Brief Fact Summary. Procter & Gamble (Defendant) used a contest rule very similar to that which Morrissey (Plaintiff) had copyrighted and used in a sales promotion contest.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A rule incidental to the operation of a noncopyrightable contest cannot itself be copyrighted if the information it conveys is so simple that there are only a number of ways in which it can be expressed.
Summary judgment may not be granted where there is the slightest doubt as to the facts.View Full Point of Law
Issue. If a rule incidental to the operation of a noncopyrightable contest conveys information so simple that there are only a number of ways in which it can be expressed, can the rule be copyrighted?
Held. (Aldrich, C.J.)Â No.Â If the information conveyed in a rule incidental to the operation of a noncopyrightable contest is so simple that there are only a number of ways in which it can be expressed, the rule cannot be copyrighted.Â Permitting such rules to be copyrighted would be like giving a copyright on the contest itself to someone smart enough to simply copyright the number of rule variations possible for running the contest.Â The rule at issue here was of this nature and therefore was not copyrightable by Morrissey (Plaintiff).Â Affirmed.
Discussion. The court relied on its interpretation of Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), as holding that certain kinds of expression are noncopyrightable, such as utilitarian forms.Â This flies in the face of commentators who continue to argue that Baker v. Selden held only that otherwise prohibited copying that is necessary to make use of a noncopyrightable system or art does not constitute infringement, whereas copying for explanatory purposes does.