ÿWPC•# ÄýÛŠ‚Ñ_!ØÑMù2ĽN4lV†ù¤TùÈzÙ–Ÿü§­a‹ÿƒð/Èj` .@à!Z|íÂeRÌëÎmxÊɺ.õfSˆ¡Iª™ên÷e}’5œÜ÷çÃ@xkáR—znî[Ë^< Æ{¦„LW ×¥ÁÕ*¶pOêò‹Ž¤·Ûã~ÐQ}Ëš×nsSK¥BLO¼+óQ:1@6ÛwfË»<׸*L|£T]бú‘Lôc3³?3™n ¾Òy7²i›<>ërú}çÌ/+5ŒÝ‰§ˆ—‹¦v$¢zæ§%“$ÜÑÇE¡ ß··nTèxr+äåò"ObAçQ.(czX!‘¯”Á¦ÅË­õ,ç!Ù(áë~9êNI!NhmSèÿ’d²ŸFË­-)²²‰a*P–RH„6+˜À£šÜô8D,“ ^!†Œ1—B¯U'µÆé«bʪ#ìÞeÑÌ:ÊÈ™òªh9膉½ W¿‡í¤7Âo¼æ!Rõ8 6iHš˜»C}€Só<~MˆH‚fC¢ ¥íΧÃZùzMô3f„Ö=ÅD\´³; ›g™Ú•|ðw|§%ªP3¡ˆRA¾Ë¢¶;W%@¢:P0“æŒ(UHÓ\1#Á® %o 0 Du 0(¹UFá 0 Æ'„ínTq NÅ 8Ç ^ ÿw 4#2 m4EKfMaONc>ew£bß""‘‘™*z222222222 B¬"¬"¬"¬"¬"¬"¬"U FÉ"UF#U@U#˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0/X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡.Courier New Regular(d:2 œ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.ø2.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó zÝ ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€enumerating€the€roster€of€defendants,€the€complaintÐ ° Ðidentifies€Allen€Gordon,€Jr.,€Andrea€Martin,€Ivan€Matias,€TamaraÐ †Ö ÐJohnson,€and€Cheryl€Gamble€as€authors€credited€with€composingÐ \¬ Ð"You're€the€One";€SWV€and€Johnson,€Gamble,€and€Leanne€Lyons€(whoÐ 2‚ Ðcollectively€comprise€SWV)€as€the€ones€responsible€for€theÐ X Ðcommercial€release€of€the€song;€Al's€Street€Music,€Rondor€MusicÐ Þ. ÐInternational,€Inc.,€Sailandra€Publishing,€One€Ole€Ghetto€Ho,€WBÐ ´  ÐMusic€Corp.,€Wonder€Woman€Sings€Publishing,€and€Warner„ChappellÐ Š Ú ÐMusic,€Ltd.€as€the€publishers€of€the€song€and€the€registered€ownersÐ ` ° Ðof€copyrights€for€it;€Gordon€and€Head€Up€Entertainment,€Ltd.€as€theÐ 6 †  Ðsong's€producers;€and€BMG€Music,€Bertelsmann€Music€Group,€Inc.,€andÐ  \  ÐAriola€Eurodisc,€Inc.€as€the€song's€distributors.«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ .Ý ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€simplicity's€sake,€we€do€not€hereinafter€distinguishÐ ° Ðbetween€the€two€judicial€officers,€but,€rather,€take€anÐ †Ö Ðinstitutional€view€and€refer€to€the€determinations€below€as€thoseÐ \¬ Ðof€the€district€court.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMaldonadoóó,€356Ð 2‚ ÐF.3d€130,€134€n.1€(1st€Cir.€2004).}¿2s 6xª26Xy File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT mÝ ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIf€more€were€needed€ð"ð€and€we€do€not€think€that€it€is€ð"ð€it€isÐ ° Ðundisputed€that€the€two€musical€segments,€as€written,€do€not€soundÐ †Ö Ðalike€and€would€not€sound€alike€to€an€ordinary€listener€(indeed,Ð \¬ ÐMr.€John€admitted€as€much).€€Thus,€putting€aside€the€bizarreÐ 2‚ Ðperegrinations€that€are€required€to€get€from€point€A€to€point€B€inÐ X ÐMr.€John's€similarity€analysis,€the€only€conclusion€available€fromÐ Þ. Ðthe€fact€that€the€defendants'€melody€does€not€bear€any€audibleÐ ´  Ðlikeness€to€its€distant€relation€is€that€this€proposed€resemblanceÐ Š Ú Ðcontributes€nothing€to€a€finding€of€substantial€similarity€betweenÐ ` ° Ðthe€two€works.€€òòSeeóó€òòReppóó€v.€òòWebberóó,€132€F.3d€882,€889€(2d€Cir.Ð 6 †  Ð1997)€(explaining€that€to€prove€substantial€similarity€in€a€caseÐ  \  Ðcharging€musical€plagiarism,€the€plaintiff€is€constrained€to€showÐ â 2  Ðthat€the€defendant€appropriated€musical€elements€detectable€by€theÐ ¸  Ðear€of€the€lay€listener);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòConcrete€Mach.óó,€843€F.2d€at€607.- ù- ÕÝ ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€be€sure,€the€plaintiff€does€argue€that€the€district€courtÐ ° Ðerred€by€ruling€that€the€long€version€is€"not€derivative"€of€theÐ †Ö Ðshort€version,€but€that€argument€Ô_ÔmischaracterizesÔ_Ô€the€districtÐ \¬ Ðcourt's€ukase. ýÝ ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCourts€sometimes€have€recognized€transposition€of€one€song€toÐ ° Ðthe€key€of€another€as€a€valid€tool€in€effecting€comparisons.€€òòSeeóó,Ð †Ö Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòNom€Music,€Inc.óó€v.€òòKaslinóó,€227€F.€Supp.€922,€927€(S.D.N.Y.Ð \¬ Ð1964).€€The€case€at€bar€does€not€involve€a€straight€transposition,Ð 2‚ Ðbut,€rather,€the€use€of€transposition€as€one€of€several€steps€in€aÐ X Ðlong,€drawn„out€series.€€The€totality€finds€no€support€in€the€caseÐ Þ. Ðlaw€as€a€basis€for€deeming€two€compositions€similar. ‡Ý ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€is€not€merely€a€technical€distinction.€€Even€theÐ ° Ðplaintiff's€expert€concedes€that€the€resolved€and€unresolved€III,Ð †Ö ÐII€progressions€sound€different€to€the€ordinary€listener. ‡Ý ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRelying€on€a€standard€musicological€dictionary,òòóó€Mr.€JohnÐ ° Ðdefines€melodic€inversion€as€"a€procedure€in€which€each€ascendingÐ †Ö Ðinterval€of€an€entire€melody€is€changed€into€its€oppositeÐ \¬ Ðdescending€interval€and€vice€versa."€€He€defines€retrograde€as€"aÐ 2‚ Ðterm€indicating€reverse€or€backward€motion,€e.g.,€beginning€withÐ X Ðthe€last€note€of€the€melody€and€ending€with€the€first."  pÝ ƒ œ$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€.çÎ.X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note,€moreover,€that€the€plaintiff€never€obtained€a€validÐ ° Ðcopyright€for€the€sound€recording€of€the€short€version€of€his€song.€Ð †Ö ÐConsequently,€it€is€doubtful€that€he€is€entitled€to€any€protectionÐ \¬ Ðagainst€sampling.€€òòSeeóó€òòNewtonóó€v.€òòDiamondóó,€204€F.€Supp.€2d€1244,Ð 2‚ Ð1248„49€(C.D.Cal.€2002)€(explaining€that€"[s]ound€recordings€andÐ X Ðtheir€underlying€musical€compositions€are€separate€works€with€theirÐ Þ. Ðown€distinct€copyrights"),€òòÔ_Ôaff'dÔ_Ôóó,€388€F.3d€1189€(9th€Cir.€2004);Ð ´  Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€17€U.S.C.€ðð€102(a)(2),€(7). dÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡/° ò°X/XÔÔ‡0° ì°°/° òÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†0Xá,X°0° ìÅ#ÔÔ‡0„†M„X0Xá,ÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†0Xá,X„0„†MY#ÔÔ#†/XçÎXX0Xá,ä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€04„2475Ð K › ÐÌà@´´!ìàCALVIN€R.€JOHNSON,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ ìàPlaintiff,€Appellant,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@Ô Ô ìàALLEN€GORDON,€JR.,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà@P P ìà[Hon.€Mark€L.€Wolf,€€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à Ðà@¬¬ìà[Hon.€Robert€B.€Ô_ÔCollingsÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€Magistrate€Judgeóó]ˆÐ f¶ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<` AßÐ b ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ ÷G ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€Lynch€and€Lipez,Ð £ó  ÐòòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð yÉ! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<$!` AßÐ %!u# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòBurton€A.€Ô_ÔNadlerÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòÔ_ÔPetrucellyÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔNadlerÔ_Ô,€P.C.óó€was€onÐ  "Z% Ðbrief,€for€appellant.Ð à"0& Ðà  àòòCynthia€S.€Ô_ÔAratoÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòÔ_ÔManattÔ_Ô,€Phelps€&€Phillips,€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó€wasÐ ¶#' Ðon€brief,€for€appellees.