United States ex rel. Giles v. Pratt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• cautioning that when analyzing similarity, “a court must not ‘aggregate’ a plaintiff’s work, but must consider each allegedly infringed work independently”
• finding that similarities m works “relate[d] to elements that are unprotected, such as ideas ... or features taken from nature,” but that “differences — overwhelm any superficial similarity’
• despite acknowledging that images were “indisputably similar,” court found that “differences between each of [the] works ... overwhelm any superficial similarity.”
• “[A] court must not ‘aggregate’ a plaintiff's work, but must consider each allegedly infringed work independently.”
• “Plaintiff does not have a monopoly on the idea of floating or airborne land.”
• “Plaintiff does not have a monopoly on the idea of floating or airborne land.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).