of facts, as discussed in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340, 348, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). Plaintiffs, however do not apply this analysis to the contents of the works in question nor do they in any way demonstrate that it is original, copyrightable work created by Garcia Goy-co himself, as opposed to all of the other contributors. Not all works can be copyrighted. Merely because the works were deposited in the Copyright Office and have certificates of registration, does not mean that they were copyrightable subject matter. Expression in the public domain may not be monopolized by mere copyright registration. See e.g., Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 237 F.Supp.2d 376, 384 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (“Tufenkian ”) (<HOLDING>); Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d805 (9th
holding as a matter of law that adaptations of subject matter or expressions in the public domain cannot support a finding of copyright infringement holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply holding that where some radio scripts from aradio show had entered the public domain and others were protected by copyright plaintiff was entitled to use the public domain material without a license holding that divergent expressions of unprotected ideas does not violate copyright law