andÐ X Ðdeveloping€the€site.€€ò òó óHe€formed€WCP€and€acquired€the€site€in€aÐ ´  Ðforeclosure€sale€in€April€1994.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òó óOver€the€next€few€months,€WCPÐ ` ° Ðconsidered€a€range€of€possible€development€options,€includingÐ  \  Ðtownhouses,€single„family€homes,€and€housing€for€the€elderly.€Ð ¸  ÐSeveral€versions€of€a€condominium€plan€like€the€one€Farese€hadÐ d´  Ðpursued€were€also€"on€the€table."€ò òó ó€Representatives€of€WCP€met€threeÐ `  Ðtimes€in€mid„1994€with€Edmond€Danielson,€by€then€the€only€full„timeÐ ¼  Ðarchitect€at€the€Danielson€firm,€to€discuss€ideas€for€the€site.€€AtÐ h¸ ÐEdmond€Danielson's€suggestion,€Donald€Tellalian€joined€the€secondÐ d Ðand€third€of€these€meetings.€€The€WCP€representatives€brought€theÐ À Ðdisputed€drawings€to€these€meetings€and€the€participants€looked€atÐ l¼ Ðthem,€but€WCP€expressed€concern€that€Farese's€plan€would€not€beÐ h Ðprofitable.€ò òó ó€WCP€commissioned€Danielson€and€Tellalian€Associates€toÐ Ä Ðdraft€a€proposed€design€for€the€elderly€housing€concept.€€By€AugustÐ pÀ  Ð1994,€WCP€chose€to€pursue€a€townhouse€plan€designed€by€anotherÐ !l" Ðâ âarchitect€instead.ò òó óÐ È"$ Ðà ` àWCP€did€not€have€the€same€luck€as€Farese€in€removingÐ ° Ðâ âpreexisting€covenants,€however.€€After€failing€in€several€attemptsÐ \¬ Ðto€persuade€the€Town€to€alter€the€covenant€established€with€Farese,Ð X Ðò òó óWCP€decided€in€mid„1995€to€develop€the€site€according€to€theÐ ´  Ðcovenant€specifications€after€all.€€WCP€provided€its€architects€andÐ ` ° Ðengineers€(including€some,€like€Medford,€who€had€worked€forÐ  \  ÐDanielson€on€the€earlier€project)€with€construction€drawings€thatÐ ¸  Ðare€the€subject€of€this€lawsuit.€€Tò òó óhese€agents€removed€theÐ d´  ÐDanielson€and€Tellalian€Associates€logos€and€produced€plans€veryÐ `  Ðsimilar€to€the€drawings€Danielson€claims€were€infringed.€ò òó ó€TheseÐ ¼  Ðcopied€drawings€were€in€turn€used€to€obtain€permit€approval€fromÐ h¸ Ðthe€town€in€December€1995.€€ò òó óWCP€included€a€simplified€site€plan€inÐ d Ða€sales€brochure,€ò òó óand€also€placed€a€copy€of€the€artist's€rendering,Ð À Ðcovenant€drawing€A„3,€on€its€signs.€ò ò€ó óConstruction€began€on€theÐ l¼ Ðdevelopment,€called€"The€Willows€at€Winchester,"€in€1996,€and€wasÐ 4„ Ðfinished€in€2000.ò òó óÐ à0 Ðà ` àThe€parties€disagree€about€some€aspects€of€theirÐ ŒÜ  Ðcommunication€at€this€juncture,€but€clearly€they€stopped€doingÐ 8!ˆ" Ðbusiness€together€after€the€elderly€housing€design€was€rejected€inÐ ä"4$ ÐAugust€1994.€€ò òó óSometime€in€late€1995€or€early€1996,€a€representativeÐ $à& Ðof€WCP€telephoned€Donald€Tellalian€and€told€him€that€the€companyÐ <&Œ!( Ðnow€planned€to€use€the€site€layout€embodied€in€the€covenant.€Ð è'8#* Ðò òó óNeither€WCP€nor€Tellalian€informed€Danielson;€WCP€says€it€thoughtÐ ”)ä$, Ðthat€Tellalian€spoke€for€Danielson.€€ò òó óIn€any€event,€Edmond€DanielsonÐ @+&. Ðsays€he€was€unaware€of€WCP's€intent€to€use€the€old€design€untilÐ ° ÐAugust€1997,€when€one€of€the€firm's€former€employees€happened€toÐ \¬ Ðdrive€past€the€site,€noticed€the€buildings€under€construction,€andÐ X Ðinformed€him.€€ò òó óDanielson€swiftly€contacted€attorneys,€who€sent€aÐ ´  Ðletter€to€WCP€stating€Danielson's€claim.€€ò òó óDanielson€also€registeredÐ ` ° Ðthe€covenant€drawings€and€construction€drawings€for€copyright€inÐ  \  Ð1999.€€ò òó óFinally,€Danielson€requested€and€received€from€TellalianÐ ¸  Ðwritten€statements€indicating€that€Tellalian€Associates€made€noÐ d´  Ðclaim€on€the€copyright€interests€in€the€drawings.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ `  ÐB.€€òòProcedural€HistoryóóÐ ¼  Ðà ` àAfter€settlement€discussions€yielded€no€fruit,€DanielsonÐ h¸ Ðfiled€a€complaint€in€the€U.S.€District€Court€for€the€District€ofÐ d ÐMassachusetts€in€May€2000.€€ò òó óThe€suit€asserted€a€claim€of€copyrightÐ À Ðinfringement€under€17€U.S.C.€ðð€501€(2000).€€It€also€asserted€threeÐ l¼ Ðunfair€competition€claims:€conversion€under€state€law;€falseÐ h Ðdesignation€of€origin€under€the€Lanham€Act,€15€U.S.C.€ðð€1125(a)Ð Ä Ð(2000);€and€unfair€and€deceptive€trade€practices€under€Mass.€Gen.Ð pÀ  ÐLaws€ch.€93A€(2001).ò òó óÐ !l" Ðà ` àThe€parties€both€submitted€summary€judgment€motions.€€WCPÐ È"$ Ðsought€dismissal€of€the€case.€€Danielson€sought€summary€judgment€asÐ t$Ä& Ðto€liability€on€three€of€its€claims,€but€not€as€to€the€conversionÐ  &p!( Ðclaim€or€damages€issues.€€On€February€8,€2002,€shortly€beforeÐ Ì'#* Ðtrial,€the€district€court€issued€an€order€disposing€of€theseÐ ° Ðmotions€and€shaping€the€case€for€trial.€€ò òó óThe€district€court€laterÐ \¬ Ðissued€a€published€opinion€elaborating€on€its€numerous€holdings.€Ð X ÐòòJohn€G.€Danielson,€Inc.óó€v.€òòWinchester„Conant€Props.,€Inc.óó,€186€F.Ð ´  ÐSupp.€2d€1€(D.€Mass.€2002).Ð ` ° Ðà ` àIn€these€pretrial€rulings,€the€court€held€that€there€wasÐ  \  Ðno€genuine€factual€dispute€that€WCP€had€infringed€Danielson'sÐ ¸  Ðcopyright.€€òòId.óó€at€4,€14.€€ò òó óIt€dismissed€five€of€WCP's€affirmativeÐ d´  Ðdefenses,€which€asserted€that€Danielson's€copyright€was€invalidÐ `  Ðbecause€of:€(1)€publication€without€statutorily€required€notice,Ð ¼  Ð(2)€disclosure€in€the€covenant€which€placed€the€plans€in€the€publicÐ h¸ Ðdomain,€(3)€implied€license,€(4)€merger€doctrine,€and€(5)Ð d Ðabandonment.€€ò òó óòòId.óó€at€14„24.€€The€court€also€ruled€that€Danielson'sÐ À Ðstate„law€unfair€trade€practices€claim€was€preempted€by€federalÐ l¼ Ðcopyright€law.€€òòId.óó€at€29.€€The€other€motions€were€denied.Ð h Ðà ` àThe€trial€lasted€through€six€days€of€testimony€fromÐ Ä ÐFebruary€19„27,€2002.€€After€plaintiff€rested,€WCP€moved€forÐ pÀ  Ðdirected€verdict;€the€court€granted€the€motion€as€to€Danielson'sÐ !l" Ðconversion€claim,€ò òó óbut€allowed€the€copyrightò òó ó€and€false€designationÐ È"$ Ðof€origin€claims€to€go€forward.€€ò òó óAt€the€close€of€all€the€evidence,Ð t$Ä& Ðthe€district€court€rejected€renewed€motions€for€directed€verdict€onÐ  &p!( Ðthese€matters,€but€granted€Danielson's€motion€for€directed€verdictÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âagainst€WCP's€estoppel€and€waiver€defenses.ò òó óÐ x)È$, Ðà ` àTaken€together,€these€rulings€considerably€narrowed€theÐ ° Ðâ âquestions€left€for€the€jury€to€decide.€€Two€issues€often€at€theÐ \¬ Ðheart€of€copyright€cases,€copyrightability€and€infringement,€wereÐ X Ðalready€determined€as€a€matter€of€law.€€ò òó óOn€the€copyright€claim,€theÐ ´  Ðjury€considered€only€the€two€remaining€affirmative€defenses,Ð ` ° Ðconcerning€the€statute€of€limitations€and€coauthorship.€€ò òó óThe€juryÐ  \  Ðfound€for€Danielson€on€both€of€these€defenses€and€neither€of€theseÐ ¸  Ðverdicts€is€appealed.€€ò òó óIt€awarded€damages€on€the€copyright€claim€ofÐ d´  Ð$1,464,950.€€The€jury€also€found€that€Danielson's€Lanham€Act€claimÐ `  Ðof€false€designation€of€origin€was€within€the€statute€ofÐ ¼  Ðlimitations€and€that€WCP€was€liable€under€that€claim€for€$120,000Ð h¸ Ðin€damages.€€ò òó óThe€jury's€total€damages€award€represented€essentiallyÐ d Ðall€of€the€profit€WCP€made€from€the€development.ò òó óÐ À Ðà ` àThe€district€court€disposed€of€post„trial€motions€fromÐ l¼ Ðthe€bench€at€a€hearing€on€March€27,€2002.€€It€denied€WCP's€motionÐ h Ðfor€a€new€trial€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.€€ò òó óThe€court€granted€WCP'sÐ Ä Ðrenewed€motion€for€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.Ð pÀ  ÐP.€59(b)€as€to€the€Lanham€Act€claim,€however,€because€it€held€thereÐ !l" Ðwas€no€basis€in€the€evidence€for€the€$120,000€in€damages€the€juryÐ È"$ Ðhad€awarded.€€ò òó óThe€court€also€reduced€the€damages€under€theÐ t$Ä& Ðcopyright€claim€by€$120,000,€stating€from€the€bench€that€it€wasÐ  &p!( Ðâ â"clear€to€the€Court€that€the€$120,000€was€simply€added€onto€theÐ Ì'#* Ðbase€damages€the€plaintiff€otherwise€is€entitled€to."׃e×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò òó ó€Finally,Ð ° Ðâ âthe€court€dealt€with€Danielson's€petition€for€attorneys'€fees,Ð \¬ Ðprejudgment€interest,€and€costs.€€Danielson€was€not€entitled€toÐ X Ðattorneys'€fees€under€the€Copyright€Act€because€the€drawings€wereÐ ´  Ðnot€registered€at€the€time€of€infringement.€€17€U.S.C.€ðð€412.€Ð ` ° ÐBecause€the€Lanham€Act€verdict€was€vacated,€the€district€courtÐ  \  Ðruled€that€Danielson€could€not€get€attorneys'€fees€from€that€sourceÐ ¸  Ðeither,€but€entered€a€provisional€award€of€fees€in€case€the€LanhamÐ d´  ÐAct€dismissal€were€to€be€reversed€on€appeal.€ò òó ó€€Finally,€the€courtÐ `  Ðdenied€prejudgment€interest€and€awarded€costs.€€ò òó óJudgment€forÐ ¼  ÐDanielson€was€then€entered€in€the€amount€of€$1,344,950.€€ò òó óTheseÐ h¸ Ðcross„appeals€followed.Ð d Ðà ` àWCP€appeals€the€pretrial€dismissal€on€summary€judgmentÔ#†X8\ XXXxø#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔÔ#†ˆ¹ˆXXx% #ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹Ô€ofÐ À Ðfour€of€its€affirmative€defenses,€as€well€as€the€directed€verdictÐ l¼ Ðagainst€its€estoppel€and€waiver€defenses€during€trial.€€WCP€alsoÐ h Ðpursues€its€objections€to€the€jury€instructions€concerning€theÐ Ä Ðcalculation€of€damages€and€to€the€exclusion€of€certain€expertÐ pÀ  Ðtestimony€concerning€damages€that€it€attempted€to€offer€at€trial.€Ð !l" ÐFinally,€WCP€appeals€the€denial€of€its€motion€for€a€new€trial.€Ð È"$ ÐDanielson€appeals€the€dismissal€of€its€unfair€trade€practices€claimÐ t$Ä& Ðand€its€Lanham€Act€false€designation€of€origin€claim,€as€well€asÐ  &p!( Ðthe€denial€of€attorneys'€fees€and€prejudgment€interest.Ð Ì'#* ÐÓ  ÓII.€€Affirmative€DefensesÐ ° ÐÓK\Óà ` àBecause€copyrightability€and€infringement€are€not€inÐ \¬ Ðserious€dispute,€WCP's€only€real€hope€to€avoid€liability€lies€inÐ X Ðits€affirmative€defenses.€€It€does€not€appeal€those€affirmativeÐ ´  Ðdefenses€rejected€by€the€jury,€or€its€abandonment€defense.€€It€doesÐ ` ° Ðappeal€four€affirmative€defenses€dismissed€on€summary€judgment.