are “useful articles” not protected by the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 101; Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie’s Costume Co., 891 F.2d 452, 455 (2d Cir.1989) (citing Fashion Originators Guild v. FTC, 114 F.2d 80, 84 (2d Cir.1940) (L. Hand, J.), aff'd 312 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 703, 85 L.Ed. 949 (1941)). Jovani nevertheless maintains that the prom dress at issue merits copyright protection because its design constitutes a combination of features “that can be identified separately from and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article,” 17 U.S.C. § 101, specifically, the arrangement of decorative sequins and crystals on the dress bodice; horizontal satin ruching at the dress waist; and layers of tulle on the skirt. We are n 632 F.2d 989, 991, 993 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as the district court correctly
holding detention occurred after officer observed large bundle near suspects waist and handcuffed suspect for further investigation recognizing emp widmark first calculated absorption and elimination rates in the body and his work still represents the benchmark for other scientists studies today holding that only selfinculpatory aspects of hearsay statement but not other parts of statement are admissible under exception for statements against penal interest holding pat down at airport justified after officer observed bundle under suspects clothing near waist recognizing that decorative belt buckles were sold in jewelry stores and worn as ornaments for parts of body other than waist