Scholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLC

7/27/2019 Scholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLC

1/26


2/26

2

suf f i ci ent t o enabl e const r uct i on of homes based on them, t hey1

wer e not pr otect ed by t he Copyr i ght Act . We al so concl ude t hat2

t he dr awi ngs ar e suf f i ci ent l y or i gi nal t o r ecei ve pr ot ect i on as3

"pi ctor i al , gr aphi c, [ or ] scul pt ur al wor ks, " 17 U. S. C.4

102( a) ( 5) , under t he Copyr i ght Act , and we rever se t he j udgment5

of t he di st r i ct cour t i nsof ar as i t hel d ot her wi se. Because t he6

cour t di smi ssed t he pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai ms f or br each of cont r act and7

vi ol at i ons of t he Di gi t al Mi l l enni um Copyr i ght Act based on i t s8

concl usi on t hat t he dr awi ngs wer e not pr otect ed by copyr i ght , we9

vacat e i t s di smi ssal of t hose cl ai ms and t o t hat extent r emand10

t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t .11

Reversed i n par t ; vacat ed and remanded i n par t .12

Appear ances: LOUI S K. BONHAM, Osha Li ang, LLP,13Aust i n, TX ( Hol l y M. Pol gl ase, Her mes,14Net bur n, O' Connor & Spear i ng, P. C. ,15Bost on, MA, on t he br i ef ) f or Pl ai nt i f f -16Appel l ant .17

J OHN J . ROBACYNSKI , Al an J . Rome, Rome,18Cl i f f or d, Kat z & Koer ner , LLP, Har t f or d,19CT, f or Def endant - Appel l ee Sard Cust om20Homes, LLC.21

THOMAS J . FI NN, Paul a Cr uz Cedi l l o,22McCar t er & Engl i sh LLP, Har t f or d, CT,23f or Def endant - Appel l ee Col dwel l Banker24Resi dent i al Real Est at e, LLC.25


3/26

1 An "el evat i on" i s a "scal e dr awi ng of t he si de, f r ont , orr ear of a st r uct ur e. " Am. Her i t age Di ct i onar y 580 ( 4t h ed.2006) .

2 These i mages and t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng uses at i ssuemay be vi ewed at ht t p: / / www. ca2. uscour t s. gov/ schol zdesi gn. ht m.

3

SACK, Ci r cui t J udge:1

BACKGROUND2

The pl ai nt i f f - appel l ant , Schol z Desi gn, I nc.3

( "Schol z") , al l eges t hat t hr ee f r ont - el evat i on1 ar chi t ect ur al4

dr awi ngs of homes i t desi gned i n t he l at e 1980s were copi ed and5

post ed on var i ous websi t es by t he def endant s i n vi ol at i on of6

Schol z' s copyr i ght s. The pl ai nt i f f al so makes r el at ed cl ai ms f or7

br each of cont r act and vi ol at i ons of t he Di gi t al Mi l l enni um8

Copyr i ght Act , 17 U. S. C. 1201, et seq.9

Schol z creat ed t echni cal dr awi ngs, or bl uepr i nt s, f or10

t hr ee homes - - whi ch i t cal l ed t he "Spr i ngval l ey A, "11

"Wet her sf i el d B, " and "Br ecki nr i dge A" - - and submi t t ed t hem t o12

t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce i n 1988 and 1989 t oget her wi t h t he f r ont13

el evat i on dr awi ngs t hat ar e t he subj ect of t hi s sui t , each14

showi ng t he appear ance of t he f r ont of t he houses sur r ounded by15

l awn, bushes, and t r ees. See Schol z Desi gn, I nc. v. Sar d Cust om16

Homes, LLC, No. 11- 3298, J oi nt Appendi x ( " J . A. " ) at 73, 76, 8717

( 2d Ci r . Oct . 11, 2011) . 2 Schol z was grant ed regi st r at i on of18

copyr i ght s based on al l t hese submi ssi ons.19


4/26

4

I n Febr uary 1992, Schol z and Sard Cust om Homes ( "Sard" )1

ent er ed i nt o an agr eement ( t he "Bui l der Agr eement I " ) per mi t t i ng2