€€WeÐ  \  Ðreview€such€rulings€de€novo,€including€when€summary€judgment€isÐ ¸  Ðgranted,€as€here,€on€cross„motions.€€òòSegrets,€Inc.óó€v.€òòGillmanÐ d´  ÐKnitwear€Co.óó,€207€F.3d€56,€61€(1st€Cir.€2000).€€In€addition,€WCPÐ `  Ðappeals€the€dismissal€of€its€estoppel€and€waiver€defenses€duringÐ ¼  Ðtrial.€€We€review€this€grant€of€a€motion€for€judgment€as€a€matterÐ h¸ Ðof€law€under€Rule€50(a)€de€novo,€giving€inferences€to€the€nonmovantÐ d Ðand€affirming€only€if€no€reasonable€jury€could€have€found€in€theÐ À Ðnonmovant's€favor.€€òòEspadaóó€v.€òòLugoóó,€312€F.3d€1,€2€(1st€Cir.€2002).€Ð l¼ ÐA.€€òòPublicationóóÐ h Ðà ` àWCP€first€argues€that€Danielson's€handling€of€theÐ Ä Ðcovenant€drawings€during€efforts€to€secure€the€zoning€change€inÐ pÀ  Ð1987€constituted€their€"publication,"€a€term€of€art€under€copyrightÐ !l" Ðlaw.€€WCP€argues€that,€because€copyright€law€at€that€time€requiredÐ È"$ Ðnotice€to€accompany€publication,€and€the€drawings€lacked€notice,Ð t$Ä& ÐDanielson€forfeited€any€copyright€it€had.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àWe€emphasize€at€the€outset€that€the€relevant€events,Ð Ì'#* Ðwhich€occurred€in€1987,€fall€within€a€short€period€between€twoÐ x)È$, Ðmajor€revisions€of€applicable€federal€copyright€law.€€The€CopyrightÐ $+t&. ÐAct€of€1976,€Pub.€L.€No.€94„553,€90€Stat.€2541€("1976€Act"),€whichÐ ° Ðbecame€effective€on€January€1,€1978,€included€a€statutoryÐ \¬ Ðdefinition€of€publication€for€the€first€time.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòóó17€U.S.C.€ððÐ X Ð101.€€The€Berne€Convention€Implementation€Act,€Pub.€L.€No.€100„568,Ð ´  Ð102€Stat.€2853€(1988)€("Berne€Act"),€which€became€effective€onÐ ` ° ÐMarch€1,€1989,€made€notice€optional€rather€than€mandatory,€whileÐ  \  Ðretaining€incentives€to€encourage€notice.€€òòSeeóó€17€U.S.C.€ðð€401.€Ð ¸  ÐThe€overlap€of€the€1976€Act's€publication€definition€(which€remainsÐ d´  Ðin€force€today)€and€mandatory€notice€(now€optional)€lasted€only€forÐ `  Ðthe€period€between€these€enactments.€€If€the€same€facts€aroseÐ ¼  Ðtoday,€they€would€not€present€a€significant€issue.׃` ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð h¸ Ðò òó óà ` àThe€law€in€1987€required€that,€when€works€were€published,Ð d Ðthey€include€formal€notice€or€lose€their€copyright.€€òòSeeóó€17€U.S.C.Ð À Ððð€401(a)€(1982)€(amended€1988)€("[A]€notice€of€copyright€shall€beÐ l¼ Ðplaced€on€all€publicly€distributed€copies").€€Sufficient€noticeÐ h Ðrequired€three€elements:€€a€declaration€of€copyright€such€as€theÐ Ä Ð"ðð"€symbol,€the€year€of€publication,€and€an€identification€of€theÐ ° Ðcopyright€holder.€€òòId.óó€at€ðð€401(b).€€It€is€undisputed€that€theÐ \¬ Ðdrawings€at€issue€here€did€not€satisfy€these€requirements.€Ð X ÐAlthough€the€1976€Act€added€some€provisions€to€cure€or€disregardÐ ´  Ðthe€omission€of€notice€at€the€time€of€publication,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€at€ððððÐ ` ° Ð405„406,€it€is€also€undisputed€that€none€of€them€applies€to€thisÐ  \  Ðcase.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòDonald€Frederick€Evans€&€Assocs.óó€v.€òòCont'lÐ ¸  ÐHomes,€Inc.óó,€785€F.2d€897,€905„12€(11th€Cir.€1986)€(analyzingÐ d´  Ðcurative€provisions€from€1976€Act).€€Congress€recognized€in€1976Ð `  Ðthat€the€penalties€for€publishing€without€notice€might€be€undulyÐ ¼  Ðharsh.€€òòSeeóó€H.R.€Rep.€No.€94„1476,€at€143„44€(1976)€[hereinafterÐ h¸ Ð"òòHouse€Reportóó"]€("One€of€the€strongest€arguments€for€revision€ofÐ d Ðthe€present€statute€has€been€the€need€to€avoid€the€arbitrary€andÐ À Ðunjust€forfeitures€now€resulting€from€unintentional€or€relativelyÐ l¼ Ðunimportant€omissions€or€errors€in€the€copyright€notice.").€€But€itÐ h Ðwas€not€until€passage€of€the€Berne€Act€that€this€requirement€wasÐ Ä Ðeliminated.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àBecause€it€is€clear€that€the€drawings€did€not€satisfy€theÐ !l" Ðapplicable€notice€requirements,€WCP's€argument€depends€on€whetherÐ È"$ Ðthere€was€a€"publication"€of€the€drawings€so€that€notice€wasÐ t$Ä& Ðmandated.€€The€statutory€definition€of€publication€reads€in€full:Ð  &p!( ÐÓÓà0 ` à"Publication"€is€the€distribution€of€copies€orÐ Ì'#* Ðphonorecords€of€a€work€to€the€public€by€sale€or€otherÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðtransfer€of€ownership,€or€by€rental,€lease,€or€lending.€Ð x)È$, ÐThe€offering€to€distribute€copies€or€phonorecords€to€aÐ N*ž%- Ðgroup€of€persons€for€purposes€of€further€distribution,Ð $+t&. Ðpublic€performance,€or€public€display,€constitutesÐ ú+J'/ Ðpublication.€€A€public€performance€or€display€of€a€workÐ ° Ðdoes€not€of€itself€constitute€publication.ІÖ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ(qÓ17€U.S.C.€ðð€101.Ð 2‚ Ðà ` àWCP€points€to€several€uses€of€the€covenant€drawings€toÐ Þ. Ðsupport€its€argument€that€they€were€published€under€thisÐ Š Ú Ðdefinition.€€ò òó óThe€drawings€were€shown€to€neighborhood€groups€andÐ 6 †  Ðtown€officials€during€the€planning€process.€€At€the€Town€Meeting,Ð â 2  Ðthey€were€displayed€on€easels€and€projected€onto€a€screen.€€TheÐ ŽÞ  ÐTown€Meeting€was€videotaped,€and€the€tape€was€broadcast€on€localÐ :Š  Ðcable€television€and€placed€in€the€Winchester€Public€Library.€€TheÐ æ6 Ðplans€were€filed€with€the€Town€as€exhibits€to€the€covenant,€andÐ ’â Ðcould€be€copied€from€those€files€by€anyone.€€In€addition,€someÐ >Ž Ðdrawings€were€later€shared€with€Danielson's€subcontractors.Ð ê: Ðà ` àThe€district€court€granted€summary€judgment€against€thisÐ –æ Ðdefense€by€relying€on€an€aspect€of€the€doctrine€of€"limitedÐ B’ Ðpublication."€€òòSeeóó€òòDanielsonóó,€186€F.€Supp.€2d€at€15„18.€€TheÐ î> Ðstatutory€definition€of€publication€quoted€above€"in€generalÐ šê Ðconstitutes€a€codification€of€the€definition€evolved€by€case€law"Ð F –! Ðbefore€the€1976€Act.€€1€M.B.€Nimmer€&€D.€Nimmer,€òòNimmer€onÐ ò!B# ÐCopyrightóó€ðð€4.04,€at€4„20€(2001)€[hereinafter€"òòNimmeróó"].€€That€caseÐ ž#î% Ðlaw€includes€judicially€crafted€exceptions€for€limited€publication:€Ð J%š ' Ðrestricted€distribution€of€the€work€that€does€not€qualify€asÐ ö&F") Ðpublication€or€trigger€the€notice€requirement.€€Limited€publicationÐ ¢(ò#+ Ð"occurs€when€tangible€copies€of€the€work€are€distributed,€but€to€aÐ N*ž%- Ðlimited€class€of€persons€and€for€a€limited€purpose."€òòBurkeóó€v.€òòNBCóó,Ð ú+J'/ Ð598€F.2d€688,€692€(1st€Cir.€1979)€(explaining€and€applying€lawÐ ° Ðbefore€1976€Act)€(citingòòóó€òòWhiteóó€v.€òòKimmelóó,€193€F.2d€744,€746„47€(9thÐ \¬ ÐCir.€1952)).Ð X Ðà ` àNumerous€cases€have€applied€the€limited€publicationÐ ´  Ðexception€to€the€submission€of€architectural€plans€to€municipalÐ ` ° Ðauthorities€for€approval,€either€because€the€law€required€thisÐ  \  Ðsubmission€for€a€limited€purpose€or€because€doing€so€did€notÐ ¸  Ðconstitute€a€distribution.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCodespoti€&€Assocs.óó€v.Ð d´  ÐòòBartlettóó,€51€F.€Supp.€2d€125,€128€(D.€Conn.€1999);€òòEast/WestÐ `  ÐVentureóó€v.€òòWurmfeld€Assocs.óó,€722€F.€Supp.€1064,€1066€(S.D.N.Y.Ð ¼  Ð1989);òòóó€òòEdgar€H.€Wood€Assocs.óó€v.€òòSkeneóó,€197€N.E.2d€886,€893„94Ð h¸ Ð(Mass.€1964)€(common„law€copyright);€òòsee€alsoóó€1€òòNimmeróó,€òòsupraóó,€ððÐ d Ð4.10,€at€4„52€(under€1976€Act,€"placing€a€work€in€a€public€file€.Ð À Ð.€.€clearly€does€not€constitute€an€act€of€publication").€€òòBut€seeóóÐ l¼ ÐòòCertified€Eng'g,€Inc.óó€v.€òòFirst€Fid.€Bankóó,€849€F.€Supp.€318,€323„24Ð h Ð(D.N.J.€1994)€(drawings€for€subdivision€published€by€submission€toÐ Ä Ðauthorities,€but€holding€made€in€context€of€denying€preliminaryÐ pÀ  Ðinjunction).€€ò òó óSimilarly,€the€circulation€of€plans€to€contractorsÐ !l" Ðfor€purposes€of€working€on€the€project€has€been€found€a€limitedÐ È"$ Ðpublication.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòKunyciaóó€v.€òòMelville€Realty€Co.óó,€755€F.Ð t$Ä& ÐSupp.€566,€574€(S.D.N.Y.€1990).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àAt€least€some€of€the€activities€that€WCP€characterizes€asÐ Ì'#* Ðpublication€are€covered€by€these€limited€publication€exceptions.€Ð x)È$, ÐFor€example,€once€the€covenant€was€approved€and€submitted€to€theÐ $+t&. ÐTown,€state€law€required€that€the€drawings€be€available€as€publicÐ ° Ðrecords.€€òòSeeóó€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€66,€ðð€10(a)€(2001);òòóó€òòHull€Mun.Ð \¬ ÐLighting€Plantóó€v.€òòMass.€Mun.€Wholesale€Elec.€Co.óó,€609€N.E.2d€460,Ð X Ð463„64€(Mass.€1993)€(broad€definition€of€public€records€subject€toÐ ´  Ðdisclosure).€€The€exception€also€covers€copies€provided€toÐ ` ° ÐDanielson's€subcontractors€or€consultants,€including€MedfordÔ#†X8\ XXXxÞX#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔÔ#†ˆ¹ˆXXx Y#ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹Ô,€forÐ  \  Ðwork€on€the€project.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àNonetheless,€other€activities€went€beyond€such€limitedÐ d´  Ðgroups€and€limited€purposes.€€The€neighborhood€meetings€and€theÐ `  ÐTown€Meeting€were€open€to€the€general€public,€and€the€broadcast€andÐ ¼  Ðvideotape€of€the€Town€Meeting€could€also€be€viewed€by€a€broad€groupÐ h¸ Ðof€people.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€district€court€responded€to€this€problem€byÐ À Ðerroneously€extending€the€boundaries€of€the€exception.€€It€pointedÐ l¼ Ðout€that€this€access€to€the€plans€was€"helpful"€in€obtainingÐ h Ðapproval€of€the€zoning€change,€òòDanielsonóó,€186€F.€Supp.€2d€at€16Ð Ä Ðn.2,€and€"in€furtherance€of€the€Town's€obligation€under€state€lawÐ pÀ  Ðto€solicit€input€from€the€community€and€make€findings€regarding€theÐ !l" Ðdesirability"€of€the€project,€òòid.óó€at€17.€€However,€the€cases€citedÐ È"$ Ðby€the€court€concerned€putative€publications€that€were€required€byÐ t$Ä& Ðlaw€or€were€otherwise€made€for€narrow€purposes.€€Extending€theÐ  &p!