Page:Michael Foundation, Inc. v. Urantia Foundation v. McMullan.pdf/10

 it failed to provide this court with a citation to the portion of the record containing its objection. An erroneous jury instruction mandates reversal: (1) if we have “substantial doubt whether the instructions, considered as a whole, properly guided the jury in its deliberations,” ''Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.'', 175 F.3d 1221, 1235 (10th Cir.1999) (quotation omitted); or (2) “when a deficient jury instruction is prejudicial,” i.e., where the jury might have based its verdict on the allegedly defective instruction. ''Coleman v. B-G Maint. Mgmt. of Colo., Inc.'', 108 F.3d 1199, 1202 (10th Cir.1997).

It is not clear whether an author’s intent determines the classification of a book comprised exclusively of his own work. The statute and the caselaw are silent on the question. Michael Foundation argues—by analogy to the settled distinction between joint works and collective works, which is based upon authorial intent—that intent is, or at least should be, the centrolling factor. Because the question appears to be unsettled, we cannot, without settling the question ourselves, say that the district court’s articulation of the standard in its jury instruction is erroneous. We need not reach this question, because even if the instruction overstated the importance of authorial intent, we find no grounds therein for reversal. “We review jury instructions de novo, and must view the instructions in their entirety, deciding