Sar d to const r uct homes usi ng Schol z' s home pl ans, i ncl udi ng3

t hese t hr ee desi gns. See Bui l der Agr eement I at 1- 2, J . A. 97- 98.4

The t hree- year cont r act r equi r ed Sard t o pay Schol z $1 per squar e5

f oot of each home const r uct ed usi ng i t s pl ans, up t o a maxi mum of6

$50, 000 a year . I d. at 5, 9, 10. Schol z and Sard r enewed t he7

cont r act f or anot her t hr ee- year t er m i n 1995 ( t he "Bui l der8

Agr eement I I " ) . Bui l der Agr eement I I at 1- 2, J . A. 100- 101. Bot h9

agr eement s r equi r ed t hat Sard not "copy or dupl i cat e any of t he10

[ Schol z] mat er i al s nor . . . [ use them] i n any manner t o11

adver t i se or bui l d a [Schol z Desi gn] or der i vat i ve except under12

t he t erms and condi t i ons of t he agr eement . " Bui l der Agr eement I13

at 1; Bui l der Agr eement I I at 1.14

Schol z al l eges t hat , af t er t he t er mi nat i on of Schol z s15

agr eement wi t h Sard and i n a manner not per mi t t ed by the16

agr eement , Sard and co- def endant Prudent i al Connect i cut Real t y17

( "Pr udent i al " ) post ed copi es of Schol z' s copyr i ght ed dr awi ngs of18

t he Spr i ngval l ey and Wet her sf i el d homes on t wo di f f er ent websi t es19

t o adver t i se Sar d s "abi l i t y" t o bui l d t he homes. Am. Compl .20

15. Schol z al so al l eges t hat Sar d and co- def endant Col dwel l21

Banker Resi dent i al Real Est at e, I nc. ( "Col dwel l Banker ") copi ed22

Schol z' s copyr i ght ed i mage of t he Br ecki nr i dge desi gn on Col dwel l23

Banker ' s websi t e f or t he same unper mi t t ed pur pose. Schol z24


5/26

5

f ur t her al l eges t hat Sar d, Pr udent i al , and Col dwel l Banker "may1

have used, r epr oduced, di spl ayed, di st r i but ed, market ed or2

adver t i sed" t hose desi gns t hr ough ot her means i n addi t i on t o t he3

websi t es i dent i f i ed. Am. Compl . 18, 33. 4

I n Oct ober 2010, Schol z br ought sui t agai nst t he t hr ee5

def endant s i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct6

of Connect i cut . The Febr uary 1, 2011, amended compl ai nt al l eges7

t wo count s of copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , t wo vi ol at i ons of t he8

Lanham Act , 15 U. S. C. 1051 et seq. , br each of cont r act , and9

vi ol at i ons of t he Di gi t al Mi l l enni um Copyr i ght Act ( "DMCA") , 1710

U. S. C. 1201 et seq. Am. Compl . 9- 72.11

The def endant s moved t o di smi ss t he compl ai nt , ar gui ng12

i nt er al i a t hat t he pi ct ur es " coul d not have been copyr i ght ed as13

ar chi t ect ur al wor ks because, t he copyr i ght s havi ng been gr ant ed14

i n 1988 and 1989, t hey pr edat e t he [ Ar chi t ect ur al Works Copyr i ght15

Pr ot ect i on Act ( "AWCPA") , Pub. L. No. 101- 650, t i t . VI I ( 1990) ]16

and t hat t he concept ual natur e of t hese depi ct i ons means t hat17

t hey ar e not pr ot ect ed by Schol z' s copyr i ght because t hey cont ai n18

i nsuf f i ci ent det ai l f r om whi ch a bui l di ng coul d be const r uct ed. "19

Schol z Desi gn, I nc. v. Sard Cust om Homes, LLC, No. 10- cv- 1681,20

2011 WL 2899093, at *2, 2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 76663, at *6 (D.21

Conn. J ul y 15, 2011) . The di st r i ct cour t ( J anet Bond Ar t er t on,22

J udge) agreed. The cour t , i n i t s "Rul i ng on Mot i ons t o Di smi ss, "23

r easoned t hat "copyr i ght pr ot ect i on ext ends t o t he component24


6/26

3 The di st r i ct cour t al so di smi ssed t wo cl ai ms br ought under

t he Lanham Act . See Schol z Desi gn, 2011 WL 2899093, at *3- *4,2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 76663, at *6- *8. The pl ai nt i f f does notappeal t he di smi ssal of t hose cl ai ms, whi ch wer e br ought agai nst

al l def endant s. Thi s account s f or Pr udent i al ' s wi t hdr awal f r omt hese pr oceedi ngs - - Pr udent i al had onl y f i l ed a mot i on t odi smi ss i n t he di st r i ct cour t wi t h r egar d t o t he Lanham Actcl ai ms, and di d not ask f or di smi ssal of t he copyri ghti nf r i ngement , br each of cont r act , or DMCA cl ai ms agai nst i t . Seenot e *, supr a.

6

i mages of ar chi t ect ur al desi gns t o t he extent t hat t hose i mages1

al l ow a copi er t o const r uct t he pr ot ect ed desi gn, " and t her ef or e2

"t he copi ed i mages do not f ul f i l l t he i nt r i nsi c f unct i on of an3

ar chi t ect ur al pl an and t hus t he act of copyi ng t hem does not4

vi ol at e any r i ght pr ot ect ed by a copyr i ght f or ar chi t ect ur al5

t echni cal dr awi ngs. " I d. at *3, 2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 76663, at6

*9.7

Because i t concl uded t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s amended8

compl ai nt di d not st at e a cl ai m f or copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , t he9

di st r i ct cour t al so gr ant ed def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss cl ai ms10

al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of t he DMCA and br each of cont r act , whi ch, i n11

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s vi ew, r equi r ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f have a12

val i d copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cl ai m. 3 I d. at *4, 2011 U. S. Di st .13

LEXI S 76663, at *14.14

The pl ai nt i f f appeal s.15


7/26

4 Thi s appeal and t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on f ocus onwhet her t he dr awi ngs at i ssue ar e pr oper l y subj ect t o copyr i ghtpr otect i on, r ather t han whet her t hey have been copi ed. I ndeed,

dur i ng t he oral argument on t he mot i on t o di smi ss bef ore t hedi st r i ct cour t , t he cour t assumed t hat t he def endant s " j ust cutand past ed [ t he dr awi ngs] on t o t he[ ] websi t e[ s] f or pur poses oft hi s mot i on. " Tr anscr i pt of Or al Ar gument on Mot . t o Di smi ss,Schol z Desi gn, I nc. v. Sard Cust om Homes LLC, No. 10- cv- 1681, at21 ( D. Conn. Sept . 12, 2011) , ECF No. 78.

7

DISCUSSION1

I. Standard of Review2

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of a mot i on t o3

di smi ss de novo, accept i ng al l f act ual al l egat i ons i n t he4

compl ai nt as t r ue, and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t he5

pl ai nt i f f ' s f avor . Fl agl er v. Tr ai nor , 663 F. 3d 543, 546 n. 2 ( 2d6

Ci r . 2011) ; Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) .7

II. Copyright Infringement8

I n or der t o demonst r at e copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , a9

pl ai nt i f f must show owner shi p of a val i d copyr i ght and copyi ng of10

t he pr otectabl e el ement s of t he copyr i ght ed work. 4 See Medf or ms,11

I nc. v. Heal t hcar e Mgmt . Sol ut i ons, I nc. , 290 F. 3d 98, 109 (2d12

Ci r . 2002) . A cer t i f i cat e of copyr i ght r egi st r at i on i s pr i ma13

f aci e evi dence of owner shi p of a val i d copyr i ght , but t he al l eged14

i nf r i nger may r ebut t hat pr esumpt i on. MyWebGr ocer , LLC v.15

Homet own I nf o, I nc. , 375 F. 3d 190, 192 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) ( ci t i ng 1716