Ð Œ$Ü( ÐÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 8&ˆ!*8&ˆ! ‹‹ÐÓÇÓÐ SIœ&ì!+ ÀÌâ@38502„„‰ÀÌâ@‰‹‹SÐÔ_ÔÌMay€31,€2005Ð r'Â"- ÐÔ_ÔÐ RHCH(˜#." ÀÌâ@38502 ÀÌâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(œ&ì!/  (ÐÙ* !ÙÌÐ  $*t%0? ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€çÎXXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€Music€is€an€international€languageÐ ° Ðthat€has€the€capacity€to€bring€together€people€from€every€corner€ofÐ xÈ Ðthe€world.€€It€is€also€an€economic€engine,€capable€of€yieldingÐ $t Ðfinancial€gain€to€those€who€own€and€control€it.€€This€appeal,€whichÐ Ð  Ðinvolves€a€controversy€over€the€authorship€of€a€hit€song,€exposesÐ | Ì Ðus€to€that€coarser€side€of€the€music€industry.Ð ( x  Ðà ` àAn€allegation€of€plagiarism€lies€at€the€heart€of€thisÐ Ô$  Ðmatter:€€plaintiff„appellant€Calvin€R.€Johnson€claims€that€a€bevyÐ €Ð  Ðof€defendants€unlawfully€copied€parts€of€his€musical€compositionÐ ,|  Ð"You're€the€One€(For€Me)"€in€order€to€produce€a€song€entitledÐ Ø( Ð"You're€the€One."€€After€the€defendants'€song€was€recorded€by€theÐ „Ô Ðpopular€singing€trio€Sisters€With€Voices€(SWV),€it€shot€to€the€topÐ 0€ Ðof€the€charts.Ð Ü, Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€subsequently€commenced€a€copyrightÐ ˆØ Ðinfringement€action.€€The€district€court€rejected€the€plaintiff'sÐ 4„ Ðcore€contention€of€substantial€similarity€and€granted€summaryÐ à0 Ðjudgment€for€the€defendants.€€The€plaintiff€appeals.€€DiscerningÐ ŒÜ  Ðnothing€off„key€in€the€lower€court's€decision,€we€affirm.Ð 8!ˆ" Ðà@tt)ìàò òòòI.óóˆÐ ä"4$ Ðà@””%ìàBackgroundó óˆÐ ¬$ü& Ðà ` àWe€rehearse€the€background€facts€in€the€light€mostÐ t&Ä!( Ðgenerous€to€the€party€opposing€summary€judgment€(here,€theÐ  (p#* Ðâ âplaintiff)€and€resolve€all€reasonable€inferences€in€that€party'sÐ Ì)%, Ðfavor.€€òòInt'l€Ass'n€of€Machinistsóó€v.€òòWinship€Green€Nursing€Ctr.óó,Ð ° Ð103€F.3d€196,€200€(1st€Cir.€1996).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àOn€March€11,€1999,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€inÐ X Ðfederal€district€court€against€eighteen€defendants,€alleging€inÐ ´  Ðsubstance€that€they€had€infringed€the€copyright€of€his€musicalÐ ` ° Ðcomposition,€"You're€the€One€(For€Me),"€in€violation€of€17€U.S.C.Ð  \  Ððð€501,€and€relatedly,€that€they€had€failed€to€credit€him€as€anÐ ¸  Ðauthor€of€a€song€released€commercially€by€SWV€entitled€"You're€theÐ d´  ÐOne,"€in€violation€of€the€Lanham€Act,€15€U.S.C.€ðð€1125(a).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ForÐ `  Ðpurposes€of€this€appeal,€we€take€as€true€certain€of€the€factsÐ ¼  Ðalleged€in€the€complaint€(the€parties€having€stipulated€that€thoseÐ h¸ Ðallegations,€though€disputed€in€part€by€the€defendants,€may€beÐ d Ðcredited€for€the€limited€purpose€of€deciding€the€summary€judgmentÐ À Ðmotion).€€These€include€the€facts€as€to€the€origin€of€theÐ l¼ Ðcopyrighted€work,€i.e.,€that€the€plaintiff€created€the€musicalÐ h Ðcomposition€"You're€the€One€(For€Me)"€for€a€band€called€SpecialÐ Ä ÐEdition€sometime€between€1990€and€1992.€€They€also€include€theÐ pÀ  Ðaverment€that,€in€1994,€the€plaintiff€met€with€Kenny€Ortiz,€a€vice„Ð ° Ðpresident€of€RCA€Records€(a€division€of€BMG€Music)€to€discuss€theÐ \¬ Ðpossibility€of€signing€Special€Edition€to€a€record€deal.€€At€thatÐ X Ðmeeting,€the€plaintiff€gave€Ortiz€a€videotape€and€audio€demo€tapesÐ ´  Ðof€Special€Edition€performing€"You're€the€One€(For€Me)."ò òó óÐ ` ° Ðà ` àSpecial€Edition€apparently€was€not€the€one€for€RCA€andÐ  \  Ðthe€company€never€offered€the€group€a€recording€contract.€€TheÐ ¸  Ðcomplaint€further€alleges,€however,€that€unbeknownst€to€theÐ d´  Ðplaintiff,€Ortiz€gave€the€tapes€of€the€plaintiff's€song€to€SWV€(aÐ `  Ðvocal€group€under€contract€to€RCA)€and€that€SWV€then€reworked€itÐ ¼  Ðwith€the€assistance€of€other€defendants€to€create€"You're€the€One."Ð h¸ Ðà ` àIt€is€not€disputed€that,€in€March€of€1996,€BMG€releasedÐ d ÐSWV's€recording€of€"You're€the€One"€as€a€single.€€The€song€enjoyedÐ À Ðconsiderable€commercial€success,€rocketing€to€the€top€of€theÐ l¼ ÐBillboard€R&B€singles€chart.€€The€next€month,€the€song€was€releasedÐ h Ðas€part€of€SWV's€album€"New€Beginning,"€which€became€a€gold€record.Ð Ä Ðà ` àDismayed€by€these€developments,€the€plaintiff€filed€aÐ pÀ  Ðcopyright€application€for€"You're€the€One€(For€Me)"€and€depositedÐ !l" Ða€copy€of€the€sheet€music€for€the€song€with€the€United€StatesÐ È"$ ÐCopyright€Office.€€The€Copyright€Office€issued€a€copyrightÐ t$Ä& Ðregistration€for€the€musical€composition€to€the€plaintiff,Ð  &p!( Ðeffective€July€19,€1996.€€The€plaintiff€then€informed€BMG€of€hisÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âbelief€that€SWV's€"You're€the€One"€infringed€his€copyright€inÐ x)È$, Ð"You're€the€One€(For€Me),"€and€demanded€royalties.€€BMG€turned€aÐ ° Ðdeaf€ear€to€these€overtures.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà@88)ìàò òòòII.óóˆÐ X Ðà@´´!ìàTravel€of€the€Caseó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà ` àAfter€holding€an€initial€scheduling€conference,€theÐ ˜ è Ðdistrict€judge€limited€first„stage€discovery€to€the€issue€ofÐ D ”  Ðliability.€€On€February€15,€2001,€the€parties€designatedÐ ð@  Ðmusicological€experts€who€were€expected€to€testify€regardingÐ œì  Ðliability.€€They€then€exchanged€expert€reports.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.Ð H˜  ÐP.€26(a)(2).Ð ôD Ðà ` àIn€March€of€2002,€the€district€judge€referred€the€case€toÐ  ð Ða€magistrate€judge.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðð€636(b)(1)(B);€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð Lœ Ð72(b).€€Over€the€course€of€the€next€year,€the€designated€expertsÐ øH Ð(Kenrick€John€for€the€plaintiff€and€Dr.€Lawrence€Ferrara€for€theÐ ¤ô Ðdefendants)€were€deposed.€€On€May€19,€2003,€the€parties,€in€theÐ P  Ðinterest€of€narrowing€the€issues,€submitted€a€stipulation€ofÐ üL Ðundisputed€facts.€€They€also€submitted€as€exhibits€the€plaintiff'sÐ ¨ø  Ðcertificate€of€copyright,€along€with€certain€sheet€music€andÐ T!¤" Ðrecordings.€€In€the€latter€category,€the€plaintiff€proffered€theÐ #P$ Ðsheet€music€for€and€a€recording€of€the€copyrighted€compositionÐ ¬$ü& Ð"You're€the€One€(For€Me)"€ð"ð€sometimes€referred€to€as€the€"shortÐ X&¨!( Ðversion"€ð"ð€as€well€as€the€sheet€music€for€and€a€recording€of€anÐ (T#* Ðâ âunregistered€variation€of€it€(the€"long€version").€€The€Ô_ÔdefendantsÐ °)%, Ðtendered€copies€of€Ô_ÔSWVÔ_Ô's€released€version€of€"You're€the€One,"Ð ° Ðpublished€sheet€music€for€that€song,€and€a€studio€recording€of€it.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àOn€July€3,€2003,€the€defendants€moved€for€summaryÐ X Ðjudgment€on€both€counts€of€the€complaint.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð ´  Ð56(b).€€The€plaintiff€objected.€€On€March€15,€2004,€the€magistrateÐ ` ° Ðjudge€recommended€the€entry€of€summary€judgment.€€òòJohnsonóó€v.Ð  \  ÐòòGordonóó,€No.€99„10534,€slip€op.€at€30€(D.€Mass.€Mar.€15,€2004)Ð ¸  Ð(unpublished).