( Ðexception€to€everything€that€is€"helpful"€in€lobbying€for€municipalÐ Ì'#* Ðapproval€of€a€zoning€change,€including€dissemination€to€the€generalÐ x)È$, Ðpublic,€effectively€removes€the€"limited"€from€limited€publication.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àNevertheless,€this€court€may€affirm€a€district€court'sÐ ° Ðgrant€of€summary€judgment€on€any€basis€that€is€manifest€in€theÐ \¬ Ðrecord.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó€v.€òòState€Police€Ass'nóó,€230€F.3d€8,€9€(1st€Cir.Ð X Ð2000).€€Here,€the€district€court's€expansion€of€the€limitedÐ ´  Ðpublication€doctrine€was€unnecessary€to€its€result,€because€theÐ ` ° Ðrecord€indicates€that€the€remaining€alleged€publications€were€notÐ  \  Ðcovered€by€the€statutory€definition.€€Rather,€Danielson€merelyÐ ¸  Ð"displayed"€the€drawings€within€the€meaning€of€the€Act.€€TheÐ d´  ÐCopyright€Act€states€outright,€"A€public€performance€or€display€ofÐ `  Ða€work€does€not€of€itself€constitute€publication."€€17€U.S.C.€ððÐ ¼  Ð101.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àWCP's€own€submission€of€undisputed€facts€in€support€ofÐ d Ðsummary€judgment€demonstrates€that€the€uses€of€the€drawings€at€theÐ À Ðneighborhood€meeting€and€the€Town€Meeting€do€not€qualify€asÐ l¼ Ðpublications:Ð h ÐÓÓà0 ` àà ¨ àIn€1986€and€early€1987,€the€Covenant€Drawings€andÐ Ä Ðearlier€versions€thereof€were€òòshownóó€to€many€individualsÐ šê Ðand€groups€by€Danielson€and€Tellalian.€€They€were€òòshownóóÐ pÀ  Ðto€neighbors€of€the€Site€at€several€neighborhood€meetingsÐ F –! Ðat€which€representatives€of€Tellalian€and/or€DanielsonÐ !l" Ðwere€present.€€They€were€òòshownóó€to€Farese€as€well.€.€.€.Ðò!B#` (#` (# ÐÌà0 ` àà ¨ àNumerous€meetings€were€also€held€with€the€Town€ofÐ ž#î% ÐWinchester€Planning€Board€by€representatives€of€Farese,Ð t$Ä& ÐDanielson,€and€Tellalian.€€Copies€of€the€CovenantÐ J%š ' ÐDrawings€and€earlier€versions€thereof€were€òòshownóó€toÐ  &p!( ÐPlanning€Board€members.€.€.€.Ðö&F")` (#` (# ÐÌà0 ` àà ¨ àFour€of€the€seven€Covenant€Drawings€were€òòshownóó€toÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðall€present€[at€the€Town€Meeting]€Ô#†ˆ¹ˆXXx·…#ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹ÔÔ#†X8\ XXXxu…#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\Ôon€a€large€screenÐ x)È$, Ðplaced€at€the€front€of€[the]€meeting€by€D.€Tellalian.€.Ð N*ž%- Ð.€.€€[The]€drawings€were€also€all€placed€in€public€òòviewóóÐ $+t&. Ðon€easels€in€the€lobby€of€the€building.€€ò òó óÓ9ÓÐú+J'/` (#` (# Ð(Emphasis€added).€€ò òó óIn€addition,€one€of€Danielson's€architects€saidÐ ° Ðat€his€deposition€that€the€plans€were€only€shown,€not€distributed.€Ð \¬ ÐWhen€asked€whether€those€in€attendance€at€neighborhood€meetingsÐ X Ðcould€have€copied€the€drawings€they€were€shown,€he€replied€"No.€.Ð ´  Ð.€.€€They€were€in€our€possession.€€They€would€have€to€haveÐ ` ° Ðpermission€to€copy€them."Ð  \  Ðò òó óà ` àAt€most,€Danielson€or€Tellalian€"showed"€plans€to€others;Ð ¸  Ðthat€did€not€constitute€publication€under€the€explicit€terms€of€theÐ d´  Ðstatute.€€"[A]€sine€qua€non€of€publication€should€be€theÐ `  Ðacquisition€by€members€of€the€public€of€a€possessory€interest€inÐ ¼  Ðtangible€copies€of€the€work€in€question."€€1€òòNimmeróó,òòóó€òòsupraóó,€ðð€4.07,Ð h¸ Ðat€4„42.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€broadcast€of€the€Town€Meeting€on€local€cableÐ À Ðtelevision€does€not€constitute€publication€under€the€definition€inÐ l¼ Ðthe€1976€Act€either.€€The€definition€"makes€plain€that€any€formÐ h Ð[of]€dissemination€in€which€a€material€object€does€not€change€handsÐ Ä Є„€performances€or€displays€on€television,€for€example€„„€is€not€aÐ pÀ  Ðpublication€no€matter€how€many€people€are€exposed€to€the€work."€Ð !l" ÐòòHouse€Reportóó€at€138;€òòseeóó€òòBurkeóó,€598€F.2d€at€693€("Publication€didÐ È"$ Ðnot€occur€merely€because€the€film€was€shown€[on€television]€to€theÐ t$Ä& Ðgeneral€public.");€1€P.€Goldstein,€òòCopyrightóó€ðð€3.3,€at€3:31€(2d€ed.Ð  &p!( Ð1996)€(mere€broadcast€probably€not€publication,€even€if€homeÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âvideotaping€would€be€possible).Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThat€leaves€the€fact€that€the€public€library€held€aÐ ° Ðâ âvideotape€of€the€meeting€that€patrons€could€borrow.€€After€viewingÐ \¬ Ða€copy€of€this€video€provided€by€WCP,€we€are€not€confident€that€the€Ð X Ðoften€unfocused€image€of€a€blurry€projection€on€a€screen€in€theÐ ´  Ðhigh€school€auditorium€actually€qualifies€as€a€publication€of€theÐ ` ° Ðcovenant€drawings€themselves.€€We€put€that€factual€question€to€oneÐ  \  Ðside,€however,€because€of€the€absence€of€any€evidence€thatÐ ¸  ÐDanielson€or€Tellalian€knew€that€the€tape€of€the€Town€Meeting€wouldÐ d´  Ðbe€loaned€at€the€library,€rather€than€merely€broadcast€on€localÐ `  Ðcable€television.€€Publication€requires€the€consent€of€theÐ ¼  Ðcopyright€owner.€€òòSeeóó€1€òòNimmeróó,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€4.04,€at€4„20€to€4„21€&Ð h¸ Ðn.8;€Goldstein,€òòsupraóó,Ô#†X8\ XXXx©”#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔÔ#†ˆ¹ˆXXxg”#ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹Ô€ðð€3.3.1,€at€3:33€&€nn.€19„20.€€While€thisÐ d Ðcondition€is€implicit€in€the€publication€definition,€it€isÐ À Ðreiterated€explicitly€in€the€notice€requirement.€€òòSeeóó€17€U.S.C.€ððÐ l¼ Ð401(a)€(requiring€notice€on€works€published€"by€authority€of€theÐ h Ðcopyright€owner").€€Unlike€the€other€actions€alleged€to€beÐ Ä Ðpublication,€WCP€has€not€shown€that€this€one€was€authorized€byÐ pÀ  ÐDanielson.Ð !l" Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€WCP€also€argues€that€the€requirements€of€theÐ È"$ Ðdefinition€of€"publication"€are€fulfilled€because€it€includes€theÐ t$Ä& Ð"offering€to€distribute€copies€.€.€.€to€a€group€of€persons€forÐ  &p!( Ðpurposes€of€.€.€.€public€display."€€17€U.S.C.€ðð€101.€€According€toÐ Ì'#* Ðthis€argument,€Danielson€offered€the€covenant€drawings€to€FareseÐ x)È$, Ðand€his€associates,€and€they€in€turn€displayed€them.€€The€facts€inÐ $+t&. Ðthe€record€do€not€support€this€interpretation€either.€€OnlyÐ ° Ðarchitects€working€for€Danielson€or€for€Tellalian€AssociatesÐ \¬ Ðdisplayed€the€plans;€there€is€no€indication€that€Farese€or€hisÐ X Ðagents€did€so€instead.€€Indeed,€WCP's€summary€judgment€submissionÐ ´  Ðnoted€the€plans€were€"shown€to€Farese,"€suggesting€he€may€not€evenÐ ` ° Ðhave€possessed€copies€of€them€until€later.Ð  \  Ðà ` àCongress€has€provided€the€courts€with€an€explicitÐ ¸  Ðdefinition€of€publication€in€the€1976€Act€that€seeks€to€preventÐ d´  Ðmuch€of€the€litigation€and€confusion€that€had€previously€surroundedÐ `  Ðthe€undefined€term.€€The€facts€here€allow€us€to€apply€thatÐ ¼  Ðdefinition€without€venturing€to€create€any€new€doctrine€about€theÐ h¸ Ðmurky€boundaries€of€limited€publication.Ð d Ðò òó óB.€€òòCovenant€Drawings€as€"Laws"óóÐ À Ðà ` àWCP€next€argues€that€the€covenant€drawings,€by€virtue€ofÐ l¼ Ðtheir€inclusion€in€the€restrictive€covenant€approved€at€the€TownÐ h ÐMeeting,€have€become€"laws"€which€are€in€the€public€domain€andÐ Ä Ðuncopyrightable.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àIt€is€well„established€that€judicial€decisions€andÐ !l" Ðstatutes€are€in€the€public€domain.€€òòBldg.€Officials€&€Code€Admin.Ð È"$ ÐInt'l,€Inc.óó€v.€òòCode€Tech.,€Inc.óó€("òòBOCAóó"),€628€F.2d€730,€733„34€(1stÐ t$Ä& ÐCir.€1980)€(reviewing€case€law);€òòseeóó€òòBanksóó€v.€òòManchesteróó,€128€U.S.Ð  &p!( Ð244€(1888)€(judicial€opinions€are€in€public€domain);€òòWheatonóó€v.Ð Ì'#* ÐòòPetersóó,€33€U.S.€591€(1834)€(judicial€opinions€are€notÐ x)È$, Ðcopyrightable).€€This€straightforward€general€rule€has€provenÐ $+t&. Ðdifficult€to€apply€when€the€material€in€question€does€not€fallÐ ° Ðneatly€into€the€categories€of€statutes€or€judicial€opinions.€€AÐ \¬ Ðnumber€of€appellate€courts€have€reached€arguably€inconsistentÐ X Ðresults€in€such€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòVeeckóó€v.€òòS.€Bldg.€Code€Cong.€Int'l,Ð ´  ÐInc.óó,€293€F.3d€791,€793€(5th€Cir.€2002)€(en€banc)€(model€codeÐ ` ° Ðenters€public€domain€when€legislatively€adopted€as€law€of€aÐ  \  Ðjurisdiction),€òòpetition€for€cert.€filedóó,€Sept.€4,€2002€(No.€02„Ð ¸  Ð355);€òòPractice€Mgmt.€Info.€Corp.óó€v.€òòAm.€Med.€Ass'nóó,€121€F.3d€516,Ð d´  Ð518„20€(9th€Cir.€1997)€(incorporation€of€classification€system€forÐ `  Ðmedical€procedures€in€Medicare€and€Medicaid€regulations€does€notÐ ¼  Ðmake€them€uncopyrightable);€òòCCC€Info.€Servs.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMacleanÐ h¸ ÐHunter€Mkt.€Reports,€Inc.óó,€44€F.3d€61,€73„74€(2d€Cir.€1994)Ð d Ð(incorporation€of€used„car€valuations€in€insurance€statutes€andÐ À Ðregulations€does€not€make€them€uncopyrightable).Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€First€Circuit€faced€such€a€question€when€it€vacatedÐ h Ða€preliminary€injunction€against€printing€state€regulations;€theÐ Ä Ðregulations€incorporated€material€written€by€a€private€party,€whichÐ pÀ  Ðwas€purportedly€copyrighted€and€licensed€to€the€state.€€òòBOCAóó,€628Ð !l" ÐF.2d€at€736.€€While€the€court€leaned€strongly€toward€a€conclusionÐ È"$ Ðthat€the€copyright€was€invalid,€it€emphasized€just€as€strongly€thatÐ t$Ä& Ðit€declined€to€reach€a€definitive€conclusion.€€òòId.óó€€òòBOCAóó€did€notÐ  &p!( Ðresolve€the€issue€and€this€court€has€not€done€so€since.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àWCP€cites€òòBOCAóó€and€urges€us€to€adopt€the€rule€suggestedÐ x)È$, Ðthere€and€apply€it€to€the€covenant€drawings.€€The€district€court,Ð $+t&. Ðafter€noting€that€BOCA€was€not€binding€on€it,€òòDanielsonóó,€186€F.Ð ° ÐSupp.€2d€at€21,€adopted€the€opposite€rule.€€òòId.óó€at€23€("[O]therwiseÐ \¬ Ðcopyrightable€works€.€.€.€do€not€lose€copyright€protection€whenÐ X Ðthey€are€adopted€by€government€bodies€or€incorporated€by€referenceÐ ´  Ðinto€public€enactments.").€€We€reject€both€courses€of€action.