U. S. C. 410( c) ) . To qual i f y f or copyr i ght pr ot ect i on, a wor k17

must be or i gi nal - t hat i s, i t must be i ndependent l y cr eat ed by18


8/26

8

t he aut hor and possess "at l east some mi ni mal degr ee of1

cr eat i vi t y. " Fei st Publ ' ns, I nc. v. Rur al Tel . Ser v. Co. , 4992

U. S. 340, 345 ( 1991) . The work need not be "part i cul ar l y novel3

or unusual . " Mat t el , I nc. v. Gol dber ger Dol l Mf g. Co. , 365 F. 3d4

133, 135 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) . "[ T] he r equi si t e l evel of creat i vi t y i s5

ext r emel y l ow; even a sl i ght amount wi l l suf f i ce. The vast6

maj or i t y of works make t he gr ade qui t e easi l y, as t hey possess7

some creat i ve spar k, no mat t er how cr ude, humbl e or obvi ous i t8

mi ght be. " Fei st , 499 U. S. at 345 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal9

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .10

The def endant s' pr i nci pal ar gument , wi t h whi ch t he11

di st r i ct cour t agr eed, was t hat t he al l egedl y i nf r i nged dr awi ngs12

wer e not ent i t l ed t o copyr i ght pr ot ect i on because t hey l acked13

suf f i ci ent det ai l t o al l ow f or const r uct i on of t he homes14

depi ct ed. We di sagr ee. Copyri ght pr ot ect i on of a pi ct or i al15

wor k, whet her depi ct i ng a house, or a f l ower , or a donkey, or an16

abst r act desi gn, does not depend on any degr ee of det ai l . The17

r i ght s Schol z cl ai ms i n t hi s sui t der i ve f r om t he gener al18

copyr i ght l aw and not f r om t he AWCPA, whi ch has no rel evance to19

t he sui t .20

A. Copyr i ght f or Pi ct or i al Wor ks21

Schol z s copyr i ght al l egat i ons ar e st r ai ght f or war d: I t22

cr eat ed t hr ee separ at e or i gi nal dr awi ngs ( depi ct i ng homes) ,23

r egi st er ed t hem wi t h t he Copyri ght Of f i ce, and t he def endant s24


9/26

5 Most cases exami ni ng al l eged i nf r i ngement deal wi t ht hor ni er i ssues t han whet her a wor k i s suf f i ci ent l y creat i ve t o

be pr otect ed by copyr i ght , such as whet her an " i nexact copy" i ssubst ant i al l y si mi l ar enough t o const i t ut e i nf r i ngement , seeTuf enki an I mpor t / Expor t Ventur es, I nc. v. Ei nst ei n Moomj y, I nc. ,338 F. 3d 127, 134 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) ( " [ T]he def endant may i nf r i ngeon t he pl ai nt i f f ' s wor k not onl y t hr ough l i t er al copyi ng of apor t i on of i t , but al so by par r ot i ng pr oper t i es t hat ar e appar ent

9

wi t hout aut hor i zat i on made exact copi es of t hose dr awi ngs on1

t hei r websi t es. Not hi ng mor e i s requi r ed f or a copyr i ght cl ai m.2

The di st r i ct cour t appar ent l y was of t he vi ew t hat ,3

because t he dr awi ngs were ar chi t ect ur al , somethi ng more was4

r equi r ed f or t hei r copyr i ght pr ot ecti on. I t i s bl ack- l et t er l aw,5