Ð d´  Ðà ` àIn€his€report,€the€magistrate€judge€first€determined€thatÐ `  Ðthe€Ô_ÔuncopyrightedÔ_Ô€long€version€of€the€plaintiff's€compositionÐ ¼  Ðwarranted€copyright€protection€only€to€the€extent€that€itÐ h¸ Ðincorporated€elements€derived€from€the€copyrighted€short€version.€Ð d ÐòòId.óó€at€8„10.€€As€a€practical€matter,€this€meant€that€the€judge€onlyÐ À Ðneeded€to€probe€for€similarities€between€the€short€version€and€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendants'€song.€€òòId.óó€at€10.Ð h Ðà ` àHaving€identified€the€works€to€be€compared,€theÐ Ä Ðmagistrate€judge€noted€that€the€plaintiff's€expert€had€outlinedÐ pÀ  Ðonly€three€relevant€points€of€ostensible€similarity€between€theÐ !l" Ðplaintiff's€copyrighted€short€version€and€"You're€the€One."€€òòSeeóóÐ È"$ Ðòòid.óó€at€16„17.€€Drilling€down€into€the€record,€the€magistrate€judgeÐ t$Ä& Ðrejected€all€three€proposed€comparisons,€concluding€that€theseÐ  &p!( Ðelements€were€either€dissimilar€or€too€common€to€be€treated€asÐ Ì'#* ÐÔ_ÔprotectableÔ_Ô€expression.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€20„21,€24„26.€€Thus,€theÐ x)È$, Ðcopyright€infringement€claim€failed.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àWith€regard€to€the€Lanham€Act€claim,€the€magistrate€judgeÐ ° Ðconcluded€that€15€U.S.C.€ðð€1125(a)€does€not€safeguard€authors€fromÐ \¬ Ðfalse€designation€of€the€origin€of€their€creative€expressions.€€òòId.óóÐ X Ðat€28„30€(citing€òòÔ_ÔDastarÔ_Ô€Corp.óó€v.€òòTwentieth€Century€Fox€Film€Corp.óó,Ð ´  Ð539€U.S.€23,€37„38€(2003)).€€Consequently,€the€plaintiff€could€notÐ ` ° Ðprevail€on€the€Lanham€Act€count.€€òòId.óó€at€30.Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€filed€objections€to€the€portion€of€theÐ ¸  Ðmagistrate€judge's€report€that€recommended€brevis€disposition€ofÐ d´  Ðthe€copyright€infringement€claim.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€72(b).€€OnÐ `  Ðde€novo€review,€the€district€judge€adopted€the€findings€andÐ ¼  Ðconclusions€contained€in€the€report€and€entered€summary€judgmentÐ h¸ Ðfor€the€defendants.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€timely€appeal€brought€the€matter€to€us.Ð d Ðà@üü(ìàò òòòIII.óóˆÐ À Ðà@  &ìàAnalysisó óˆÐ ˆØ Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€contests€only€the€district€court's€entry€ofÐ P  Ðsummary€judgment€on€the€copyright€infringement€claim€(the€LanhamÐ üL ÐAct€claim€is€out€of€the€case€and€we€will€not€comment€further€onÐ ¨ø  Ðit).€€In€addressing€his€contentions,€we€limn€the€standard€ofÐ T!¤" Ðreview;€describe€a€legal€framework€for€adjudicating€copyrightÐ #P$ Ðinfringement€cases;€consider€whether€identified€similarities€fromÐ ¬$ü& Ðthe€plaintiff's€(Ô_ÔuncopyrightedÔ_Ô)€long€version€of€the€song€areÐ X&¨!( Ðentitled€to€protection;€apply€the€law€to€the€relevant€undisputedÐ ° Ðfacts€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€plaintiff€can€clear€theÐ \¬ Ðsummary€judgment€hurdle;€and,€finally,€sift€through€a€mlange€ofÐ X Ðmiscellaneous€arguments.Ð ´  Ðà@tt)ìàò òòòA.óóˆÐ ` ° Ðà@´´!ìàStandard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ ( x  Ðà ` àWe€afford€de€novo€review€to€the€district€court's€grant€ofÐ ð@  Ðsummary€judgment.€€òòÔ_ÔInt'lÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAss'nÔ_Ô€of€Machinistsóó,€103€F.3d€at€200.€€TheÐ œì  Ðoffice€of€summary€judgment€is€"to€pierce€the€pleadings€and€toÐ H˜  Ðassess€the€proof€in€order€to€see€whether€there€is€a€genuine€needÐ ôD Ðfor€trial."€€òòÔ_ÔGarsideÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔOscoÔ_Ô€Drug,€Inc.óó,€895€F.2d€46,€50€(1st€Cir.Ð  ð Ð1990)€(quoting€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€advisory€committee's€note).€€InÐ Lœ Ðcarrying€out€this€function,€we€must€review€the€entire€record€"inÐ øH Ðthe€light€most€hospitable€to€the€party€opposing€summary€judgmentÐ ¤ô Ð(here,€the€plaintiff),€indulging€all€reasonable€inferences€in€thatÐ P  Ðparty's€favor."€€òòÔ_ÔEuromodasÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔZanellaÔ_Ô,€Ltd.óó,€368€F.3d€11,€17Ð üL Ð(1st€Cir.€2004).€€When€the€nonmovant€bears€the€ultimate€burden€ofÐ ¨ø  Ðproof€on€a€given€issue,€he€must€make€a€factual€showing,€by€means€ofÐ T!¤" Ðcompetent€and€specific€evidence,€sufficient€to€establish€theÐ #P$ Ðessential€elements€of€his€claim.€€òòÔ_ÔMesnickÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòGen.€Elec.€Co.óó,€950Ð ¬$ü& ÐF.2d€816,€822€(1st€Cir.€1991);€òòÔ_ÔGarsideÔ_Ôóó,€895€F.2d€at€48.€€SummaryÐ X&¨!( Ðjudgment€is€appropriate€as€long€as€"the€pleadings,€depositions,Ð (T#* Ðanswers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€withÐ °)%, Ðthe€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€toÐ \+¬&. Ðany€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€aÐ ° Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law."€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56(c).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àIn€the€precincts€patrolled€by€Rule€56,€these€standardsÐ X Ðgovern€trial€and€appellate€courts€alike.€€As€an€appellate€tribunal,Ð ´  Ðhowever,€we€are€"not€bound€by€the€lower€court's€rationale€but€mayÐ ` ° Ðaffirm€the€entry€of€judgment€on€any€independent€ground€rooted€inÐ  \  Ðthe€record."€€òòÔ_ÔInt'lÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAss'nÔ_Ô€of€Machinistsóó,€103€F.3d€at€200.Ð ¸  Ðà@tt)ìàò òòòB.óóˆÐ d´  Ðà@$ $ ìàThe€Legal€Framework€for€Copyright€Infringementó óˆÐ ,|  Ðà ` àCopyright€protection€can€subsist€in€an€original€musicalÐ ôD Ðwork,€including€any€accompanying€words,€fixed€in€any€tangibleÐ  ð Ðmedium€of€expression.€€17€U.S.C.€ðð€102(a).€€Subject€to€certainÐ Lœ Ðexceptions€and€limitations€(not€relevant€here),€the€owner€of€aÐ øH Ðvalid€copyright€in€a€musical€work€enjoys€exclusive€rights€toÐ ¤ô Ðreproduce€all€or€any€part€of€the€copyrighted€work,€prepare€a€workÐ P  Ðderivative€of€it,€distribute€copies€of€it,€perform€or€display€it,Ð üL Ðand€authorize€others€to€exercise€any€of€these€rights.€€òòId.óó€ðð€106.€Ð ¨ø  ÐOne€who€violates€any€of€these€exclusive€rights€is€an€infringer€ofÐ T!¤" Ðthe€copyright,€and€the€legal€or€beneficial€owner€of€the€copyrightÐ #P$ Ð(or€of€an€exclusive€right€thereunder)€may€institute€an€action€forÐ ¬$ü& Ðinfringement€against€him.€€òòId.óó€ðð€501.Ð X&¨!( Ðà ` àTo€establish€copyright€infringement€under€the€CopyrightÐ (T#* ÐAct,€"two€elements€must€be€proven:€€(1)€ownership€of€a€validÐ °)%, Ðcopyright,€and€(2)€copying€of€constituent€elements€of€the€work€thatÐ \+¬&. Ðare€original."€€òòÔ_ÔFeistÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPubl'nsÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó€v.€òòRural€Tel.€Serv.€Co.óó,€499Ð ° ÐU.S.€340,€361€(1991).€€The€plaintiff€bears€the€burden€of€proof€asÐ \¬ Ðto€both€elements.€€òòGrubbóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔKMSÔ_Ô€Patriots,€L.P.óó,€88€F.3d€1,€3,€5Ð X Ð(1st€Cir.€1996).Ð ´  Ðà ` àIn€this€appeal,€the€plaintiff's€ownership€of€a€validÐ ` ° Ðcopyright€is€not€challenged,€so€the€first€element€requires€littleÐ  \  Ðelaboration.€€It€suffices€to€say€that€the€plaintiff€must€show€thatÐ ¸  Ðthe€work,€viewed€as€a€whole,€is€original,€and€that€the€applicableÐ d´  Ðstatutory€requirements€ancillary€to€the€issuance€of€a€validÐ `  Ðcopyright€have€been€satisfied.