€€WeÐ ` ° Ðdo€not€need€to€consider€the€broad€question€we€reserved€in€òòBOCAóó,Ð  \  Ðbecause€the€facts€here€do€not€present€it.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThe€restrictive€covenant€is€distinct€from€the€zoning€law.€Ð d´  ÐThe€Town€Meeting€debated€and€voted€on€two€different€measuresÐ `  Ðconcerning€the€site,€which€had€two€different€effects.€€The€firstÐ ¼  Ðvote€changed€the€zoning€law€so€that€the€site€was€zoned€forÐ h¸ Ðresidential€development.€€We€need€not€consider€here€whether€or€notÐ d Ðthe€zoning€law€is€within€the€public€domain,€such€that€any€potentialÐ À Ðintellectual€property€rights€to€its€content€would€be€overridden,Ð l¼ Ðbecause€that€law€simply€sets€parameters€for€the€developmentÐ h Ðpermissible€in€different€zones,€and€designates€the€site€asÐ Ä Ðbelonging€to€a€particular€zone.€€òòSee€generallyóó€18A€D.A.€Randall€&Ð pÀ  ÐD.E.€Franklin,€òòMassachusetts€Practice:€€Municipal€Law€&€Practiceóó,Ð !l" Ðchs.€17„18€(4th€ed.€1993).Ð È"$ Ðà ` àThe€second€vote€at€the€Town€Meeting€approved€theÐ t$Ä& Ðrestrictive€covenant,€which€is€nothing€more€than€an€agreementÐ  &p!( Ðbetween€the€Town€of€Winchester€and€Farese€(and€his€successors€inÐ Ì'#* Ðownership)€concerning€the€site.€€ò òó óA€restrictive€covenant€is€"[a]Ð x)È$, Ðòòprivateóó€agreement,€usu[ally]€in€a€deed€or€lease,€that€restricts€theÐ $+t&. ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñuse€or€occupancy€of€real€property."€€òòBlack's€Law€Dictionaryóó€371Ð ° Ð(7th€ed.€1999)€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€Randall€&€Franklin,€òòsupraóó,€ððÐ \¬ Ð570,€at€18€(change€in€overall€zoning€law€does€not€remove€conditionsÐ X Ðof€covenant€recorded€in€deed€for€particular€land).€€ò òó óThe€restrictiveÐ ´  Ðcovenant€in€this€case€displays€the€hallmarks€of€a€private€contract.€Ð ` ° ÐIt€notes€consideration€given€to€Farese€and€his€co„trustee€by€theÐ  \  ÐTown€ò òó óand€includes€notarized€signatures€of€both€the€trustees€andÐ ¸  ÐTown€officials.€ò òó ó€It€is€this€document€which€incorporates,€byÐ d´  Ðreference,€the€seven€drawings€that€Danielson€provided€to€Farese.Ð `  Ðà ` àFarese€could€just€as€easily€have€entered€into€anÐ ¼  Ðagreement€with€the€site's€neighbors€to€limit€development;€itsÐ h¸ Ðembodiment€in€a€restrictive€covenant,€recorded€as€part€of€the€deed,Ð d Ðwould€not€convert€such€a€private€contract€or€easement€into€a€"law"Ð À Ðand€thrust€it€into€the€public€domain.€€It€would€not€bind€the€publicÐ l¼ Ðat€large,€but€only€the€parties€and€their€successors€in€interest.€Ð h ÐThe€fact€that€the€Town€was€a€party€to€the€restrictive€covenant€hereÐ Ä Ðdoes€not€change€the€analysis.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àWCP€argues€that€the€Planning€Board€and€Town€MeetingÐ !l" Ðchanged€the€zoning€only€because€they€knew€the€covenant€would€beÐ È"$ Ðenforced,€and€that€adoption€of€the€two€"in€tandem"€makes€them€partÐ t$Ä& Ðof€the€same€"legislative€scheme."€€ò òó óThe€logical€extension€of€thisÐ  &p!( Ðargument,€however,€is€that€any€undertakings€on€which€lawmakers€relyÐ Ì'#* Ðin€passing€a€statute€would€become€part€of€the€"legislative€scheme"Ð x)È$, Ðand€the€public€domain.€€If€Farese€and€the€neighbors€had€enteredÐ $+t&. Ðinto€a€private€covenant,€and€the€Planning€Board€and€Town€MeetingÐ ° Ðchanged€the€zoning€only€because€they€knew€of€this€contract€and€itÐ \¬ Ðsatisfied€their€concerns€about€the€site,€there€would€be€no€argumentÐ X Ðthat€the€covenant€was€thereby€part€of€the€public€domain.€Ð ´  ÐSimilarly,€references€to€the€covenant€drawings€or€their€features€inÐ ` ° Ðthe€Planning€Board's€decisionò òó ó€and€speeches€at€the€Town€Meeting€ò òó ódoÐ  \  Ðnot€thrust€the€drawings€themselves€into€the€public€domain,€any€moreÐ ¸  Ðthan€quoting€a€poem€on€the€Senate€floor€would€strip€the€poet'sÐ d´  Ðcopyright.Ð `  Ðà ` àThere€are€compelling€arguments€on€both€sides€of€theÐ ¼  Ðquestion€we€reserved€in€òòBOCAóó.€€They€implicate€the€proper€scope€ofÐ h¸ Ðthe€public€domain€and€the€best€means€to€encourage€privateÐ d Ðinvolvement€and€expertise€in€lawmaking.€€But€contracts€entered€intoÐ À Ðby€government€entities€do€not€raise€these€weighty€issues,€and€weÐ l¼ Ðneed€not€resolve€the€question€we€left€open€in€òòBOCAóó€in€order€to€ruleÐ h Ðon€this€case.€€Because€the€covenant€drawings€were€not€incorporatedÐ Ä Ðinto€any€generally€applicable€laws,€we€affirm€the€district€court'sÐ pÀ  Ðgrant€of€summary€judgment€against€this€defense.Ð !l" ÐC.€€òòImplied€LicenseóóÐ È"$ Ðà ` àUsually€transfers€of€copyright€must€be€made€in€writing,Ð t$Ä& Ð17€U.S.C.€ðð€204(a),€but€this€requirement€does€not€apply€toÐ  &p!( Ðnonexclusive€licenses€where€ownership€of€the€copyright€is€notÐ Ì'#* Ðtransferred,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€at€ðð€101.€€A€copyright€owner€may€grant€suchÐ x)È$, Ðnonexclusive€licenses€orally,€or€they€may€be€implied€from€conductÐ $+t&. Ðwhich€indicates€the€owner's€intent€to€allow€a€licensee€to€use€theÐ ° Ðwork.€€òòSeeóó€òòData€Gen.€Corp.óó€v.€òòGrumman€Sys.€Support€Corp.óó,€36€F.3dÐ \¬ Ð1147,€1167€n.35€(1st€Cir.€1994);€3€òòNimmeróó,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€10.03(A)(7),€atÐ X Ð10„42.€€Uses€of€the€copyrighted€work€that€stay€within€the€scope€ofÐ ´  Ða€nonexclusive€license€are€immunized€from€infringement€suits.€€òòSeeóóÐ ` ° ÐòòGrahamóó€v.€òòJamesóó,€144€F.3d€229,€236€(2d€Cir.€1998).Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€burden€of€proving€the€existence€of€such€a€license€isÐ ¸  Ðon€the€party€claiming€its€protection,€the€licensee.€€òòBourneóó€v.€òòWaltÐ d´  ÐDisney€Co.óó,€68€F.3d€621,€631€(2d€Cir.€1995).€€Implied€licenses€areÐ `  Ðfound€only€in€narrow€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithKline€BeechamÐ ¼  ÐConsumer€Healthcare,€L.P.óó€v.€òòWatson€Pharms.,€Inc.óó,€211€F.3d€21,€25Ð h¸ Ð(2d€Cir.€2000)€(citing€òòEffects€Assocs.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòCohenóó,€908€F.2dÐ d Ð555,€558€(9th€Cir.€1990)).òòóó€€WCP€argues€that€it€has€met€this€burdenÐ À Ðand€shown€that€Danielson€granted€a€nonexclusive€license€to€futureÐ l¼ Ðowners€of€the€site€to€use€the€disputed€drawings.€€It€did€so,€arguesÐ h ÐWCP,€by€permitting€the€incorporation€of€the€covenant€drawings€in€aÐ Ä Ðrestrictive€covenant€running€with€the€land.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àAt€least€four€other€circuits€have€resolved€cases€in€whichÐ !l" Ðan€architect€sued€for€copyright€infringement€and€the€defendantÐ È"$ Ðanswered€that€it€had€a€nonexclusive€license€to€use€the€architect'sÐ t$Ä& Ðplans.€€òòSeeóó€òòNelson„Salabes,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMorningside€Dev.,€LLCóó,€284€F.3dÐ  &p!( Ð505,€514„16€(4th€Cir.€2002);€òòFoad€Consulting€Groupóó€v.€òòMusil€GovanÐ Ì'#* ÐAzzalinoóó,€270€F.3d€821,€828„32€(9th€Cir.€2001);€òòJohnsonóó€v.€òòJonesóó,Ð x)È$, Ð149€F.3d€494,€500„02€(6th€Cir.€1998);€òòI.A.E.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòShaveróó,€74Ð $+t&. ÐF.3d€768,€775„76€(7th€Cir.€1996).€€These€cases€reached€different€Ð ° Ðresults€on€their€individual€facts:€€òòFoad€Consultingóó€and€òòI.A.E.óóÐ \¬ Ðfound€licenses€while€òòNelson„Salabesóó€and€òòJohnsonóó€did€not.€€But€theyÐ X Ðall€applied€a€similar€analytical€framework,€and€we€will€followÐ ´  Ðtheir€lead.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€touchstone€for€finding€an€implied€license,€accordingÐ  \  Ðto€this€framework,€is€intent.€€òòSeeóó€òòNelson„Salabesóó,€284€F.3d€at€515Ð ¸  Ð(calling€intent€"determinative€question");€òòJohnsonóó,€149€F.3d€at€502Ð d´  Ð("Without€intent,€there€can€be€no€implied€license.");€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDataÐ `  ÐGen.óó,€36€F.3d€at€1167€n.35€(license€is€found€from€copyright€owner'sÐ ¼  Ðgrant€of€"permission€to€use").€€Two€of€the€cases€begin€theirÐ h¸ Ðanalysis€with€a€three„part€test€originally€derived€from€òòEffectsÐ d ÐAssociatesóó,€908€F.2d€at€558„59,€which€òòóórequires€that€the€licenseeÐ À Ðrequest€the€creation€of€the€work,€the€licensor€create€and€deliverÐ l¼ Ðthe€work,€and€the€licensor€intend€that€the€licensee€distribute€theÐ h Ðwork.€€òòSeeóó€òòNelson„Salabesóó,€284€F.3d€at€514„15;òòóó€òòI.A.E.óó,€74€F.3d€atÐ Ä Ð776.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€But€they€quickly€pass€over€the€"request"€and€"delivery"Ð pÀ  Ðissues€to€focus€on€manifestations€of€the€architects'€intent€thatÐ !l" Ðplans€may€be€used€on€a€project€without€their€involvement.€€òòSeeóó€òòóóÐ È"$ ÐòòNelson„Salabesóó,€284€F.3d€at€515;€òòJohnsonóó,€149€F.3d€at€501;€òòI.A.E.óó,Ð ° Ð74€F.3d€at€776.€€We€will€do€the€same€here,€while€noting€that€it€wasÐ \¬ Ðactually€Farese,€not€WCP,€who€requested€the€work€and€receivedÐ X Ðdelivery€of€it.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€most€recent€of€the€four€cases€distilled€itsÐ ` ° Ðpredecessors€to€yield€this€succinct€summary:Ð  \  ÐÓÓà0 ` àOur€analysis€of€these€decisions€.€.€.€suggests€that€theÐ ¸  Ðexistence€of€an€implied€nonexclusive€license€in€aÐ ŽÞ  Ðparticular€situation€turns€on€at€least€three€factors:€(1)Ð d´  Ðwhether€the€parties€were€engaged€in€a€short„term€discreteÐ :Š  Ðtransaction€as€opposed€to€an€ongoing€relationship;€(2)Ð `  Ðwhether€the€creator€utilized€written€contracts,€such€asÐ æ6 Ðthe€standard€AIA€contract,€providing€that€copyrightedÐ ¼  Ðmaterials€could€only€be€used€with€the€creator's€futureÐ ’â Ðinvolvement€or€express€permission;€and€(3)€whether€theÐ h¸ Ðcreator's€conduct€during€the€creation€or€delivery€of€theÐ >Ž Ðcopyrighted€material€indicated€that€use€of€the€materialÐ d Ðwithout€the€creator's€involvement€or€consent€wasÐ ê: Ðpermissible.ÐÀ` (#` (# ÐÓ¢ÞÓÌòòNelson„Salabesóó,€284€F.3d€at€516.€€This€is€not€an€exhaustive€list€ofÐ B’ Ðfactors€to€consider,€but€it€provides€useful€guidance€in€determiningÐ î> Ðthe€crucial€question€of€intent.Ð šê Ðà ` àHere,€the€first€two€considerations€point€away€from€aÐ F –! Ðlicense,€because€they€both€suggest€Danielson's€intent€to€remainÐ ò!B# Ðinvolved€in€the€job.