work.” Entertainment Research Group, 853 F.Supp. at 323. We agree with the district court that any artistic differences in the costumes are merely trivial. ERG alleges that Mr. Breed’s declaration demonstrates that ERG contributed much that is “recognizably its own” to the costumes since Mr. Breed had to make a number of creative decisions to enable the costumes to be manufactured successfully and since Mr. Breed was guided by his “artistic impression.” The problem with ERG’s argument, however, is that originality is not present solely because Mr. Breed placed a lot of thought and effort into figuring out how to transform the two-dimensional copyrighted characters into three-dimensional inflatable costumes. See, e.g., Feist, 499 U.S. at 352-56, 111 S.Ct. at 1291-9 97 (N.D.Ill.1984) (<HOLDING>). ERG also argues that a material issue of fact
holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested holding that the plaintiff had a right of privacy in the contents of a settlement agreement that stated that the plaintiff had sued his employer for failing to hire him because he was a single gay male and because his employer suspected that he had aids holding that the plaintiff moldmaker had not added any artistic effort since he had simply converted a twodimensional design to a threedimensional object holding that petitioner was entitled to cat relief where he had been tortured in the past for speaking out about war country conditions had deteriorated since he fled army had continued to look for him and had engaged in reprisals against his family