€€òòLotus€Dev.€Corp.óó€v.€òòBorland€Ô_ÔInt'lÔ_Ô,Ð ¼  ÐInc.óó,€49€F.3d€807,€813€(1st€Cir.€1995).€€A€certificate€of€copyrightÐ h¸ Ðconstitutes€prima€facie€evidence€of€ownership€and€originality€ofÐ d Ðthe€work€as€a€whole.€€òòÔ_ÔMileneÔ_Ô€Music,€Inc.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔGotaucoÔ_Ôóó,€551€F.€Supp.Ð À Ð1288,€1293€(Ô_ÔD.R.I.Ô_Ô€1982).ò òó ó€€Upon€the€plaintiff's€production€of€suchÐ l¼ Ða€certificate,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€defendant€to€demonstrateÐ h Ðsome€infirmity€in€the€claimed€copyright.€€òòÔ_ÔCMMÔ_Ô€Cable€Rep,€Inc.óó€v.Ð Ä ÐòòOcean€Coast€Props.,€Inc.óó,€97€F.3d€1504,€1513€(1st€Cir.€1996).Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àThe€second€of€the€òòÔ_ÔFeistÔ_Ôóó€elements€lies€at€the€epicenter€ofÐ !l" Ðthis€appeal.€€Although€that€element€typically€turns€on€anÐ È"$ Ðallegation€of€copying,€it€is€important€to€note€that€copying€doesÐ t$Ä& Ðnot€invariably€constitute€copyright€infringement.€€òòÔ_ÔFeistÔ_Ôóó,€499€U.S.Ð  &p!( Ðat€361.€€Proof€of€wrongful€copying€is€a€two„step€process.€€First,Ð Ì'#* Ðthe€plaintiff€must€show€that€copying€actually€occurred.€€ThisÐ x)È$, Ðshowing€entails€proof€that,€as€a€factual€matter,€the€defendantÐ $+t&. ÐÔ_Ôcopied€the€plaintiff's€copyrighted€material.€€òòSegrets,€Inc.óó€v.Ð ° ÐòòGillman€Knitwear€Co.óó,€207€F.3d€56,€60€(1st€Cir.€2000).€€Second,€theÐ \¬ Ðplaintiff€must€establish€that€the€copying€is€actionable€byÐ X Ð"prov[ing]€that€the€copying€of€the€copyrighted€material€was€soÐ ´  Ðextensive€that€it€rendered€the€infringing€and€copyrighted€worksÐ ` ° Ð'substantially€similar.'"€€òòId.óóÐ  \  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€may€satisfy€his€first„step€burden€by€eitherÐ ¸  Ðdirect€or€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€Plagiarists€rarely€work€inÐ d´  Ðthe€open€and€direct€proof€of€actual€copying€is€seldom€available.€Ð `  ÐTo€fill€that€void,€the€plaintiff€may€satisfy€his€obligationÐ ¼  Ðindirectly€by€adducing€evidence€that€the€alleged€infringer€enjoyedÐ h¸ Ðaccess€to€the€copyrighted€work€and€that€a€sufficient€degree€ofÐ d Ðsimilarity€exists€between€the€copyrighted€work€and€the€allegedlyÐ À Ðinfringing€work€to€give€rise€to€an€inference€of€actual€copying.€Ð l¼ ÐòòSeeóó€òòLotus€Dev.óó,€49€F.3d€at€813.€€We€have€referred€to€that€degree€ofÐ h Ðsimilarity€as€"probative€similarity."€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòid.óó€(admonishingÐ Ä Ðthat€"probative€similarity"€requires€that€the€two€works€are€"soÐ pÀ  Ðsimilar€that€the€court€may€infer€that€there€was€factual€copying").Ð !l" ÐThis€requirement€of€probative€similarity€is€somewhat€akin€to,€butÐ È"$ Ðdifferent€than,€the€requirement€of€substantial€similarity€thatÐ t$Ä& Ðemerges€at€the€second€step€in€the€progression.€€òòSeeóó€4€Melville€B.Ð  &p!( ÐNimmer€&€David€Nimmer,€Nimmer€on€Copyright€ðð€13.03[A],€at€13„33Ð Ì'#* Ð(2004)€[hereinafter€Nimmer]€("Although€the€term€'substantialÐ x)È$, Ðsimilarity'€often€is€invoked€as€a€proxy€to€prove€copying€as€aÐ $+t&. Ðfactual€proposition,€we€have€seen€that€the€term€'probativeÐ ° Ðsimilarity'€is€to€be€preferred€in€that€context€and€the€question€ofÐ \¬ Ð'substantially€similarity'€arises€analytically€only€thereafter.").Ð X Ðà ` àThe€substantial€similarity€requirement€focusesÐ ´  Ðholistically€on€the€works€in€question€and€entails€proof€that€theÐ ` ° Ðcopying€was€so€extensive€that€it€rendered€the€works€so€similar€thatÐ  \  Ðthe€later€work€represented€a€wrongful€appropriation€of€expression.€Ð ¸  ÐòòSeeóó€òòYankee€Candle€Co.óó€v.€òòBridgewater€Candle€Co.óó,€259€F.3d€25,€33Ð d´  Ð(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòSegretsóó,€207€F.3d€at€60.€€Summary€judgment€on€thisÐ `  Ðissue€is€appropriate€only€when€a€rational€factfinder,€correctlyÐ ¼  Ðapplying€the€pertinent€legal€standards,€would€be€compelled€toÐ h¸ Ðconclude€that€no€substantial€similarity€exists€between€theÐ d Ðcopyrighted€work€and€the€allegedly€infringing€work.€€òòO'Neillóó€v.Ð À ÐòòDell€Publ'g€Co.óó,€630€F.2d€685,€687€(1st€Cir.€1980).Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€"ordinary€observer"€test€or,€in€a€musical€milieu,€theÐ h Ð"ordinary€listener"€test,€supplies€a€framework€for€gaugingÐ Ä Ðsubstantial€similarity.€€Under€that€metric,€the€defendant's€workÐ pÀ  Ðwill€be€said€to€be€substantially€similar€to€the€copyrighted€work€ifÐ !l" Ðan€ordinary€person€of€reasonable€attentiveness€would,€uponÐ È"$ Ðlistening€to€both,€conclude€that€the€defendant€unlawfullyÐ t$Ä& Ðappropriated€the€plaintiff's€protectable€expression.€€òòSeeóó€òòConcreteÐ  &p!( ÐMach.€Co.óó€v.€òòClassic€Lawn€Ornamentsóó,€843€F.2d€600,€607€(1st€Cir.Ð Ì'#* Ð1988);€òòEduc.€Testing€Servs.óó€v.€òòKatzmanóó,€793€F.2d€533,€541€(3d€Cir.Ð x)È$, Ð1986).€€Works€can€be€substantially€similar€despite€the€presence€Ô_ÔofÐ $+t&. Ðdisparities.€€The€key€is€whether€"the€ordinary€observer,€unless€heÐ ° Ðset€out€to€detect€the€disparities,€would€be€disposed€to€overlookÐ \¬ Ðthem,€and€regard€[the€works']€aesthetic€appeal€as€the€same."€€òòPeterÐ X ÐPan€Fabrics,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMartin€Weiner€Corp.óó,€274€F.2d€487,€489€(2dÐ ´  ÐCir.€1960).Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€requirement€of€originality€cuts€across€both€of€theseÐ  \  Ðsimilarity€criteria.€€The€resemblances€relied€upon€as€a€basis€forÐ ¸  Ðfinding€probative€similarity€must€refer€to€"constituent€elements€ofÐ d´  Ðthe€[copyrighted]€work€that€are€original."€€òòÔ_ÔFeistÔ_Ôóó,€499€U.S.€at€361.€Ð `  ÐThus,€in€examining€whether€actual€copying€has€occurred,€a€courtÐ ¼  Ðmust€engage€in€dissection€of€the€copyrighted€work€by€separating€itsÐ h¸ Ðoriginal,€protected€expressive€elements€from€those€aspects€that€areÐ d Ðnot€Ô_ÔcopyrightableÔ_Ô€because€they€represent€unprotected€ideas€orÐ À Ðunoriginal€expressions.€€òòSeeóó€òòConcrete€Mach.óó,€843€F.2d€at€608.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àò òó óTo€the€extent€that€the€copyrighted€work€and€the€allegedlyÐ h Ðinfringing€work€exhibit€probative€similarities€from€which€actualÐ Ä Ðcopying€might€be€inferred,€the€ensuing€analysis€must€address€theÐ pÀ  Ðquestion€of€substantial€similarity€(and,€thus,€determine€whetherÐ !l" Ðwrongful€appropriation€occurred).€€While€a€finding€of€substantialÐ È"$ Ðsimilarity€vel€non€derives€from€an€examination€of€the€juxtaposedÐ t$Ä& Ðworks€as€a€whole,€that€examination€must€focus€on€"what€aspects€ofÐ  &p!( Ðthe€plaintiff's€work€are€Ô_ÔprotectibleÔ_Ô€under€copyright€laws€andÐ Ì'#* Ðwhether€whatever€copying€took€place€appropriated€those€[protected]Ð x)È$, Ðelements."€€òòMatthewsóó€v.€òòFreedmanóó,€157€F.3d€25,€27€(1st€Cir.€1998).€Ð $+t&. ÐAfter€all,€"[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ôòòóó€mere€fact€that€a€work€is€copyrighted€does€notÐ ° Ðmean€that€every€element€of€the€work€may€be€protected.€€OriginalityÐ \¬ Ðremains€the€òòsineóó€òòquaóó€òònonóó€of€copyright€.€.€.€."€€€€òòÔ_ÔFeistÔ_Ôóó,€499€U.S.Ð X Ðat€348.