€€Danielson€was€in€a€long„term€relationshipÐ ž#î% Ðwith€Farese€working€on€development€of€the€site,€not€a€one„timeÐ J%š ' Ðarrangement,€unlike€the€architects€in€òòI.A.E.óó€and€òòFoad€Consultingóó.€Ð ö&F") ÐòòSeeóó€òòNelson„Salabesóó,€284€F.3d€at€516Ô#†X8\ XXXxa¡#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔÔ#†ˆ¹ˆXXx£¡#ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹Ô€(comparing€cases).€€This€intentÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðwas€also€manifested€by€the€standard€AIA€contract€signed€by€FareseÐ N*ž%- Ðand€Danielson,€which€specifically€provided€that€plans€"shall€not€beÐ ú+J'/ Ðused€.€.€.€for€other€projects,€for€additions€to€this€Project,€orÐ ° Ðfor€completion€of€this€Project€by€others€.€.€.€except€by€agreementÐ \¬ Ðin€writing€and€with€appropriate€compensation."€€ò òó óòòSeeóó€òòNelson„Salabesóó,Ð X Ð284€F.3d€at€516€òòóó(architect€asked€client€to€sign€AIA€contract);Ð ´  ÐòòJohnsonóó,€149€F.3d€at€500€(same).€€While€this€contract€was€signedÐ ` ° Ðafter€the€date€on€the€covenant€drawings,€Danielson€says€that€theÐ  \  Ðcontract€retroactively€included€the€work€done€on€those€drawings€asÐ ¸  Ðpart€of€its€schematic€design€phase.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€any€event,€we€are€lookingÐ d´  Ðto€the€contract€for€evidence€about€overall€intent,€not€for€anÐ `  Ðinterpretation€of€its€binding€terms€„„€WCP€was€not€a€party€to€theÐ ¼  Ðcontract.€€òòSeeóó€òòFoad€Consultingóó,€270€F.3d€at€834€(Kozinski,€J.,Ð h¸ Ðconcurring)€(noting€that€contract€can€be€evidence€of€a€relationshipÐ d Ðgiving€rise€to€implied€copyright€license,€even€if€the€license€isÐ À Ðnot€derived€from€the€contract€itself);€òòJohnsonóó,€149€F.3d€at€500Ð l¼ Ð(using€unsigned€contract€as€evidence€of€intent).€€That€evidenceÐ h Ðstrongly€suggests€that€Danielson€granted€no€permission€to€others€toÐ Ä Ðuse€the€plans.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àTo€evaluate€the€third,€more€general€consideration,€theseÐ !l" Ðcases€also€look€to€whether€the€supposed€infringer€obtained€theÐ È"$ Ðplans€directly€from€the€supposed€licensor,€which€would€suggestÐ t$Ä& Ðpermission€to€use€them.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòJohnsonóó,€149€F.3d€at€501;Ð ° ÐòòI.A.E.óó,€74€F.3d€at€777.€€WCP€got€its€copies€of€the€plans€from€theÐ \¬ Ðforeclosure€sale€and€from€Medford,€not€from€Danielson.€€òòSeeóó€Ð X ÐòòDanielsonóó,€186€F.€Supp.€2d€at€20.Ð ´  Ðà ` àDanielson's€acquiescence€to€the€use€of€its€plans€as€theÐ ` ° Ðbasis€for€the€covenant€may€indeed€point€in€the€other€direction,€asÐ  \  ÐWCP€argues.€€It€could€be€seen€as€evidence€that€others€were€allowedÐ ¸  Ðto€use€the€plans,€although€it€is€also€possible€that€Danielson€neverÐ d´  Ðcontemplated€the€risk€that€Farese€would€fail€to€complete€theÐ `  Ðdevelopment€himself.€€Whatever€its€import,€we€do€not€think€this€oneÐ ¼  Ðfact€outweighs€all€the€other€indications€that€no€implied€licenseÐ h¸ Ðwas€intended.€€òòSeeóó€òòNelson„Salabesóó,€284€F.3d€at€516€(weighingÐ d Ðfactors€pointing€in€both€directions€and€concluding€that€no€licenseÐ À Ðwas€granted).€€Furthermore,€giving€undue€weight€to€the€filing€ofÐ l¼ Ðplans€with€the€local€government€could€vitiate€our€earlier€holding,Ð h Ðand€the€majority€position€among€courts,€that€such€filing€alone€doesÐ Ä Ðnot€undermine€the€copyright.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àWCP€also€argues€that€intent€of€the€grantor€is€the€wrongÐ !l" Ðstandard€for€determining€the€existence€of€an€implied€nonexclusiveÐ È"$ Ðlicense.€€This€argument€misunderstands€the€intent€benchmark€as€aÐ t$Ä& Ðsubjective€inquiry€into€the€mind€of€the€putative€licensor.€€Rather,Ð  &p!( Ðit€is€an€objective€inquiry€into€facts€that€manifest€suchÐ Ì'#* Ðcontractual€intent.€€òòSeeóó€òòI.A.E.óó,€74€F.3d€at€777€(Relevant€intentÐ x)È$, Ð"is€not€the€parties'€subjective€intent€but€their€outwardÐ $+t&. Ðmanifestation€of€it").€€This€is€a€typical€task€in€contract€law.€Ð ° ÐòòSee,€e.g.óó,€1€Ô_ÔE.A.Ô_Ô€Farnsworth,€òòFarnsworth€on€Contractsóó€ðð€3.13€(2dÐ \¬ Ðed.€1998)€(inferring€contractual€acceptance€from€conduct);€òòid.óó€atÐ X Ððð€8.5€(inferring€waiver€of€condition€from€conduct).€€ò òó óIf€anÐ ´  Ðarchitect€worked€on€a€short„term€assignment€with€no€outward€signsÐ ` ° Ðof€expecting€to€continue€involvement€with€the€larger€project,€andÐ  \  Ðhanded€over€the€requested€plans€to€a€client€without€a€contract€orÐ ¸  Ðother€limitations,€it€would€not€matter€if€he€or€she€harboredÐ d´  Ðprivate€hopes€of€working€on€the€next€phase€of€the€project.€€òòSeeóóÐ `  ÐòòI.A.E.óó,€74€F.3d€at€777.€€But€that€is€not€what€happened€here.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àFinally,€WCP's€suggestion€that€the€appropriate€standard€Ð h¸ Ðis€the€effect€of€the€architect's€behavior€on€the€subjectiveÐ d Ðperception€of€the€supposed€licensee€has€no€basis.€€It€conflates€theÐ À Ðaffirmative€defense€of€implied€license€with€the€affirmative€defenseÐ l¼ Ðof€estoppel,€which€we€consider€below.€€And€the€argument€that€ourÐ h Ðrefusal€to€find€a€license€would€restrain€alienation€is€misplaced;Ð Ä Ðit€is€the€covenant€itself,€not€Danielson's€copyright,€thatÐ pÀ  Ðencumbered€the€site,€and€WCP€does€not€challenge€the€validity€of€theÐ !l" Ðcovenant.Ð È"$ ÐD.€€òòMergeróóÐ t$Ä& Ðà ` àIt€is€axiomatic€that,€while€"[n]o€author€may€copyrightÐ  &p!( Ðhis€ideas€or€the€facts€he€narrates,"€an€author€may€copyright€theÐ Ì'#* Ðexpression€of€those€ideas.€€òòHarper€&€Row€Publishers,€Inc.óó€v.€òòNationÐ x)È$, ÐEnters.óó,€471€U.S.€539,€556€(1985);€òòseeóó€17€U.S.C.€ðð€102(b).€Ð $+t&. ÐSometimes,€however,€an€idea€can€be€expressed€in€so€few€ways€that€itÐ ° Ð"merges"€with€its€expression,€and€the€expression€becomeÐ \¬ Ðuncopyrightable.Ð X ÐÓÓà0 ` àWhen€the€uncopyrightable€subject€matter€is€very€narrow,Ð ´  Ðso€that€the€topic€necessarily€requires,€if€not€only€oneÐ Š Ú Ðform€of€expression,€at€best€only€a€limited€number€.€.€.Ð ` ° Ðthe€subject€matter€would€be€appropriated€by€permittingÐ 6 †  Ðthe€copyrighting€of€its€expression.€€We€cannot€recognizeÐ  \  Ðcopyright€as€a€game€of€chess€in€which€the€public€can€beÐ â 2  Ðcheckmated.и ` (#` (# ÐÌÓLþÓòòMorrisseyóó€v.€òòProcter€&€Gamble€Co.óó,€379€F.2d€675,€678„79€(1st€Cir.Ð d´  Ð1967)€(internal€quotations€and€citations€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòConcreteÐ `  ÐMach.€Co.óó€v.€òòClassic€Lawn€Ornaments€Inc.óó,€843€F.2d€600,€606„07€(1stÐ ¼  ÐCir.€1988).€€For€example,€we€have€held€that€this€doctrine€of€mergerÐ h¸ Ðforeclosed€copyright€on€rules€for€a€sweepstakes€contest€which€couldÐ d Ðbe€effectively€communicated€using€only€a€limited€number€of€verbalÐ À Ðformulations,€òòMorrisseyóó,€379€F.2d€at€679,€and€on€pictures€of€fruitsÐ l¼ Ðand€flowers€used€on€labels€to€indicate€the€scent€of€candles,€òòYankeeÐ h ÐCandle€Co.óó€v.€òòBridgewater€Candle€Co.óó,€259€F.3d€25,€35€(1st€Cir.Ð Ä Ð2001).Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àWCP€argues€that€the€restrictive€covenant€means€there€isÐ !l" Ðonly€one€way€to€build€on€the€land,€and€that€the€covenant€drawingsÐ È"$ Ðmerge€with€that€idea.€€This€contention€distorts€the€purpose€of€theÐ t$Ä& Ðmerger€doctrine.€€The€doctrine€aims€to€prevent€the€monopolizationÐ  &p!( Ðof€facts€or€ideas€that€are€present€in€nature;€where€ownership€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðthe€expression€would€remove€such€facts€or€ideas€from€the€publicÐ x)È$, Ðdomain,€the€doctrine€disallows€copyright.€€òòSeeóó€òòYankee€Candleóó,€259Ð $+t&. ÐF.3d€at€36€("In€general,€the€merger€doctrine€is€most€applicableÐ ° Ðwhere€the€idea€and€the€expression€are€of€items€found€in€nature,€orÐ \¬ Ðare€found€commonly€in€everyday€life.")òòóó.€€Here,€the€restrictiveÐ X Ðcovenant€made€one€method€of€developing€the€site€legally€easier€andÐ ´  Ðcheaper€than€others,€but€it€did€not€transform€the€covenant€drawingsÐ ` ° Ðinto€the€only€physically€possible€means€to€express€ideas€for€suchÐ  \  Ðdevelopment.€€WCP's€pursuit€of€several€alternative€designsÐ ¸  Ðdemonstrates€the€availability€of€alternatives€here€„„€as€does€anÐ d´  Ðexpert€report€proffered€by€WCP€on€damages€issues,€wherein€WCP'sÐ `  Ðexpert€says€an€appropriate€layout€for€the€site€"can€be€achieved€inÐ ¼  Ðmany€different€ways."ò òó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àWCP€relies€on€òòKern€River€Gas€Transmission€Co.óó€v.€òòCoastalÐ d ÐCorp.óó,€899€F.2d€1458€(5th€Cir€1990),€to€support€its€position.€€InÐ À Ðthat€case,€regulators€had€given€environmental€approval€to€aÐ l¼ Ðproposed€1,000€mile€route€for€a€gas€pipeline.€€The€company€that€hadÐ h Ðplotted€the€route€claimed€copyright€over€documents€depicting€it;Ð Ä Ðthese€were€merely€publicly€available€maps€on€which€the€company€hadÐ pÀ  Ðadded€a€line€tracing€the€route.€€The€court€denied€copyrightÐ !l" Ðprotection€based€on€merger.€€In€WCP's€view,€òòKern€Riveróó€based€itsÐ È"$ Ðmerger€finding€on€the€fact€that€regulatory€approval€limited€theÐ t$Ä& Ðavailable€options€for€building€a€pipeline,€and€the€map€merged€withÐ  &p!( Ðthe€"idea"€of€an€approved€route.€€ò òó óIf€that€were€the€only€reasoningÐ Ì'#* Ðin€the€case,€we€are€not€sure€the€decision€would€be€correct.€Ð x)È$, ÐHowever,€we€think€the€regulatory€approval€was,€at€most,€a€secondaryÐ $+t&. Ðconsideration;€merger€applied,€more€simply,€because€òòóóthe€mapÐ ° Ðmarkings€were€"the€only€effective€way€to€convey€the€idea€of€theÐ \¬ Ðproposed€location€of€a€pipeline."€€òòId.óó€at€1464.€€Even€if€there€hadÐ X Ðbeen€no€regulatory€decision€in€the€case,€it€should€have€come€outÐ ´  Ðthe€same€way,€because€the€underlying€idea€was€no€more€than€a€linkedÐ ` ° Ðseries€of€geographical€points€found€in€nature,€and€a€line€on€a€mapÐ  \  Ðthe€only€practical€method€to€express€that€idea.€€The€covenantÐ ¸  Ðdrawings,€in€contrast,€express€just€one€of€many€possible€detailedÐ d´  Ðand€complex€visions€for€developing€the€site.€€òòKern€Riveróó€isÐ `  Ðinapposite.Ð ¼  ÐE.