differences between the underlying cartoon characters and the immediately recognizable costumes that ERG has designed and manufactured. Id. at 908-09. This conclusion makes even more sense in view of the fact that ERG’s customers — the companies — wanted costumes replicating their characters. Thus, because ERG followed detailed instructions from its customers regarding exactly how they wanted the costumes to appear, it can not be said that ERG’s artistic contributions were more than merely trivial contributions. ERG cites our decision in North Coast for the proposition that summary judgment is inappropriate here since the issue of whether ERG’s artistic contributions are trivial is a disputed question of fact that should be reserved for the jury. See North Coast, 972 F.2d at 1034-35 (<HOLDING>). North Coast does not establish that summary
recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment holding that whether the differences between a print for a dress and mondrian paintings were nontrivial could not be determined as a matter of law at summary judgment