61
I. COPYRIGHT: CASES AND MATERIALS
Doctors do not look to Bibbero’s superbill in diagnosing or treating patients. The superbill is
simply a blank form which gives doctors a convenient method for recording services performed.
The fact that there is a great deal of printing on the face of the form – because there are many
possible diagnoses and treatments – does not make the form any less blank.We also find that the
“text with forms” exception to the blank forms rule is inapplicable here. It is true ... that the
superbill includes some simple instructions to the patient on how to file an insurance claim using
the form, such as “complete upper portion of this form.” These instructions are far too simple to
be copyrightable as text in and of themselves, unlike the instructions in other “text with forms”
cases, [e.g.,] where account books with several pages of instructions on the use of the forms and
advice on the successful management of a service station conveyed information and were
therefore copyrightable. We therefore affirm the district court’s holding that Bibbero’s superbill
is not copyrightable.
Seltzer v. Sunbrock, 22 F. Supp. 621 (U.S.: District Court, S.D. California,
1938)
[The plaintiff owned the copyright in two books describing a roller skating race
to be run by teams in an arena over a distance equivalent to crossing the United
States. The plaintiff licensed a firm to put on such races. The defendant held a
very similar race. The plaintiff claimed the defendant had infringed copyright in
his book, which he claimed was a dramatic work.]
DISTRICT JUDGE JENNEY:
It is conceded that a distinctive treatment of a plot or theme is properly the subject of copyright;
and the sequence of incidents in the plot, taken in conjunction with its distinctive locale, and its
original characterizations, will be protected. ... The absence of dialogue, however, is not fatal;
the theme may be expressed in pantomime. ...
On the other hand, it is well settled that no central dramatic situation, in broad outline, can ever
be protected by copyright. ... Thus one cannot by copyright secure a monopoly over all plots
based on the “eternal triangle.” Nor can an isolated incident be permanently removed from the
stage, merely because it has been used in a copyrighted work. ... Cases have held that the act
does not protect distinctive locale, ... mechanical devices used in production, ... gestures or
motions, ... or even the movements of a dance...
Applying these well-recognized principles to Seltzer’s compositions: What are his original
incidents or characterizations? What is his plot or theme, the distinctive treatment of which
claims protection under the copyright laws? These questions suggest the more fundamental issue
-a solution of which is necessary to a proper determination of this case - namely, are these
pamphlets “dramatic compositions”?
The courts, in determining what constitutes a dramatic composition, have emphatically stated
that there must be a story - a thread of consecutively related events - either narrated or presented
by dialogue or action or both. ... Attempts have been made to extend the protection afforded
dramas under the act to other forms of composition spectacular in nature and theatrical in
presentation, but lacking the story element. Even in the early days of interpretation of the
Copyright Act, however, the distinction between a mere exhibition, spectacle, or arrangement of
scenic effects on the one hand, and a true dramatic composition on the other, was well
recognized.