€€òòEstoppel€and€WaiveróóÐ h¸ Ðà ` àWCP€argues€that€Danielson€is€estopped€from€anÐ d Ðinfringement€action€because€it€participated€in€the€three€1994Ð À Ðmeetings€where€WCP€displayed€some€of€the€drawings€and€indicatedÐ l¼ Ðthat€it€might€pursue€a€similar€plan€for€the€site.€€Principles€ofÐ h Ðequitable€estoppel€from€other€areas€of€the€law€apply€to€copyrightÐ Ä Ðactions.€€òòSeeóó€òòHamptonóó€v.€òòParamount€Pictures€Corp.óó,€279€F.2d€100,Ð pÀ  Ð104€(9th€Cir.€1960);€òòCherry€River€Music€Co.óó€v.€òòSimitar€Entm't,Ð !l" ÐInc.óó,€38€F.€Supp.€2d€310,€318€(S.D.N.Y.€1999).€€The€district€courtÐ È"$ Ðgranted€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€against€this€affirmativeÐ t$Ä& Ðdefense€at€the€close€of€evidence€at€the€trial,€because€it€found€theÐ  &p!( Ðevidence€insufficient€to€give€the€issue€to€the€jury.ò òó óÐ Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€first€element€required€to€show€estoppel€is€that€theÐ x)È$, Ðplaintiff€knew€of€the€defendant's€potential€infringement.€€òòSeeóóÐ $+t&. ÐòòPlumleyóó€v.€òòS.€Container,€Inc.óó,€303€F.3d€364,€374€(1st€Cir.€2002)Ð ° Ð(party€to€be€estopped€must€"know€the€facts");€òòHamptonóó,€279€F.2d€atÐ \¬ Ð104€(same,€applied€to€copyright)òòóó.€€Danielson€argues€that€theÐ X Ðmeetings€established€only€that€WCP€possessed€copies€of€the€plansÐ ´  Ðand€considered€possibly€using€them.€€WCP€appeared€more€enthusiasticÐ ` ° Ðabout€other€alternatives,€however,€and€pursued€them€for€a€year.€Ð  \  ÐIndeed,€a€WCP€employee€who€attended€the€meetings€testified€at€trialÐ ¸  Ðthat€WCP€expressed€serious€reservations€about€the€economicÐ d´  Ðviability€of€the€condominium€concept,€given€the€changes€in€theÐ `  Ðmarket€in€the€seven€years€since€Farese€had€suspended€construction.€Ð ¼  Ðò òó óMoreover,€there€was€no€indication€at€these€exploratory€meetingsÐ h¸ Ðthat€WCP€would€proceed€with€the€Farese€plan€without€Danielson'sÐ d Ðparticipation.€€When€WCP€reversed€course€and€began€working€from€theÐ À Ðdisputed€drawings,€it€informed€Tellalian€of€this€fact,€but€neverÐ l¼ ÐDanielson.€€In€August€1997,€when€Danielson€learned€of€actualÐ h Ðinfringement,€it€acted€promptly€to€assert€its€claim.ò òó óÐ Ä Ðà ` àWe€agree€with€the€district€court€that€the€evidence€aboutÐ pÀ  Ðthese€meetings€did€not€establish€the€type€of€knowledge€necessary€toÐ !l" Ðestop€Danielson€from€pursuing€its€claim.€€We€also€note€that€thisÐ È"$ Ðconclusion€is€consistent€with€the€jury's€subsequent€verdict€on€theÐ t$Ä& Ðstatute€of€limitations€defense,€which€necessarily€involved€aÐ  &p!( Ðrejection€of€the€claim€that€Danielson€knew€or€should€have€known€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðinfringing€activity€before€May€1997.€€ò òó óòòCf.óó€òòHeinrichóó€v.€òòSweetóó,€308Ð x)È$, ÐF.3d€48,€69€(1st€Cir.€2002)€(looking€to€necessary€implications€ofÐ $+t&. Ðjury€verdict€on€one€issue€as€support€for€conclusions€on€a€differentÐ ° Ðbut€related€issue).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àWCP€advances€an€arguably€distinct€waiver€defense€based€onÐ X Ðthe€same€arguments.€€A€waiver€must€be€voluntary€and€knowing,Ð ´  Ðhowever.€€òòSeeóó€òòMed.€Air€Tech.€Corp.óó€v.€€òòMarwan€Inv.,€Inc.óó,€303€F.3dÐ ` ° Ð11,€19€&€n.4€(1st€Cir.€2002).€€Since€the€facts€do€not€supportÐ  \  Ðknowledge€sufficient€for€estoppel,€waiver€is€a€fortioriÐ ¸  Ðunsupportable.Ð d´  ÐÓ  ÓIII.€€Unfair€Competition€ClaimsÐ `  ÐÓc Óò òó óà ` àDanielson€appeals€the€summary€judgment€ruling€against€its€Ð ¼  Ðclaim€of€unfair€and€deceptive€trade€practices€under€Mass.€Gen.€LawsÐ h¸ Ðch.€93A,€and€the€post„trial€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€against€itÐ d Ðon€the€Lanham€Act€false€designation€of€origin€claim.Ð À ÐA.€€òòPreemption€of€Chapter€93A€ClaimóóÐ l¼ Ðà ` àFederal€copyright€law€preempts€rights€under€state€lawÐ h Ðwhen€they€are€the€equivalent€of€those€granted€under€the€CopyrightÐ Ä ÐAct.€€17€U.S.C.€ðð€301(a).€€The€district€court€granted€summaryÐ pÀ  Ðjudgment€against€Danielson's€chapter€93A€claim,€finding€itÐ !l" Ðpreempted€by€this€provision.€€òòDanielsonóó,€186€F.€Supp.€2d€at€29.€€AsÐ È"$ Ðnoted€earlier,€we€review€summary€judgment€de€novo.€€òòSeeóó€òòSegretsóó,Ð t$Ä& Ð207€F.3d€at€61.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àWCP€first€invoked€preemption€as€an€affirmative€defense€inÐ Ì'#* Ðits€answer€to€Danielson's€complaint.€€ò òó óDanielson€essentiallyÐ x)È$, Ðconceded€in€its€briefs€to€us€ò òó óthat€it€advanced€only€cursory€legalÐ $+t&. Ðarguments€against€preemption€at€the€time€of€summary€judgment.€€TheÐ ° Ðbehavior€on€which€Danielson€based€its€state„law€claim€is€the€sameÐ \¬ Ðbehavior€that€Danielson€alleged€gave€rise€to€copyright€liability.€Ð X ÐThe€state€claim€is€therefore€preempted.€€òòSeeóó€òòData€Gen.óó,€36€F.3d€atÐ ´  Ð1164„65.׃l×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ` ° ÐB.€€òòLanham€ActóóÐ  \  Ðò òó óà ` àThe€district€court€ruled€post„verdict€against€Danielson'sÐ ¸  ÐLanham€Act€false€designation€of€origin€claim€because€the€damagesÐ d´  Ðfound€by€the€jury€when€it€found€liability€on€the€claim€were€tooÐ `  Ðspeculative.€€On€appeal,€Danielson€argues€that€the€removal€of€itsÐ ¼  Ðlogo€from€the€infringed€drawings€violated€the€Lanham€Act,€and€thatÐ h¸ Ðits€contract€with€Farese€provided€a€basis€for€the€jury€to€reach€theÐ d Ð$120,000€figure.€€In€response,€WCP€argues€not€only€that€the€amountÐ À Ðof€damages€was€unproven,€but€that€Danielson€failed€to€demonstrateÐ l¼ Ðâ âany€cognizable€harm€at€all.€€It€also€argues€that€other€showingsÐ h Ðrequired€by€the€Lanham€Act€were€inadequate,€including€theÐ ° Ðinvolvement€of€interstate€commerce.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àSection€43(a)€of€the€Lanham€Act€creates€a€federal€causeÐ X Ðof€action€for€any€person€"who€believes€that€he€or€she€is€likely€toÐ ´  Ðbe€damaged"€by€"any€false€designation€of€origin"€used€"in€commerce"Ð ` ° Ðwhich€"is€likely€to€cause€confusion,€or€to€cause€mistake,€or€toÐ  \  Ðdeceive."€€15€U.S.C.€ðð€1125(a)€(2000).€€A€typical€scenario€involvesÐ ¸  Ð"passing€off,"€where€a€defendant€sells€its€own€goods€or€servicesÐ d´  Ðwhile€falsely€representing€that€they€come€from€the€plaintiff;€thisÐ `  Ðclaim€is€a€"close€cousin"€of€other€trademark€infringement€actions,Ð ¼  Ðexcept€that€it€is€available€to€those€with€unregistered€marks.€€òòSeeóóÐ h¸ ÐòòPHC,€Inc.óó€v.€òòPioneer€Healthcare,€Inc.óó,€75€F.3d€75,€78€(1st€Cir.Ð d Ð1996).€€Danielson's€claim€is€closer€to€so„called€"reverse€passingÐ À Ðoff,"€where€the€defendant€falsely€attributes€the€plaintiff'sÐ l¼ Ðproduct€to€itself€or€a€third€party.€€òòSeeóó€òòWaldman€Publ'g€Corp.óó€v.Ð h ÐòòLandoll,€Inc.óó,€43€F.3d€775,€780„81€(2d€Cir.€1994).€€The€FirstÐ Ä ÐCircuit€has€not€recognized€this€claim€under€section€43(a)€of€theÐ pÀ  ÐLanham€Act,€although€other€courts€have€done€so.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòid.óó;Ð !l" ÐòòSmithóó€v.€òòMontoroóó,€648€F.2d€602,€605„07€(9th€Cir.€1981).€€òòSeeÐ È"$ Ðgenerallyóó€Ô_ÔJ.T.Ô_Ô€Cross,€òòGiving€Credit€Where€Credit€is€Dueóó,€72€Wash.Ð ° ÐL.€Rev.€709,€716„19€&€n.46€(1997)€(collecting€cases€and€tracingÐ \¬ Ðhistory);€òòid.óó€at€736„42€(criticizing€recognition€of€reverse€passingÐ X Ðoff€claims€under€section€43(a)).€€We€will€not€decide€here€whetherÐ ´  Ðwe€recognize€such€a€claim,€but€will€assume€for€purposes€of€thisÐ ` ° Ðappeal€that€we€would€do€so.Ð  \  Ðà ` àDanielson's€arguments€on€the€Lanham€Act€before€theÐ ¸  Ðdistrict€court,€and€indeed€the€jury,€were€frequently€cursory.€€AtÐ d´  Ðsummary€judgment,€the€district€court€said€that€it€would€refrainÐ `  Ðfrom€entering€judgment€on€the€Lanham€Act€claim€because€"the€partiesÐ ¼  Ðhave€not€adequately€briefed€the€issue,€and€ought€[to]€be€given€anÐ h¸ Ðopportunity€further€to€hone€their€arguments€at€trial."€€òòDanielsonóó,Ð d Ð186€F.€Supp.€2d€at€27.€€But€Danielson€did€little€honing€at€trial;Ð À Ðfor€example,€it€did€not€mention€the€claim€in€its€closing€argumentÐ l¼ Ðto€the€jury€(although€WCP€did).Ð h Ðà ` àFor€the€most€part,€the€argument€that€was€made€suggestedÐ Ä Ðthat€Danielson€had€been€damaged€by€the€alleged€Lanham€Act€violationÐ pÀ  Ðbecause€it€lost€the€contract€value€of€the€drawings€as€a€result.€Ð !l" ÐBut€there€is€an€insuperable€causation€problem€with€that€argument.€Ð È"$ ÐDanielson€has€insisted€in€other€contexts€that€the€only€possible€useÐ t$Ä& Ðfor€the€infringed€drawings€was€in€connection€with€the€site.€€SurelyÐ  &p!( Ðthe€reason€that€WCP€did€not€hire€Danielson€for€the€job,€or€buy€outÐ Ì'#* Ðthe€Farese€contract,€was€not€that€it€was€deceived€by€theÐ x)È$, Ðmisattribution.€€We€do€not€see€how€the€miscreant€and€the€onlyÐ $+t&. Ðpotential€lost€customer€can€be€one€and€the€same;€WCP€would€need€toÐ ° Ðhave€confused€itself.€€False€designation€of€origin€did€not€causeÐ \¬ Ðthis€harm.Ð X Ðà ` àDanielson€notes€that€others€who€came€in€contact€with€theÐ ´  Ðdrawings€would€have€been€misled€about€its€origins€as€well.€€SinceÐ ` ° Ðexposure€to€subcontractors,€planning€officials,€and€the€like€wouldÐ  \  Ðbe€good€for€business,€one€might€expect€that€Danielson€lost€anÐ ¸  Ðopportunity€to€enhance€its€professional€reputation.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnsonóó,Ð d´  Ð149€F.3d€at€502€(reverse€passing€off€found€where€defendant€replacedÐ `  Ðplaintiff's€logo€with€its€own€on€architectural€drawings€andÐ ¼  Ðcirculated€them),€òòquoted€inóó€òòDanielsonóó,€186€F.€Supp.€2d€at€27;€òòcf.óóÐ h¸ ÐòòÔ_ÔAttiaÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔSoc'yÔ_Ô€of€N.Y.€Hosp.óó,€201€F.3d€50,€58„60€(2d€Cir.€1999)Ð d Ð(considering€similar€claim€and€rejecting€it€because€plan€at€issueÐ À Ðwas€too€general€to€be€protectable).€€Here,€however,€Danielson€didÐ l¼ Ðnothing€whatsoever€at€trial€to€show€how€the€misattribution€mightÐ h Ðhave€cost€it€other€potential€work.€€We€see€no€evidence€in€theÐ Ä Ðrecord€that€Danielson€even€operated€outside€Massachusetts€at€thisÐ pÀ  Ðtime,€in€order€to€establish€the€necessary€interstate€commerce€nexusÐ !l" Ðfor€the€market€in€which€business€was€allegedly€lost.