This ambiguity is highlighted by the fact that the cases cited by the majority as approving of the Copyright Office practice are either distinguishable from the instant case or rest their decision to withhold copyright protection on other grounds. See, e.g., Kitchens of Sara Lee, Inc. v. Nifty Foods Corp., 266 F.2d 541, 545 (2d Cir.1959) (approving the Copyright Office practice, but ultimately analyzing the case under theories of originality and merger); CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1519-21 (1st Cir.1996) (finding that some aspects of the claim were foreclosed because they were merely slogans or short phrases, but resting primarily on lack of originality grounds); Murray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. ABC Communications, Inc., 264 F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). There are still greater problems with the
holding a line from a movie was not copyrightable where it was nothing more than a short phrase or slogan dictated to some degree by the functional considerations inherent in conveying the desired information holding that because the line of questioning was not relevant to the credibility of the witness and sought information about which the witness had no knowledge it was not a constitutional violation to sustain the objection holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured holding that there was no actual prejudice where the defendant has the functional equivalent of the notice required holding that a decision is final when it leaves nothing more for the court to do