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThis€makes€perfect€sense:€€copyright€law€protectsÐ ` ° Ðoriginal€expressions€of€ideas€but€it€does€not€safeguard€either€theÐ  \  Ðideas€themselves€or€banal€expressions€of€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€345„51.€Ð ¸  ÐThus,€in€assessing€whether€substantial€similarity€exists,€anÐ d´  Ðoverall€impression€of€similarity€may€not€be€enough.€€òòSeeóó€òòMatthewsóó,Ð `  Ð157€F.3d€at€27.€€If€such€an€impression€flows€from€similarities€asÐ ¼  Ðto€elements€that€are€not€themselves€Ô_ÔcopyrightableÔ_Ô,€it€will€notÐ h¸ Ðsatisfy€the€predicate€requirement€of€originality€necessary€toÐ d Ðground€a€finding€of€actionable€copying.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòConcreteÐ À ÐMach.óó,€843€F.2d€at€608„09.Ð l¼ Ðà@tt)ìàò òòòC.óóˆÐ h Ðà@\ \ ìàThe€Long€and€the€Short€of€Itó óˆÐ à0 Ðà ` àWe€turn€now€to€the€case€at€hand.€€As€is€often€true€inÐ ¨ø  Ðmusical€copyright€actions,€each€side€relied€heavily€on€its€ownÐ T!¤" Ðexpert.€€Since€the€district€court€decided€this€case€on€summaryÐ #P$ Ðjudgment,€we€leave€to€one€side€the€relative€qualifications€of€theÐ ¬$ü& Ðtwo€experts€and,€consistent€with€our€obligation€to€take€the€summaryÐ X&¨!( Ðjudgment€record€in€the€light€most€flattering€to€the€nonmovant,Ð (T#* ÐòòÔ_ÔEuromodasÔ_Ôóó,€368€F.3d€at€17,€concentrate€principally€on€the€viewsÐ °)%, Ðarticulated€by€the€plaintiff's€chosen€expert,€Ô_ÔKenrickÔ_Ô€John.Ð \+¬&. ÐÔ_Ôà ` àIn€the€expert€report€submitted€to€buttress€the€claim€ofÐ ° Ðcopyright€infringement,€Mr.€John€noted€seven€similarities€betweenÐ \¬ Ðthe€disputed€songs.€€Of€these,€four€relied€on€a€comparison€betweenÐ X Ðhis€transcriptions€of€the€unregistered€long€version€of€theÐ ´  Ðplaintiff's€song€and€SWV's€recording€of€the€defendants'€song.€Ð ` ° ÐWhile€the€defendants€do€not€contest€the€validity€of€the€plaintiff'sÐ  \  Ðcopyright€registration€for€the€short€version€(at€least€at€theÐ ¸  Ðsummary€judgment€stage),€they€asseverate€that€the€plaintiff€cannot,Ð d´  Ðas€a€matter€of€law,€stretch€the€carapace€of€that€ownership€toÐ `  Ðgarner€copyright€protection€for€elements€unique€to€theÐ ¼  Ð(unregistered)€long€version.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€demurs.€€Relying€on€òòG.€Ricordi€&€Co.óó€v.Ð d ÐòòParamount€Picturesóó,€189€F.2d€469€(2d€Cir.€1951),€he€contends€thatÐ À Ðthe€long€version,€although€unregistered,€nevertheless€enjoysÐ l¼ Ðlimited€copyright€protection€because€significant€portions€of€it€areÐ h Ðderived€from€the€registered€short€version.€€That€limitedÐ Ä Ðprotection,€however,€does€not€extend€as€far€as€the€plaintiffÐ pÀ  Ðsuggests.Ð !l" Ðà ` àSince€the€Copyright€Act€of€1976€took€effect,€registrationÐ È"$ Ðis€no€longer€a€statutory€prerequisite€to€copyright€protection.€€òòSeeóóÐ t$Ä& Ð17€U.S.C.€ðð€408(a).€€Withal,€registration€is€a€precondition€forÐ  &p!( Ðbringing€a€copyright€infringement€suit.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€411(a).€€It€isÐ Ì'#* Ðalso€a€condition€precedent€for€obtaining€certain€remedies,€such€asÐ x)È$, Ðstatutory€damages€and€attorneys'€fees.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€412.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àòòRicordióó€was€a€pre„1976€case,€but€its€central€holdingÐ ° Ðsurvives€the€enactment€of€the€Copyright€Act€of€1976:€€a€valid,Ð \¬ Ðenforceable€copyright€on€an€underlying€work€extends€to€protectÐ X Ðthose€elements€of€a€new€work€that€are€derived€directly€from€theÐ ´  Ðunderlying€work.€€òòSeeóó€òòRicordióó,€189€F.2d€at€472.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àIn€òòRicordióó,€the€court€determined€that€upon€the€expirationÐ  \  Ðof€the€copyright€of€a€play,€the€owner€of€a€copyright€for€anÐ ¸  Ðunderlying€novel€was€entitled€to€continuing€copyright€protection€ofÐ d´  Ðthose€materials€in€the€play€that€derived€directly€from€the€novel,Ð `  Ðbut€not€of€any€elements€idiosyncratic€to€the€play.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€CitingÐ ¼  ÐòòRicordióó,€we€have€held€that€under€the€current€permissive„Ð h¸ Ðregistration€regime,€a€plaintiff€may€bring€a€suit€for€unauthorizedÐ d Ðdistribution€of€an€unregistered€derivative€work€as€long€as€the€suitÐ À Ðis€based€on€elements€"borrowed"€from€a€registered€underlying€workÐ l¼ Ðand€not€on€elements€original€to€the€derivative€work.€€òòSeeóó€òòGammaÐ h ÐAudio€&€Video,€Inc.óó€v.€òòEan„Cheaóó,€11€F.3d€1106,€1112€(1st€Cir.Ð Ä Ð1993).€€Put€another€way,€elements€distinct€to€an€unregistered€workÐ pÀ  Ðcannot€draw€protection€from€a€registered€work€even€though€theÐ !l" Ðlatter€may€contain€the€seminal€idea€that€inspired€both€works.€€òòSeeóóÐ È"$ Ð2€Nimmer€ðð€7.16[B][2][b].Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àAs€applied€here,€the€òòRicordióó€doctrine€extends€copyrightÐ  &p!( Ðprotection€to€those€elements€of€the€plaintiff's€long€version€thatÐ Ì'#* Ðare€derived€directly€from€the€registered€short€version,€but€not€toÐ x)È$, Ðthose€elements€contained€exclusively€in€the€unregistered€longÐ $+t&. Ðversion.€€The€four€elements€identified€by€Mr.€John€and€listed€inÐ ° Ðpoints€three€through€six€of€his€report€appear€solely€in€the€longÐ \¬ Ðversion.€€The€plaintiff€does€not€offer€any€argument€that€theÐ X Ðelements€appearing€solely€in€the€long€version€are€somehow€stillÐ ´  Ðderived€from€the€elements€appearing€in€both€versions.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€For€thatÐ ` ° Ðreason,€those€new€elements€cannot€form€the€basis€for€a€charge€ofÐ  \  Ðunlawful€copying€and,€accordingly,€drop€out€of€the€infringementÐ ¸  Ðequation.Ð d´  Ðòòóóà@tt)ìàò òòòD.óóˆÐ `  Ðà@¨ ¨ ìàCopyright€Infringement€Analysisó óˆÐ Ø( Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€there€is€no€dispute€about€the€plaintiff'sÐ  ð Ðownership€of€a€valid€copyright€for€the€short€version€of€his€songÐ Lœ Ð(at€least€at€the€summary€judgment€stage).€€Thus,€we€jump€directlyÐ øH Ðto€the€question€of€whether€the€plaintiff€has€made€a€factual€showingÐ ¤ô Ðsufficient€to€establish€a€genuine€issue€as€to€the€two€elementsÐ P  Ðunderpinning€òòFeistóó's€copying€requirement:€€actual€copying€andÐ üL Ðactionable€copying.€€Because€the€plaintiff€has€not€proffered€directÐ ¨ø  Ðevidence€of€actual€copying,€he€must€support€that€element€byÐ T!¤" Ðindirect€evidence€demonstrating€access€and€probative€similarity.€Ð #P$ ÐThe€determination€made€in€Part€II(C)€renders€his€burden€ofÐ ¬$ü& Ðestablishing€both€probative€similarity€(for€purposes€of€supportingÐ X&¨!( Ðan€inference€of€actual€copying)€and€substantial€similarity€(forÐ ° Ðpurposes€of€the€actionable€copying€element)€dependent€on€threeÐ \¬ Ðpurported€similarities€(points€one,€two,€and€seven€in€Mr.€John'sÐ X Ðreport)€and€a€free„floating€assertion€of€lyrical€similarity.€€WeÐ ´  Ðundertake€a€point„by„point€analysis.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àò ò1.€€òòPoint€Oneóó.ó ó€€Mr.€John's€report€took€the€position€thatÐ  \  Ðthe€melody€supporting€the€lyric€"You're€the€One€for€Me"€in€bars€1Ð Ô$  Ðand€2€of€the€defendants'€ballad€is€a€melodic€variation€of€theÐ €Ð  Ðmelody€underlying€the€same€lyric€in€bars€16€and€17€of€theÐ ,|  Ðplaintiff's€short€version.