€€òòCf.óó€òòJohnsonóó,Ð È"$ Ð149€F.3d€at€502€(record€established€that€plaintiff€was€licensed€inÐ t$Ä& Ðthree€states€and€did€work€in€all€of€them).€€Danielson€also€admittedÐ  &p!( Ðat€trial€that,€in€its€diminished€capacity€in€the€1990s,€the€firmÐ Ì'#* Ðwas€no€longer€able€to€do€a€job€of€the€type€or€scale€of€the€WillowsÐ x)È$, Ðat€Winchester.€€ò òó óThus€a€developer€of€a€similar€project€who€sawÐ $+t&. ÐDanielson's€logo€on€the€drawings€and€considered€hiring€it€wouldÐ ° Ðhave€been€unable€to€do€so€anyway.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àPerhaps€the€meager€showings€of€commerce€and€harm€thatÐ X ÐDanielson€did€offer€might€have€been€enough€to€justify€Ô_ÔnonmonetaryÔ_ÔÐ ´  Ðrelief€in€a€different€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòCashmere€&€Camel€Hair€Ô_ÔMfrsÔ_Ô.€Inst.óóÐ ` ° Ðv.€òòSaks€Fifth€Ave.óó,€284€F.3d€302,€311€(1st€Cir.€2002)€(under€LanhamÐ  \  ÐAct,€"a€plaintiff€seeking€damages€must€show€actual€harm€to€itsÐ ¸  Ðbusiness");òòóó€òòWeb€Printing€Controls€Co.óó€v.€òòOxy„Dry€Corp.óó,€906€F.2dÐ d´  Ð1202,€1204€(7th€Cir.€1990)€(reversing€dismissal€of€claim€forÐ `  Ðfailure€to€show€harm€when€injunctive€relief€was€requested).€€Here,Ð ¼  Ðhowever,€Danielson€claimed€only€money€damages€and€failed€to€carryÐ h¸ Ðits€burden€of€proof.€€On€the€facts€of€record€in€this€case€weÐ d Ðtherefore€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€claim.€€As€a€result,€we€alsoÐ À Ðaffirm€the€denial€of€attorneys'€fees,€because€Danielson€was€not€theÐ l¼ Ð"prevailing€party"€as€required€by€the€statute.€€òòóó15€U.S.C.€ððÐ h Ð1117(a).Ð Ä ÐÓ  ÓIV.€€DamagesÐ pÀ  ÐÓGÓòòóóà ` àWCP€appeals€from€the€jury€instructions€on€damages,€whileÐ !l" ÐDanielson€appeals€the€district€court's€reduction€of€copyrightÐ È"$ Ðdamages€and€denial€of€prejudgment€interest.Ð t$Ä& ÐA.€€òòInfringer's€ProfitsóóÐ  &p!( Ðà ` àThe€principal€damages€in€this€case,€on€which€the€partiesÐ Ì'#* Ðfocus€the€most€attention,€are€profits€from€selling€condominiumÐ x)È$, Ðunits€in€the€Willows€at€Winchester.€€ò òó óDamages€for€copyrightÐ $+t&. Ðinfringement€include€"any€profits€of€the€infringer€that€areÐ ° Ðattributable€to€the€infringement."€€17€U.S.C.€ðð€504(b).€€TheÐ \¬ Ðcopyright€owner€needs€only€to€present€evidence€of€the€infringer'sÐ X Ðgross€revenues;€the€burden€is€then€on€the€defendant€to€show€howÐ ´  Ðmuch€of€its€revenues€are€profits,€and€what€"elements€of€profitÐ ` ° Ð[are]€attributable€to€factors€other€than€the€copyrighted€work."€Ð  \  ÐòòId.óóÐ ¸  Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€stipulations€by€the€parties€settled€many€ofÐ d´  Ðthese€issues.€€The€parties€agreed€that€the€gross€revenues€from€theÐ `  Ðsale€of€all€70€condominium€units€totaled€$19,867,684.€€ò òó óThey€alsoÐ ¼  Ðstipulated€that€WCP€incurred€at€least€$18,136,667€in€deductibleÐ h¸ Ðexpenses.€€ò òó óThey€disagreed€about€whether€an€additional€amount€of€upÐ d Ðto€$386,067€for€commissions€to€real€estate€brokers€was€alsoÐ À Ðdeductible,€a€question€of€fact€that€was€left€to€the€jury€and€is€notÐ l¼ Ðdirectly€before€us€on€appeal.€ò ò€ó óTherefore,€depending€on€the€outcomeÐ h Ðof€that€dispute,€the€total€pool€of€profits€from€which€the€juryÐ à0 Ðcould€calculate€damages€was€between€$1,344,950€and€$1,731,017.€€TheÐ ŒÜ  Ðjury€awarded€Danielson€$1,464,950.€€This€figure€suggests€that€theÐ 8!ˆ" Ðjury€apportioned,€at€most,€a€negligible€amount€of€the€profits€andÐ ä"4$ Ðâ âawarded€all€or€almost€all€of€WCP's€profits€to€Danielson.׃a×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WCPÐ $à& Ðargues€that€some€apportionment€is€required€by€law,€and€that€faultyÐ ° Ðinstructions€led€the€jury€not€to€do€the€necessary€apportionment.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àThe€caselaw€is€clear€on€this€point:€there€must€be€aÐ X Ðrational€apportionment€of€profits.€€The€division€of€profits€betweenÐ ´  Ðthose€portions€attributable€to€the€infringement€and€thoseÐ ` ° Ðattributable€to€other€sources€does€not€require€"mathematicalÐ  \  Ðexactness."€€òòAbendóó€v.€òòMCA,€Inc.óó,€863€F.2d€1465,€1480€(9th€Cir.Ð ¸  Ð1988)€(apportionment€required€where€film€"Rear€Window"€infringedÐ d´  Ðunderlying€short€story,€but€also€earned€profit€from€reputations€andÐ `  Ðcreative€contributions€of€many€others,€including€Grace€Kelly,€JamesÐ ¼  ÐStewart,€and€Alfred€Hitchcock).€€The€Supreme€Court€held€in€1940Ð h¸ Ðthat€a€"reasonable€approximation"€was€enough€if€it€allowed€"aÐ d Ðrational€separation€of€the€net€profits€so€that€neither€party€mayÐ À Ðhave€what€rightfully€belongs€to€the€other."€€òòSheldonóó€v.€òòMetro„Ð l¼ ÐGoldwyn€Pictures€Corp.óó,€309€U.S.€390,€404€(1940)€(internalÐ h Ðquotations€omitted)€(requiring€apportionment€where€movie€infringedÐ Ä Ðparts€of€play,€but€added€other€content,€as€well€as€costumes,Ð pÀ  Ðscenery,€and€the€like).Ð !l" Ðà ` àIn€òòData€Generalóó,€this€court€found€some€apportionmentÐ È"$ Ðrequired€as€a€matter€of€law€because€the€defendant€showed€that,Ð t$Ä& Ðapart€from€its€infringing€activity,€customers€purchased€itsÐ  &p!( Ðservices€for€reasons€such€as€the€price,€quality,€and€breadth€of€itsÐ Ì'#* Ðservice.€€36€F.3d€at€1174,€1177.€€We€agree€with€WCP€that€òòDataÐ x)È$, ÐGeneralóó€controls€this€case.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBruceóó€v.€òòWeekly€World€News,Ð $+t&. ÐInc.óó,€310€F.3d€25,€31„32€(1st€Cir.€2002)€(50„50€apportionment€ofÐ ° Ðprofits€from€sales€of€T„shirts€featuring€infringed€"generic"€photoÐ \¬ Ðof€President€Clinton€shaking€hands,€retouched€to€depict€himÐ X Ðgreeting€an€alien);€òòÔ_ÔSygmaÔ_Ô€Photo€News,€Inc.óó€v.€òòHigh€Ô_ÔSoc'yÔ_Ô€Magazine,Ð ´  ÐInc.óó,€778€F.2d€89,€96€(2d€Cir.€1985)€(reducing€district€court'sÐ ` ° Ðapportionment€of€profits€for€infringing€photo€of€Raquel€Welch€onÐ  \  Ðcover€of€"Celebrity€Skin"€magazine€because€of€failure€to€accountÐ ¸  Ðfor€cover's€list€of€other€celebrities€pictured€inside);€òòFrank€MusicÐ d´  ÐCorp.óó€v.€òòMetro„Goldwyn„Mayer,€Inc.óó,€772€F.2d€505,€518€(9th€Cir.Ð `  Ð1985)€(one€percent€apportionment€for€infringing€use€of€songs€in€LasÐ ¼  ÐVegas€revue€was€clear€error€because€evidence€indicated€the€songsÐ h¸ Ðwere€more€important€to€the€revue's€success);€òòABKCO€Music,€Inc.óó€v.Ð d ÐòòHarrisongs€Music,€Ltd.óó,€508€F.€Supp.€798,€801„02€(S.D.N.Y.€1981)Ð À Ð(apportioning€song's€profits€between€infringing€melody,Ð l¼ Ðnoninfringing€lyrics,€and€fame€and€appeal€of€singer€GeorgeÐ h ÐHarrison).Ð Ä Ðà ` àAt€trial,€WCP€presented€evidence€concerning€manyÐ pÀ  Ðcontributing€factors€that€helped€the€Willows€at€Winchester€turn€aÐ !l" Ðprofit€besides€Danielson's€skeletal€site€plans.€€It€pointed€to€fiveÐ È"$ Ðvolumes€of€subsequent€and€more€detailed€architectural€drawingsÐ t$Ä& Ðnecessary€to€complete€the€project.€€Other€evidence€concerned€theÐ  &p!( Ðextensive€efforts€WCP€made€to€coordinate€logistics,€superviseÐ Ì'#* Ðsubcontractors,€choose€and€install€various€amenities,€market€theÐ x)È$, Ðdevelopment,€and€sell€the€condominium€units.€€ò òó óWCP€also€argued€thatÐ $+t&. Ðaspects€of€Danielson's€site€plans,€such€as€the€placement€of€garagesÐ ° Ðand€parking€areas,€actually€might€have€detracted€from€theÐ \¬ Ðdevelopment's€appeal.€€ò òó óWCP€supported€many€of€these€contentions€withÐ X Ðtestimony€from€two€experts:€€David€Barsky,€an€architect,€and€SueÐ ´  ÐHawkes,€a€condominium€marketing€consultant.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ ` ° Ðà ` à"[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€defendant€may€show€that€the€existence€and€amountÐ  \  Ðof€its€profits€are€not€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€of€theÐ ¸  Ðinfringement€alone,€but€are€also€the€result€of€other€factors€whichÐ d´  Ðeither€add€intrinsic€value€to€the€product€or€have€independentÐ `  Ðpromotional€value."€€òòData€Gen.óó,€36€F.3d€at€1175.€€Where€such€aÐ ¼  Ðshowing€is€made,€apportionment€is€required.€€òòId.óó€at€1177;€òòCreamÐ h¸ ÐRecords,€Inc.óó€v.€òòJos.€Schlitz€Brewing€Co.óó,€754€F.2d€826,€828€(9thÐ d ÐCir.€1985)€("[Ô_ÔW]hereÔ_Ô€it€is€clear€.€.€.€that€not€all€of€the€profitsÐ À Ðare€attributable€to€the€infringing€material,€the€copyright€owner€isÐ l¼ Ðnot€entitled€to€recover€all€of€those€profits€merely€because€theÐ ° Ðinfringer€fails€to€establish€with€certainty€the€portionÐ \¬ Ðattributable€to€the€non„infringing€elements.");€òòÔ_ÔOrgelÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòClarkÐ X ÐÔ_ÔBoardmanÔ_Ô€Co.óó,€301€F.2d€119,€121€(2d€Cir.€1962)€("[Ô_ÔW]hereÔ_Ô€anÐ ´  Ðinfringer's€profits€are€not€entirely€due€to€the€infringement,€andÐ ` ° Ðthe€evidence€suggests€some€division€which€may€rationally€be€used€asÐ  \  Ða€springboard€it€is€the€duty€of€the€court€to€make€someÐ ¸  Ðapportionment.").€€Many€of€the€noninfringing€elements€thatÐ d´  Ðtriggered€apportionment€in€the€cases€we€have€cited€here€„„€such€asÐ `  Ðthe€popularity€of€a€celebrity,€the€quality€of€a€finished€product,Ð ¼  Ðor€marketing€efforts€„„€were€inchoate.€€We€hold€that€WCP€hasÐ h¸ Ðlikewise€made€enough€of€a€showing€to€require€some€apportionment€asÐ d Ða€matter€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòData€Gen.óó,€36€F.3d€at€1177.Ð À Ðà ` àWCP€argues€that€the€district€court's€instructions€to€theÐ l¼ Ðjury€foreordained€its€refusal€to€apportion,€because€theyÐ h Ðerroneously€stated€an€extremely€high€standard€to€show€that€anÐ Ä Ðelement€of€profit€was€not€attributable€to€the€infringement.€€WeÐ pÀ  Ðoverturn€a€jury€instruction€only€if€it€prejudices€a€party'sÐ !l" Ðsubstantial€rights€because€it€misleads€the€jury€or€misstates€orÐ È"$ Ðunduly€complicates€the€correct€legal€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔFaiginÔ_Ôóó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòKellyóó,€184€F.3d€67,€87€(1st€Cir.€1999).€€The€instructions€onÐ  &p!( Ðapportionment€did€all€three.