as derivative works. This test contains two prongs: First, to support a copyright the original aspects of a derivative work must be more than trivial. Second, the original aspects of a derivative work must reflect the degree to which it relies on preexisting material and must not in any way affect the scope of any copyright protection in that preexisting material. Durham, 630 F.2d at 909. The first prong of the Durham test is in harmony with numerous decisions of this Circuit which establish that the original aspects of a work must be “more than trivial” to warrant copyright protection. See, e.g., North Coast, 972 F.2d at 1033 (stating that “[o]riginality is the indispensable prerequisite for copyrightability”); Kamar Int’l, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 657 F.2d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). ERG takes issue with the second prong of the
holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged holding that it is not holding that ojriginality is the sine qua non of copyrightability