proteetible elements.”) (alteration in original). The second requirement, that there be a substantial similarity between the proteetible elements of the two works, is more troublesome. In considering substantial similarity between two items, a court must ask whether “an average lay observer would ... recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.” Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 937 F.2d 759, 766 (2d Cir.1991). Because the street locations, landmass, bodies of water and landmarks depicted in a map are physical facts, the only material in a map capable of copyright protection — and thus demanding comparison — is original material. Cf. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 350-51, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Understanding this distinction between the
holding that a compilation of facts is not capable of copyright protection unless it demonstrates sufficient originality holding that miscitation or omission of a statutory provision is not a basis for reversal unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice holding that it is not holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction