In such situations, even a small degree of copying may support a finding of substantial similarity, depending on the context, (to constitute infringement, a single line taken from a protected work would have to be “an integral part” of that work rather than “merely an incidental part of the background” and, by analogy, as “ ‘readily recognizable’ in terms of its relationship ․ as ‘E.T. phone home’ is to its movie source”). Thus, the copying of a relatively small but qualitatively important or crucial element can be an appropriate basis upon which to find substantial similarity. See Baxter v. MCA, Inc., (citing Heim v. Universal Pictures Co., for the proposition that a single brief phrase so idiosyncratic as to preclude coincidence might suffice to show copying).