€€The€report€singles€out€two€knownÐ Ø( Ðcompositional€methodologies€ð"ð€"inversion"€and€"retrograde"€ð"ð€thatÐ „Ô Ða€composer€might€use€to€vary€a€particular€melody€and€asserts€thatÐ 0€ Ðthe€melody€in€bars€1€and€2€of€the€defendants'€song€represents€thoseÐ Ü, Ð"two€very€common€variations"€of€the€plaintiff's€melody€for€bars€16Ð ˆØ Ðand€17€of€the€short€version.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 4„ Ðà ` àHere,€as€elsewhere,€the€witness's€bald€conclusion€must€beÐ à0 Ðread€in€light€of€his€explanatory€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòEuromodasóó,€368Ð ŒÜ  ÐF.3d€at€19€(viewing€deponent's€statements€"as€a€whole"€for€purposesÐ 8!ˆ" Ðof€summary€judgment).€€During€his€deposition,€Mr.€John€revealedÐ ä"4$ Ðthat€it€was€necessary€to€apply€a€series€of€other€alterations€to€theÐ $à& Ðplaintiff's€melody,€beyond€the€mechanisms€of€inversion€andÐ ° Ðretrograde,€in€order€to€arrive€at€a€melody€that€bore€anyÐ \¬ Ðresemblance€to€bars€1€and€2€of€the€defendants'€song.€€He€alsoÐ X Ðadmitted€that€even€in€this€contrived€format,€the€plaintiff's€two„Ð ´  Ðbar€melody€still€did€not€yield€a€close€match€to€the€defendants'Ð ` ° Ðtwo„bar€melody.Ð  \  Ðà ` àA€look€at€the€techniques€employed€by€Mr.€John€in€hisÐ ¸  Ðherculean€effort€to€assimilate€the€two€melodies€makes€manifest€theÐ d´  Ðabsence€of€any€meaningful€degree€of€similarity.€€The€witness€firstÐ `  Ðtransposed€bars€16€and€17€of€the€plaintiff's€composition€into€DÐ ¼  Ðflat€(the€key€of€the€defendants'€song).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€then€altered€theÐ h¸ Ðmelody€by€raising€it€a€perfect€fifth€(moving€each€note€seven€half„Ð d Ðsteps€up€the€musical€scale).€€At€that€point,€he€applied€the€knownÐ À Ðformula€for€inversion,€but€altered€the€rhythm€to€match€that€of€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendants'€song.€€And,€finally,€he€added€an€A€flat€note€to€theÐ h Ðaltered,€inverted€version€of€the€plaintiff's€bars€16€and€17.€€TheseÐ Ä Ðmachinations€yielded€two€bars€with€the€following€notes€and€pitches:Ð pÀ  Ðà8 ` àA€flat,€A€flat,€G,€F,€C€tied,€D€flatÐ!l"` x` x Ðâ âà8 ` à5,€5,€4,€3,€7,€1ÐÈ"$` x` x ÐMr.€John€likened€this€finessed€result€to€bars€1€and€2€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âdefendants'€song,€which€used€the€following€notes€and€pitches:Ð \¬ Ðà8 ` àA€flat,€A€flat,€G,€F,€E€flat€tied,€D€flatÐX` x` x Ðà8 ` à5,€5,€4,€3,€2,€1д ` x` x Ðà ` àThis€outcome€does€little€to€advance€the€plaintiff'sÐ ` ° Ðcause.€€Mr.€John€acknowledged€that,€even€after€undergoing€theÐ  \  Ðmanipulations€described€above,€bars€16€and€17€of€the€plaintiff'sÐ ¸  Ðsong€still€differed€from€the€bars€1€and€2€of€the€defendants'€songÐ d´  Ðwith€respect€to€the€fifth€note€and€the€melodic€contour€(theÐ `  Ðarrangement€of€pitches).€€As€to€the€latter,€he€conceded€that€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff's€altered€two„bar€melody€descends€from€5€to€3,€rises€upÐ h¸ Ðto€7,€and€then€descends€back€to€3,€whereas€the€defendants'€two„barÐ d Ðmelody€continually€descends€from€5€to€1.€€He€also€conceded€that€theÐ À Ðmelodic€contour€employed€by€the€defendants€ð"ð€the€descending€scaleÐ l¼ Ðof€5,€4,€3,€2,€1€ð"ð€was€a€"very€common"€melodic€pattern€that€appearsÐ h Ðin€such€hoary€songs€as€"Row,€Row,€Row€Your€Boat"€(specifically,€theÐ Ä Ðmelody€that€accompanies€the€lyric€"life€is€but€a€dream").Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àIn€comparing€the€retrograde€variation€of€the€plaintiff'sÐ !l" Ðbars€16€and€17€to€defendants'€bars€1€and€2,€Mr.€John€again€alteredÐ È"$ Ðthe€rhythm€to€match€the€defendants'€song€and€added€an€A€flat€note.€Ð t$Ä& ÐYet,€even€with€the€benefit€of€these€emendations,€differencesÐ  &p!( Ðpersisted€between€the€retrograde€version€of€the€defendant's€two„barÐ Ì'#* Ðmelody€and€its€proposed€counterpart.€€For€example,€the€third€notes€Ð x)È$, Ðof€the€sequences€do€not€coincide.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àBare€conclusions€seldom€are€entitled€to€weight€in€theÐ ° Ðsummary€judgment€calculus.€€òòGrant's€Dairyð"ðMaine,€LLCóó€v.€òòComm'r€ofÐ \¬ ÐMe.€Dep't€of€Agric.,€Food€&€Rural€Res.óó,€232€F.3d€8,€23€(1st€Cir.Ð X Ð2000).€€Here,€Mr.€John's€deposition€testimony€totally€underminedÐ ´  Ðhis€stated€conclusion€that€the€defendants'€two„bar€melody€was€aÐ ` ° Ðmelodic€variation€derived€from€the€plaintiff's€song.€€Taking€hisÐ  \  Ðtestimony€at€face€value,€the€defendants'€bars€1€and€2€do€notÐ ¸  Ðrepresent€either€a€simple€inversion€or€retrograde€of€theÐ d´  Ðplaintiff's€bars€16€and€17,€but,€rather,€a€complicated€mlange€ofÐ `  Ðtechniques.€€Those€two„bar€segments€are€not€identical€twins€or€evenÐ ¼  Ðsisters€under€the€skin;€their€relationship€is€something€more€akinÐ h¸ Ðto€that€of€second€cousins,€twice€removed.Ð d Ðà ` àRelationship€does€not€necessarily€breed€similarity,€andÐ À Ðthe€plaintiff€has€offered€no€support€for€the€proposition€thatÐ l¼ Ðmusically€related€but€distinct€melodic€fragments€may€give€rise€toÐ h Ðan€inference€of€actual€copying.€€There€is€no€facial€similarityÐ Ä Ðbetween€the€melodies€of€the€relevant€segments€as€they€are€written.€Ð pÀ  ÐThe€most€that€can€be€said€is€that€the€two€segments€bear€someÐ !l" Ðrelation€to€one€another€within€a€finite€world€of€melodies.€€GivenÐ È"$ Ðthe€limited€musical€vocabulary€available€to€composers,€this€is€farÐ t$Ä& Ðfrom€enough€to€support€an€inference€of€actual€copying.€€òòSeeóó€òòGasteóóÐ  &p!( Ðv.€òòKaisermanóó,€863€F.2d€1061,€1068€(2d€Cir.€1988)€(noting€that,€inÐ Ì'#* Ðassessing€evidence€of€actual€copying,€a€court€must€be€"mindful€ofÐ x)È$, Ðthe€limited€number€of€notes€and€chords€available€to€composers€andÐ $+t&. Ðthe€resulting€fact€that€common€themes€frequently€reappear€inÐ ° Ðvarious€compositions,€especially€in€popular€music");€òòSelleóó€v.€òòGibbóó,Ð \¬ Ð741€F.2d€896,€905€(7th€Cir.€1984)€(finding€that€"in€a€field€such€asÐ X Ðthat€of€popular€music€in€which€all€songs€are€relatively€short€andÐ ´  Ðtend€to€build€on€or€repeat€a€basic€theme,"€testimony€concerning€theÐ ` ° Ðrelative€complexity€or€uniqueness€of€two€compositions€"seem[s]€toÐ  \  Ðbe€particularly€necessary"€to€establish€the€inference€of€copying).Ð ¸  Ðà ` àWe€add,€moreover,€that€the€occurrence€of€five€of€the€sixÐ d´  Ðpitches€of€the€defendants'€melody€in€the€public€domainòòóó€reinforcesÐ `  Ðthe€view€that€whatever€resemblance€might€exist€between€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff's€and€the€defendants'€two„bar€melodies€is€legallyÐ h¸ Ðinsignificant.€€The€fact€that€the€sequence€of€the€latter€fiveÐ d Ðpitches€of€the€defendants'€5,€5,€4,€3,€2,€1€melodic€contour€isÐ À Ðcommon€and€readily€available€in€the€public€domain€ð"ð€the€"Row,€Row,Ð l¼ ÐRow€Your€Boat"€example€is€persuasive€on€this€point€ð"ð€arguesÐ h Ðconvincingly€against€any€inference€that€the€defendants€relied€uponÐ Ä Ðthe€plaintiff's€work€to€generate€it.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGasteóó,€863€F.2d€atÐ pÀ  Ð1068„69;€òòGranite€Music€Corp.óó€v.€òòUnited€Artists€Corp.óó,€532€F.2d€718,Ð !l" Ð720€(9th€Cir.€1976);€òòArnsteinóó€v.€òòEdward€B.€Marks€Music€Corp.