however , t hat cour t s accept as protect ed "any work whi ch by t he6

most gener ous st andar d may ar guabl y be sai d t o evi nce7

creat i vi t y. " 1- 2 Mel vi l l e B. Ni mmer & Davi d Ni mmer , Ni mmer on8

Copyr i ght 2. 08 ( 2012) . J ust i ce Hol mes expl ai ned more t han a9

cent ur y ago t hat " [ i ] t woul d be a danger ous under t aki ng f or10

per sons t r ai ned onl y t o t he l aw t o const i t ut e t hemsel ves t he11

f i nal j udges of t he wort h of pi ct or i al i l l ustr at i ons. " Bl ei stei n12

v. Donal dson Li t hogr aphi ng Co. , 188 U. S. 239, 251 ( 1903) . As13

not ed above, t he onl y requi r ement f or copyr i ght abi l i t y of a wor k14

i s t hat i t "possesses at l east some mi ni mal degr ee of cr eat i vi t y15

. . . no mat t er how cr ude, humbl e or obvi ous i t mi ght be. "16

Fei st , 499 U. S. at 345.17

Whi l e we have not had occasi on t o consi der a case18

pr esent i ng pr eci sel y t he same i ssue as does t hi s one, 5 we have19


10/26

onl y when numerous aest het i c deci si ons embodi ed i n t hepl ai nt i f f ' s wor k of ar t . . . ar e consi der ed i n r el at i on t o oneanot her . " ) , or whet her el ement s of an al l egedl y i nf r i nged wor kt hat have been appr opr i ated are f act s or i deas not amenabl e tocopyr i ght , see Spar aco v. Lawl er , Mat usky, Skel l y Engi neer s LLP,303 F. 3d 460, 467 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ( "To t he extent t hat t he si t epl an set s f or t h t he exi st i ng physi cal char acter i st i cs of t he si t e. . . i t set s f or t h f act s; copyr i ght does not bar t he copyi ng of

such f act s. ") ; At t i a v. Soc. of N. Y. Hosp. , 201 F. 3d 50, 56 ( 2dCi r . 1999) ( "We may assume wi t h Pl ai nt i f f t hat t he i deas t aken,or at l east some of t hem, are powerf ul , dynami c i deas of i mmenseval ue . . . . Under t he l aw of copyr i ght , however , t he power ofan i dea does not i mpr ove t he cr eat or ' s r i ght t o pr eventcopyi ng. " ) . Those i ssues ar e not present ed by t hi s appeal .

10

sai d i n af f i r mi ng summary j udgment f or t he def endant s based on1

al l eged copyi ng of cer t ai n concept ual el ement s of an2

ar chi t ect ur al sket ch t hat , al t hough t he copyi ng of "i deas" at3

i ssue t her e di d not const i t ut e i nf r i ngement , "we do not mean t o4

suggest t hat , i n t he domai n of copyr i ght ed ar chi t ect ur al5

depi ct i ons, onl y f i nal const r uct i on dr awi ngs can cont ai n6

pr ot ect ed expr essi on. " At t i a v. Soc. of N. Y. Hosp. , 201 F. 3d 50,7

57 ( 2d Ci r . 1999) .8

We see no reason why Schol z' s dr awi ngs depi ct i ng the9

appearance of houses i t had desi gned shoul d be t r eated10

di f f er ent l y f r om any ot her pi ct or i al wor k f or copyr i ght pur poses.11

Andr ew Wyet h and Edwar d Hopper were f amous f or t hei r pai nt i ngs of12

houses, and Cl aude Monet f or pai nt i ngs of t he Houses of13

Par l i ament and of Rouen Cathedr al . None of t hese depi ct i ons of14

bui l di ngs wer e suf f i ci ent l y det ai l ed t o gui de const r uct i on of t he15

bui l di ngs depi ct ed, but t hat woul d sur el y not j ust i f y denyi ng16


11/26

11

t hem copyr i ght pr ot ect i on. I f an exact copy of Schol z s dr awi ngs1

was made by t he def endant , as al l eged, and as appears t o be the2

case based on t he evi dence submi t t ed wi t h t he compl ai nt , t hat3

woul d appear t o const i t ut e i nf r i ngement .4

B. Copyr i ght Regi st r at i on5

The def endant s ar gue t hat Schol z' s pi ct or i al6

r epr esent at i ons of t he houses are not ent i t l ed t o copyr i ght7

pr ot ecti on because i t s cer t i f i cat es of r egi st r at i on r ef er r ed t o8