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àWCP€proposed€jury€instructions€that€reflected€theÐ x)È$, Ðprecedents€reasonably€accurately.€€ò òó óParties€are€entitled€to€juryÐ $+t&. Ðinstructions€that€reflect€the€correct€legal€standards,€but€not,€ofÐ ° Ðcourse,€the€exact€phrasing€they€desire.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔLusonÔ_Ô€Int'l€Ô_ÔDistribsÔ_Ô.,Ð \¬ ÐInc.óó€v.€òòFabricating€&€Prod.€Mach.,€Inc.óó,€966€F.2d€9,€13€(1st€Cir.Ð X Ð1992).€€Here,€however,€the€district€court's€instructions€onÐ ´  Ðapportionment€were€misleading€and€inconsistent€with€the€applicableÐ ` ° Ðlaw:Ð  \  ÐÓÓà0 ` à[WCP€argues€it€is]€entitled€to€apportion€those€netÐ ¸  Ðrevenues,€and€if€there€are€portions€of€those€revenuesÐ ŽÞ  Ðwhich€were€earned€completely€free€of€what€the€site€planÐ d´  Ðdrawings€which€were€infringed€were€used€for,€then€theyÐ :Š  Ðshouldn't€have€to€pay€those€net€revenues€over€toÐ `  ÐDanielson.€.€.€.€€[This€portion]€had€nothing€to€do€withÐ æ6 Ðthe€infringement.м ` (#` (# Ðà0 ` àà ¨ àWell,€they€say€that.€€The€[WCP]€folks€have€toÐ ’â Ðprove€that,€and€again€by€a€fair€preponderance€of€theÐ h¸ Ðevidence.€€So€you€consider€things.€€Were€the€designÐ >Ž Ðfeatures€wholly€separate€from€the€site€plan€drawings[?]€Ð d ÐWas€there€a€marketing€plan€wholly€separate[?]€€YouÐ ê: Ðconsider€those€aspects,€but€they€have€to€be€whollyÐ À Ðseparate.ò òó óЖæ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ+pÓò òó óà ` àWCP€objected€at€the€end€of€the€instructions:€€"[W]hen€youÐ B’ Ðdefined€the€burden€on€apportionment€of€damages,€twice€you€used€theÐ î> Ðphrase€that€the€apportionment€has€to€be€'wholly€separate,'Ð šê Ð'completely€free.'€.€.€.€€That's€an€overstatement€of€what€we€haveÐ F –! Ðto€show€in€the€case."€€ò òó óWe€could€put€it€no€better€ourselves.€€TheseÐ ò!B# Ðinstructions€required€mathematical€exactness€and€completeÐ ž#î% Ðseparability€to€allow€apportionment,€but€the€law€imposes€no€suchÐ J%š ' Ðrequirements.€€In€objecting,€WCP€also€referred€the€court€to€severalÐ ö&F") Ðcases€that€supported€its€position€and€were€contrary€to€theÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðinstructions,€including€òòABKCO€Musicóó€and€òòSygma€Newsóó.€€The€trialÐ N*ž%- Ðjudge€interrupted,€saying€"I'm€satisfied€with€the€charge."ò òÐ ú+J'/ Ðà ` àó óThe€jury,€apparently,€was€less€satisfied.€€After€severalÐ ° Ðhours€of€deliberation,€it€sent€a€note€to€the€judge€asking€forÐ \¬ Ðclarification:Ð X ÐÓÓà0 ` àTrying€to€understand€apportionment.€€Author€writes€story.€Ð ´  ÐMovie€studio€infringes€story€and€turns€it€into€a€movie.€Ð Š Ú ÐMovie€makes€a€hundred€million€profit.€€Obviously€thereÐ ` ° Ðwere€many€added€aspects€to€make€movie.€€Does€authorÐ 6 †  Ðrecover€a€hundred€million€since€story€underlies€the€wholeÐ  \  Ð[movie]?€€There€is€[sic]€clear€creative€contributions€byÐ â 2  Ðmany€others.€€Can€this€have€an€impact€on€the€award?€€WeÐ ¸  Ðneed€more€understanding€of€the€law€of€apportionment€withÐ ŽÞ  Ðrespect€to€copyright€infringement.ò òÐd´ ` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÂxÓThe€court€responded€with€a€further€charge€that€largely€reiteratedÐ `  Ðits€prior€one:Ð ¼  ÐÓÓà0 ` àIn€order€to€prove€apportionment€[WCP]€has€to€prove€by€aÐ h¸ Ðfair€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€some€aspect€orÐ >Ž Ðaspects€of€the€net€revenues€are€the€result€of€somethingÐ d Ðother€than€the€copyright€infringement.€€If€it's€allÐ ê: Ðintertwined€and€there€can€be€no€separately€identifiableÐ À Ðamount,€and€to€give€your€example,€the€authors,€the€bookÐ –æ Ðauthors€underlies€[sic]€the€entire€movie,€then€there's€noÐ l¼ Ðapportionment.€€But€if€there€is€a€portion€of€those€netÐ B’ Ðrevenues,€net€profits,€which€are€apart€from,€separateÐ h Ðfrom,€identifiably€separate€from€the€copyrightÐ î> Ðinfringement,€and€[WCP]€has€proved€that€by€a€fairÐ Ä Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€then€it's€only€fair€thatÐ šê Ðthat€be€apportioned€out€because€that€part€of€it€was€notÐ pÀ  Ðpermitted,€was€not€enhanced€or€allowed€or€undergirded€byÐ F –! Ðthe€copyright€infringement.€.€.€.€€If€you€are€going€toÐ !l" Ðapportion€you€see€if€[WCP]€has€identified€a€separableÐ ò!B# Ðamount,€and€then€you€deduct€that€amount€or€that€portionÐ È"$ Ðand€the€Danielson€folks€get€the€remainder.О#î%` (#` (# Ðò òó óÓ|ÓÌà ` àThe€judge's€response€to€the€jury's€hypothetical€wasÐ  &p!( Ðinconsistent€with€two€leading€cases€presenting€similar€facts,Ð Ì'#* ÐòòSheldonóó,€309€U.S.€at€404,€and€òòAbendóó,€863€F.2d€at€1478„80.€Ð x)È$, ÐOtherwise,€the€second€charge€merely€echoed€the€court's€originalÐ $+t&. Ðerror,€albeit€without€some€of€the€intensifying€adverbs,€and€it€didÐ ° Ðnothing€to€undo€the€damage.׃b×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WCP€did€not€need€to€prove€that€itsÐ \¬ Ðnoninfringing€contributions€to€the€development€were€"whollyÐ X Ðseparate"€from€Danielson's€plans,€as€the€first€instructionÐ ´  Ðrepeatedly€said.€€It€is€also€wrong€to€state,€as€did€the€secondÐ ` ° Ðinstruction,€that€apportionment€is€unavailable€where€the€finalÐ  \  Ðproduct€was€"enhanced€or€allowed€or€undergirded€by€the€copyrightÐ ¸  Ðinfringement."׃cj×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð d´  Ðà ` àIn€light€of€these€erroneous€instructions€onÐ `  Ðapportionment,€we€must€vacate€the€copyright€damages.׃d:×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòDataÐ ¼  ÐGen.óó,€36€F.3d€at€1177€(citing€òòAllenóó€v.€òòChance€Mfg.€Co.óó,€873€F.2dÐ h¸ Ð465,€470€(1st€Cir.€1989)).€€Apportionment€is€"ultimately€a€delicateÐ ° Ðexercise€informed€by€considerations€of€fairness€and€public€policy,Ð \¬ Ðas€well€as€fact."€€òòData€Gen.óó,€36€F.3d€at€1176.€€The€instructionsÐ X Ðhere€did€not€fulfill€these€goals,€and€the€jury's€verdict€wasÐ ´  Ðdistorted€as€a€result.Ð ` ° ÐB.€€òòOther€Damages€IssuesóóÐ  \  Ðà ` àIn€addition€to€profits€based€on€the€infringement,Ð ¸  ÐDanielson€is€also€entitled€to€any€actual€damages€it€suffered.€€17Ð d´  ÐU.S.C.€ðð€504(b)òòóó.€€If,€for€example,€Danielson€demonstrated€theÐ `  Ðamount€of€compensation€that€it€might€have€obtained€from€WCP,€butÐ ¼  Ðhad€lost€because€WCP€unlawfully€copied€the€drawings€instead,€thatÐ h¸ Ðsum€would€serve€as€a€good€measure€of€actual€damages.€€The€districtÐ d Ðcourt€determined€that€the€jury€had€added€$120,000€to€its€award€ofÐ À Ðcopyright€damages€and€that€this€amount€was€overly€speculative,€andÐ l¼ Ðso€the€court€reduced€the€award€commensurately.€€Danielson€appealsÐ h Ðthis€decision.€€We€are€concerned€that€the€court's€response€mayÐ Ä Ðitself€have€depended€on€speculation,€but€by€vacating€the€damagesÐ pÀ  Ðaward€we€have€eliminated€the€need€to€decide€this€question.€€We€alsoÐ !l" Ðvacate€the€district€court's€alternative€order€of€remittur.€Ð È"$ ÐDanielson€may€offer€evidence€to€show€actual€damages€in€any€furtherÐ t$Ä& Ðproceedings€to€calculate€damages.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àFinally,€Danielson€appeals€the€district€court's€denial€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðprejudgment€interest.€€We€review€this€decision€for€abuse€ofÐ x)È$, Ðdiscretion.€€òòHoganóó€v.€òòBangor€&€Aroostook€R.R.óó,€61€F.3d€1034,€1038Ð $+t&. Ð(1st€Cir.€1995).€€In€ruling€from€the€bench,€the€district€courtÐ ° Ðstated€that€it€relied€on€òòMurrayóó€v.€òòShaw€Industries,€Inc.óó,€990€F.Ð \¬ ÐSupp.€46€(D.€Mass.€1997).€ò òó ó€That€case€found€that€prejudgmentÐ X Ðinterest€was€inappropriate€where€the€entire€damages€award€wasÐ ´  Ðcomposed€of€disgorged€profits€from€an€infringer,€because,€unlikeÐ ` ° Ðactual€damages,€the€plaintiff€never€had€those€funds€and€so€deservedÐ  \  Ðno€compensation€for€the€lost€use€of€the€money€while€the€case€wasÐ ¸  Ðpending.€€òòId.óó€at€48.€€This€reasoning€is€sound€and€not€an€abuse€ofÐ d´  Ðdiscretion.€€Danielson€offers€no€support€for€its€assertion€that€theÐ `  Ðstandards€for€awarding€prejudgment€interest€and€attorneys'€fees€areÐ ¼  Ðthe€same,€and€we€find€none.€€We€do€note,€however,€that€afterÐ h¸ Ðfurther€proceedings€Danielson's€award€may€include€some€actualÐ d Ðdamages.€€If€so,€the€district€court€may,€in€its€discretion,€chooseÐ À Ðto€revisit€this€issue.Ð l¼ ÐC.€€òòRemandóóÐ h Ðà ` àWe€hope€that€damages€can€now€be€resolved€withoutÐ Ä Ðrequiring€the€empanelment€of€another€jury€for€a€new€proceeding.€€AsÐ pÀ  Ðwe€did€in€òòData€Generalóó,€36€F.3d€at€1177€n.52,€we€offer€someÐ !l" Ðthoughts€to€assist€the€district€court€in€the€conduct€of€furtherÐ È"$ Ðproceedings.€€First€and€foremost,€now€that€WCP's€liability€isÐ t$Ä& Ðestablished€and€every€underlying€legal€issue€is€resolved,€we€urgeÐ  &p!( Ðthe€parties€to€renew€their€efforts€to€settle€the€case.€Ð Ì'#* ÐAlternatively,€the€parties€could€agree€to€allow€the€district€courtÐ x)È$, Ðto€determine€damages€on€the€basis€of€the€evidence€already€presentedÐ $+t&. Ðat€trial.€€òòSeeóó€4€òòNimmeróó,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€14.03(D),€at€14„41€(parties€mayÐ ° Ðconsent€to€bench€trial).€€The€district€court€might€also€accept€someÐ \¬ Ðfurther€briefing€or€evidence€before€ruling€on€damages.€€Finally,€ifÐ X Ðthe€parties€decline€all€of€these€invitations,€we€encourage€theÐ ´  Ðdistrict€court€to€consider,€in€its€discretion,€ordering€a€Ð ` ° Ðremittitur.€€òòData€Gen.óó,€36€F.3d€at€1177€n.52Ô#†X8\ XXXxtå#ÔÔ‡XxX XX8\ÔÔ#†ˆ¹ˆXXx¶å#ÔÔ‡XxXˆˆ¹Ô.€€Fifteen€years€haveÐ  \  Ðpassed€since€the€drawings€at€the€center€of€this€case€were€produced.€Ð ¸  ÐThere€is€no€advantage€to€prolonging€the€litigation€any€further.Ð d´  ÐÓ  ÓV.€€ConclusionÐ `  ÐÓö™Óà ` àFor€the€reasons€stated€in€this€opinion,€the€districtÐ ¼  Ðcourt's€decisions€dismissing€WCP's€affirmative€defenses€andÐ h¸ ÐDanielson's€unfair€competition€claims€are€òòò òaffirmedó óóó.€€The€damagesÐ d Ðaward€is€òòò òvacatedó óóó€and€the€case€is€òòò òremandedó óóó€for€proceedings€toÐ Ü, Ðcalculate€damages€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ô#†X8\ XXXx¾˜#ÔÔ#†ˆ—ˆ XX8\™#Ô