óó,€82Ð È"$ ÐF.2d€275,€277€(2d€Cir.€1936);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€II€Paul€Goldstein,€CopyrightÐ t$Ä& Ðâ âðð€8.3.1,€at€8:48€(2d€ed.€2005€Supp.)€(explaining€that€theÐ  &p!( Ðavailability€of€the€allegedly€infringing€musical€segment€in€theÐ ° Ðpublic€domain€rebuts€the€inference€of€copying).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àThe€upshot€is€that€we,€like€the€district€court,€find€thisÐ X Ðso„called€"similarity"€too€attenuated€to€be€deemed€probative€forÐ ´  Ðpurposes€of€supporting€an€evidentiary€inference€of€actual€copying.€Ð ` ° ÐThus,€point€one€does€nothing€to€fuel€the€plaintiff's€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÐ  \  ÐòòLotus€Dev.óó,€49€F.3d€at€813€(finding€of€probative€similarityÐ ¸  Ðrequires€that€copyrighted€work€and€allegedly€infringing€work€are€soÐ d´  Ðsimilar€that€factual€copying€can€be€inferred).Ð `  Ðà ` àò ò2.€€òòPoint€Twoóó.ó ó€€In€his€report,€Mr.€John€observed€that€theÐ ¼  Ðharmony€of€bars€1€and€2€of€the€defendants'€song€is€the€same€harmonyÐ „Ô Ðthat€accompanies€bars€17€and€18€of€the€plaintiff's€short€version.€Ð 0€ ÐOnce€again,€his€deposition€testimony€sheds€light€on€the€conclusoryÐ Ü, Ðstatement€contained€in€his€report.€€In€that€testimony,€Mr.€JohnÐ ˆØ Ðidentified€this€similarity€as€a€III,€II€harmonic€progression€ð"ð€aÐ 4„ Ðtype€of€progression€from€a€mediant€chord€to€a€supertonic€chord,Ð à0 Ðcommonly€inserted€in€popular€and€jazz€music€to€"create€a€sense€ofÐ ° Ðinstability€.€.€.€with€the€hope€of€resolving€at€some€point."€€Mr.Ð \¬ ÐJohn€agreed€that€this€progression€can€be€found€in€thousands€ofÐ X Ðsongs.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€has€not€presented€any€evidenceÐ ` ° Ðcontradicting€his€own€expert's€assessment€of€the€ubiquity€of€theÐ  \  ÐIII,€II€harmonic€progression.€€Virtually€by€definition,€expressionsÐ ¸  Ðthat€are€common€are€also€unoriginal.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòYankee€Candleóó,€259Ð d´  ÐF.3d€at€35;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòFeistóó,€499€U.S.€at€345€(noting€that€althoughÐ `  Ðoriginality€does€not€require€novelty,€it€does€demand€that€anÐ ¼  Ðexpression€exhibit€"at€least€some€minimal€degree€of€creativity").ò òó ó€Ð h¸ ÐSo€it€is€here:€€this€harmonic€progression,€which€is€a€stereotypicalÐ d Ðbuilding€block€of€musical€composition,€lacks€originality.€Ð À ÐAccordingly,€it€is€unprotectable.€€òòSeeóó€òòMatthewsóó,€157€F.3d€at€27Ð l¼ Ð(noting€that€unoriginal€expressions€are€not€copyrightable);€òòseeóóÐ h Ðòòalsoóó€òòTisióó€v.€òòPatrickóó,€97€F.€Supp.€2d€539,€544€(S.D.N.Y.€2000)Ð Ä Ð(finding€the€I,€IV€harmonic€progression€not€protectable€due€to€itsÐ pÀ  Ðcommonality);€òòIntersong„USAóó€v.€òòCBS,€Inc.óó,€757€F.€Supp.€274,€282Ð !l" Ð(S.D.N.Y.€1991)€(finding€a€certain€harmonic€progressionÐ È"$ Ðunprotectable€because€it€appears€in€many€songs);€òòseeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòN.Ð t$Ä& ÐMusic€Corp.óó€v.€òòKing€Record€Distrib.€Co.óó,€105€F.€Supp.€393,€400Ð  &p!( Ð(S.D.N.Y.€1952)€(observing€that€harmony€"is€achieved€according€toÐ Ì'#* Ðrules€which€have€been€known€for€many€years"€and€that€"[b]eing€inÐ x)È$, Ðthe€public€domain€for€so€long,"€it€cannot€itself€be€the€subject€ofÐ $+t&. Ðcopyright);€1€Nimmer€ðð€2.05[D],€at€2„57,€2„58€&€n.39€(explainingÐ ° Ðthat€harmony€is€seldom€protectable€because€in€most€cases,€it€isÐ \¬ Ðsimply€driven€by€the€melody€and€therefore€is€unoriginal).Ð X Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€makes€a€desultory€effort€to€parry€thisÐ ´  Ðthrust€by€asserting€that€although€the€progression€itself€is€common,Ð ` ° Ðit€might€be€considered€original€depending€on€the€manner€of€itsÐ  \  Ðexploitation.€€This€assertion€lacks€force.€€While€there€may€be€someÐ ¸  Ðcircumstances€in€which€a€common€harmonic€progression€could€beÐ d´  Ðexploited€in€an€original€(and,€thus,€protectable)€manner,€òòseeóó€òòTempoÐ `  ÐMusic,€Inc.óó€v.€òòFamous€Music€Corp.óó,€838€F.€Supp.€162,€168„69Ð ¼  Ð(S.D.N.Y.€1993)€(recognizing€this€possibility);€òòcf.óó€òòYankee€Candleóó,Ð h¸ Ð259€F.3d€at€34€(recognizing€that€a€host€of€unprotectable€elementsÐ d Ðexpressed€in€a€unique€way€might€qualify€for€copyright€protection),Ð À Ðthe€songs€at€issue€here€use€the€III,€II€harmony€in€two€completelyÐ l¼ Ðdifferent€ways,€neither€of€which€is€unique.€€In€the€short€versionÐ h Ðof€the€plaintiff's€tune,€the€progression€resolves,€ultimatelyÐ Ä Ðcoming€to€a€resting€point,€in€Mr.€John's€words,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ pÀ  Ðgiving€the€listener€"a€sense€of€comfort."€€The€defendants'€songÐ !l" Ðemploys€an€unresolved€III,€II€harmonic€progression,€a€form€that€Mr.Ð È"$ ÐJohn€stated€was€adopted€to€"create€a€forward€potential"€so€that€theÐ t$Ä& Ð"listener€is€sort€of€always€on€edge."׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€John€testified€thatÐ  &p!( Ðboth€methods€of€expressing€a€III,€II€harmonic€progression€ð"ðÐ Ì'#* Ðresolved€and€unresolved€ð"ð€are€employed€in€thousands€of€songs.€Ð ° ÐThus,€even€if€the€manner€of€exploiting€a€harmonic€progression€canÐ \¬ Ðbe€independently€protectable,€the€plaintiff's€use€of€a€resolvedÐ X ÐIII,€II€progression€is€not€probative€of€actual€copying€because€thatÐ ´  Ðprogression€is€neither€original€nor€reproduced€in€the€defendants'Ð ` ° Ðsong.Ð  \  Ðà ` àò ò3.€€òòPoint€Sevenóó.ó ó€€In€his€report,€Mr.€John€maintained€thatÐ ¸  Ðthe€melody€of€bars€17„20€of€the€defendants'€song€resembled€bars€41„Ð €Ð  Ð44€of€the€plaintiff's€short€version.€€Even€then,€he€dubbed€thisÐ ,|  Ðresemblance€a€"coincident."€€During€Mr.€John's€deposition,€itÐ Ø( Ðbecame€apparent€that€the€three„note€repetition€of€the€E€flat€thatÐ „Ô Ðappeared€in€these€segments€(albeit€in€different€places€within€eachÐ 0€ Ðsong's€structure)€was,€indeed,€simply€a€coincidence.€€Aside€fromÐ Ü, Ðthat€three„note€segment,€the€notes€and€the€pitches€in€the€two€four„Ð ˆØ Ðbar€sets€were€wholly€dissimilar.Ð 4„ Ðà ` àIt€would€serve€no€useful€purpose€to€flog€this€moribundÐ à0 Ðmare.€€Mr.€John's€deposition€testimony€made€it€transparently€clearÐ ŒÜ  Ðthat€his€initial€characterization€of€this€phenomenon€as€aÐ 8!ˆ" Ðsimilarity€was,€at€best,€an€exaggeration.€€There€is€nothing€in€thisÐ ä"4$ Ðpoint€that€lends€support€to€an€inference€of€actual€copying.€€òòSeeóóÐ $à& ÐòòCottrillóó€v.€òòSpearsóó,€No.€CIV.€A.€02„3646,€2003€WL€21223846,€at€*9Ð <&Œ!( Ð(E.D.Pa.€May€22,€2003)€(finding€that€the€repetition€of€a€particularÐ è'8#* Ðâ ânote€three€times€in€the€verses€of€the€plaintiffs'€and€Ô_ÔtheÐ ”)ä$, Ðdefendants'€songs€was€trivial€and€did€not€constitute€strikingÐ ° Ðsimilarity€for€purposes€of€showing€actual€copying).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àò ò4.€€òòThe€Lyric€"You're€the€One€for€Me."óóó ó€€In€hisÐ X Ðunrelenting€effort€to€establish€actionable€copying,€the€plaintiffÐ Ð  Ðclings€to€the€one€undeniable€similarity€between€the€two€songs:€€theÐ | Ì Ðuse€of€the€phrase€"You're€the€One€for€Me"€in€the€title€and€lyricsÐ ( x  Ðof€each€song.€€While€this€usage€is€similar,€it€is€also€common.