## Facts

- Andrew F. Ehat conducted research on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and reviewed materials in the LDS Church archives, including a transcript of the William Clayton journals.
- During his research, Ehat assembled written material that included quotations he copied from the journals along with his own notes and comments.
- Ehat gave this combined material to a colleague, Lyndon Cook.
- The material was secretly taken from Cook’s office, copied, and then returned to the office.
- An unauthorized copy later reached Jerald and Sandra Tanner, who did business as Modern Microfilm Company and published and distributed documents and works related to the LDS Church.
- The Tanners had no involvement in the original removal and copying from Cook’s office.
- Before distributing the material, the Tanners blacked out Ehat’s notes and comments, printed the remaining extracts, and sold the resulting copies to the public.
- Ehat sued the Tanners asserting federal claims under the Copyright Act and state common-law claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Tanners on Ehat’s federal copyright claims, then held a bench trial on the state claims and entered judgment for Ehat, awarding damages (including $12,000 for general harm to Ehat’s scholarly reputation).
- The Tanners appealed, arguing that the state-law claims were preempted by the Copyright Act’s express preemption provision, 17 U.S.C. § 301.

## Issues

1. Whether 17 U.S.C. § 301 preempts state common-law claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment when the claims are based on the reproduction and sale of written material that falls within the subject matter of copyright.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment for Ehat on the state-law claims.
- The court held that Ehat’s unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by 17 U.S.C. § 301 because they sought to enforce rights equivalent to the exclusive rights protected by federal copyright law.

## Legal Principles

- Section 301(a) expressly preempts state “legal or equitable rights” that (1) apply to works within the “subject matter of copyright” under 17 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 and (2) are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright listed in 17 U.S.C. § 106 (such as reproduction and distribution).
- A state-law claim is not preempted only if it includes an additional element that changes the nature of the action so that it is not, in substance, a claim to control copying, publication, or distribution of a work.
- Unfair competition and unjust enrichment theories that rest on unauthorized copying and sale of written material assert rights equivalent to § 106 and are preempted when the material falls within the federal subject matter categories.
- Preemption under § 301 can apply even when a plaintiff cannot prevail on a federal copyright claim; a state claim cannot be used to obtain a copyright-like remedy for conduct governed exclusively by federal law.

## Conclusion

Because Ehat’s state-law unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims were grounded in the Tanners’ reproduction and sale of written extracts—conduct governed by the Copyright Act’s exclusive-rights scheme—the Tenth Circuit held those common-law claims were displaced by 17 U.S.C. § 301 and reversed the district court’s damages award on the state claims.


Ehat v. Tanner, 780 F.2d 876 (1985)