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðrecord€reflects,€as€does€the€United€States€Copyright€Office'sÐ €Ð  ÐRegistered€Works€Database,€that€hundreds€of€composers€haveÐ ,|  Ðregistered€songs€capturing€the€same€sentiment€in€the€same€verbiage.€Ð Ø( ÐIt€is€thus€readily€apparent€that€this€lyric€is€too€trite€to€warrantÐ „Ô Ðcopyright€protection.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔCMMÔ_Ô€Cable€Repóó,€97€F.3d€at€1519€(notingÐ 0€ Ðthat€Ô_ÔclichdÔ_Ô€language€and€expressions€that€convey€ideas€generallyÐ Ü, Ðexpressed€in€a€limited€number€of€stereotypical€ways€are€outside€theÐ ˆØ Ðscope€of€copyright€protection).Ð 4„ Ðà ` àò ò5.€€òòDa€Capoóó.ó ó€€To€recapitulate,€we€have€examined€the€threeÐ à0 Ðpoints€of€alleged€musical€similarity€and€the€common€lyric.€€BasedÐ ¨ø  Ðon€that€appraisal,€we€conclude,€without€serious€question,€that€theÐ T!¤" Ðplaintiff€has€failed€to€identify€a€degree€of€similarity€sufficientÐ #P$ Ðto€give€rise€to€an€inference€that€actual€copying€occurred.€Ð ¬$ü& ÐConsequently,€the€plaintiff€cannot,€as€a€matter€of€law,€establishÐ X&¨!( Ðthe€actual€copying€element€requisite€to€his€copyright€infringementÐ (T#* Ðclaim.Ð °)%, ÐÐ \+¬&. Ðà@tt)ìàò òòòE.óóˆÐ ° Ðà@ô ô ìàMiscellaneous€Assignments€of€Erroró óˆÐ xÈ Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€makes€three€last„ditch€arguments€in€anÐ @ Ðeffort€to€discredit€the€district€court's€decision.€€None€of€themÐ ì < Ðwarrant€extended€discussion.Ð ˜ è Ðà ` àò ò1.€€òòHyper„dissectionóó.ó ó€€The€plaintiff,€in€effect,€accusesÐ D ”  Ðthe€district€court€of€overlooking€the€forest€for€the€trees:€€heÐ  \  Ðcharges€that€the€court€did€not€see€the€overall€similarity€betweenÐ ¸  Ðhis€song€and€the€defendants'€song€because€it€analyzed€fragments€ofÐ d´  Ðthe€two€and€ignored€similarities€that€were€recognizable€only€withinÐ ` Ða€wider€context.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àThis€is€a€peculiar€argument€because€dissection€of€a€workÐ h¸ Ðto€determine€whether€its€constituent€elements€are€original€isÐ d Ðrecognized€as€a€valid€investigative€technique€in€copyright€cases.€Ð À ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€1514€(calling€dissection€"a€key€tenet€of€copyrightÐ l¼ Ðlaw").€€In€all€events,€the€district€court€properly€applied€theÐ h Ðdissection€technique€here:€€it€analyzed€the€alleged€similarities€asÐ Ä  Ðthey€were€presented€by€the€plaintiff's€expert,€without€furtherÐ p!À" Ðfragmentation,€and€took€them€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ #l$ Ðplaintiff.€€No€more€was€Ô_ÔexigibleÔ_Ô.Ð È$ & Ðà ` àAt€the€possible€expense€of€carting€coal€to€Newcastle,€weÐ t&Ä!( Ðadd€that€this€is€not€a€case€in€which€a€court€failed€to€linkÐ  (p#* Ðallegedly€infringing€components€together€and€inspect€each€work€asÐ Ì)%, Ða€coherent€whole.€€The€problem€here€is€that€the€componentsÐ x+È&. Ðthemselves€are€so€dissimilar€that€they€cannot€sensibly€beÐ ° Ðagglomerated€in€such€a€way€as€to€conjure€up€an€overall€(legallyÐ \¬ Ðsignificant)€resemblance.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔAliottiÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòR.€Ô_ÔDakinÔ_Ô€&€Co.óó,€831€F.2dÐ X Ð898,€901€(9th€Cir.€1987)€(explaining€that€"[Ô_Ôa]lthoughÔ_Ô€evenÐ ´  ÐÔ_ÔunprotectableÔ_Ô€material€should€be€considered€when€determining€ifÐ ` ° Ðthere€is€substantial€similarity€of€expression,€no€substantialÐ  \  Ðsimilarity€may€be€found€.€.€.€where€analytic€dissectionÐ ¸  Ðdemonstrates€that€all€similarities€in€expression€arise€from€the€useÐ d´  Ðof€common€ideas"€(internal€citation€omitted)).Ð `  Ðà ` àò ò2.€€òòSamplingóó.ó ó€€Relying€on€his€own€expert's€depositionÐ ¼  Ðtestimony€that€he€heard€"sampling"€in€the€defendants'€song,€theÐ „Ô Ðplaintiff€posits€that€it€was€error€for€the€district€court€not€toÐ 0€ Ðaccount€for€this€sampling€in€its€copyright€infringement€analysis.€Ð Ü, ÐWe€do€not€agree.Ð ˆØ Ðà ` à"Sampling"€is€a€term€used€to€describe€"the€incorporationÐ 4„ Ðof€a€short€segment€of€a€musical€recording€into€a€new€musicalÐ à0 Ðrecording."€€òòNewtonóó€v.€òòDiamondóó,€388€F.3d€1189,€1190€(9th€Cir.Ð ŒÜ  Ð2004).€€In€this€case,€the€district€court€declined€to€consider€Mr.Ð 8!ˆ" ÐJohn's€testimony€anent€sampling€because€the€witness€admitted€thatÐ ä"4$ Ðhe€lacked€a€proper€foundation€on€which€to€make€the€assessment.€€ForÐ $à& Ðexample,€he€had€not€performed€a€technical€analysis€of€the€type€usedÐ <&Œ!( Ðby€musicologists€to€detect€samples€in€sound€recordings;€he€had€notÐ è'8#* Ðâ ânoted€the€existence€of€sampling€in€his€report;€and€he€could€notÐ ”)ä$, Ðpoint€to€the€sheet€music€corresponding€to€the€relevant€soundÐ ° Ðrecordings€to€indicate€where€sampling€might€have€occurred.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àA€nisi€prius€court€need€not€give€weight€to€opinionÐ X Ðevidence€that€is€unsupported€by€an€adequate€foundation.€€òòSeeóó€ò òó óòòÔ_ÔCoyneÔ_ÔóóÐ ´  Ðv.€òòTaber€Partners€Ióó,€53€F.3d€454,€461€n.7€(1st€Cir.€1995)€(notingÐ ` ° Ðthat€a€district€court€has€discretion€to€exclude€from€its€summaryÐ  \  Ðjudgment€analysis€any€expert€testimony€that€rests€on€a€speculativeÐ ¸  Ðfoundation);€òòÔ_ÔQuinonesÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔPachecoÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòAm.€Airlines,€Inc.óó,€979€F.2d€1,€6Ð d´  Ð(1st€Cir.€1992)€(explaining€that€trial€courts€enjoy€wide€latitudeÐ `  Ðwith€respect€to€the€exclusion€of€expert€testimony€for€lack€ofÐ ¼  Ðfoundation).€€Given€the€porous€nature€of€the€foundation€thatÐ h¸ Ðundergirded€Mr.€John's€casual€references€to€sampling,€the€districtÐ d Ðcourt's€refusal€to€credit€those€references€was€amply€justified.€€ToÐ À Ðhold€otherwise€would€be€tantamount€to€requiring€trial€courts€toÐ l¼ Ðindulge€in€speculation€and€surmise.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Colonial€Ô_ÔMortgÔ_Ô.Ð h ÐBankers€Corp.óó,€324€F.3d€12,€15€(1st€Cir.€2003)€(explaining€that€aÐ Ä Ðcourt€is€not€bound€to€credit€"bald€assertions,€unsupportableÐ pÀ  Ðâ âconclusions,€and€opprobrious€epithets€woven€into€the€fabric€of€theÐ !l" Ðcomplaint"€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted));€òòMedina„Munozóó€v.Ð ° ÐòòÔ_ÔR.J.Ô_Ô€Reynolds€Tobacco€Co.óó,€896€F.2d€5,€8€(1st€Cir.€1990)€(similar).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àò ò3.€€òòFailure€to€Listenóó.ó ó€€The€plaintiff€takes€umbrage€atÐ X Ðthe€fact€that€neither€the€district€judge€nor€the€magistrate€judgeÐ Ð  Ðexplicitly€stated€that€he€had€listened€to€the€two€songs.€€ThisÐ | Ì Ðargument€is€hopeless.€€The€plaintiff€has€cited€no€authority€for€theÐ ( x  Ðproposition€that€the€court€was€required€to€listen€to€the€music€and,Ð Ô$  Ðat€any€rate,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€court€failed€to€do€so.Ð €Ð  Ðà@88)ìàò òòòIV.óóˆÐ ,|  Ðà@„„'ìàFinaleó óˆÐ ôD Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€Discerning€no€similarities€uponÐ ¼  Ðwhich€the€plaintiff€might€build€a€plausible€inference€of€actualÐ h¸ Ðcopying,€we€conclude€that€his€copyright€infringement€claim€fails€asÐ d Ða€matter€of€law.€€It€follows€that€the€district€court,€which€grantedÐ À Ðsummary€judgment€for€the€defendants,€called€the€proper€tune.Ð l¼ ÐÌòòò òAffirmedóó.ó ó