"archi t ect ur al t echni cal dr awi ngs" as t he "nat ur e of aut hor shi p, "9

and i n t he "nat ur e of wor k" sect i ons r ef er r ed t o "bl uepr i nt s. "10

See, e. g. , Cer t i f i cat e of Copyr i ght at 1, J . A. 42. Thi s was11

si gni f i cant , accor di ng t o t he def endant s, because regul at i ons12

promul gat ed under t he AWCPA, gover ni ng t he copyr i ght ext ended to13

bui l di ngs based on copyr i ght ed ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, pr ovi de t hat14

"[ w] her e dual copyr i ght cl ai ms exi st i n t echni cal dr awi ngs and15

t he ar chi t ect ur al wor k depi ct ed i n t he dr awi ngs, any cl ai ms wi t h16

r espect t o the t echni cal dr awi ngs and ar chi t ect ur al wor k must be17

r egi st er ed separ at el y. " 37 C. F. R. 202. 11( c) ( 4) .18

Schol z' s r egi st r at i on of t he subj ect dr awi ngs under19

sect i on 102( a) ( 5) occur r ed pr i or t o passage of t he AWCPA. Schol z20

accor di ngl y was not seeki ng, and di d not r ecei ve, r egi st r at i on21

under t hat l at er expansi on of t he copyr i ght l aw. I t s22

r egi st r at i on of i t s dr awi ngs di d not become i nval i d as t he r esul t23


12/26

12

of t he subsequent passage of t he AWCPA. That l at er expansi on of1

t he copyr i ght l aw i s not i nvol ved i n t hi s sui t .2

C. The Ar chi t ect ur al Wor ks Copyr i ght Prot ect i on Act3

We t hi nk that t he di str i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng l i kel y4

st emmed f r om a mi sunder st andi ng r egardi ng t he r el at i onshi p both5

bef or e and af t er enact ment of t he AWCPA bet ween t he scope of6

pr ot ect i on f or pi ct or i al wor ks such as t hese dr awi ngs under t he7

Copyr i ght Act , and t hat af f or ded ar chi t ect ur al wor ks under t he8

Copyr i ght Act .9

Whi l e we t hi nk t hi s t o be a st r ai ght f or war d case of10

i nf r i ngement , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not . The def endant s11

cont ended, and t he di st r i ct cour t agr eed, t hat because t he12

dr awi ngs at i ssue wer e "ar chi t ect ur al dr awi ngs, " somet hi ng mor e13

was r equi r ed of t hem f or copyr i ght pr ot ect i on t han woul d be14

r equi r ed f or any ot her "pi ct or i al , gr aphi c, or scul pt ur al wor k"15

under sect i on 102( a) ( 5) . I ndeed, ar chi t ect ur al wor ks ar e16

cur r ent l y af f or ded speci al st at us under t he l aw. That speci al17

st at us i s, however , i r r el evant f or pur poses of t hi s case because18

Schol z i s not al l egi ng i nf r i ngement under t he AWCPA, but under19

t he pr e- exi st i ng pr ot ect i on of t he Copyr i ght Act f or pi ct or i al20

wor ks. The f act t hat Schol z' s dr awi ngs mi ght or mi ght not be21

pr ot ect ed under t he AWCPA, dependi ng on var i ous f act ors, does not22

depr i ve t hem of t he pr ot ect i on t hey have as pi ct or i al wor ks23

r egar dl ess of t hose f act or s.24


13/26

6 I n or about 1990 t he Uni t ed St at es became a si gnat ory t o

t he Ber ne Convent i on, whi ch r equi r ed copyr i ght pr ot ect i on f orconst r uct ed bui l di ngs. The AWCPA f ul f i l l ed t hi s obl i gat i on. SeeLecei st er v. Warner Br os. , 232 F. 3d 1212, 1226 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000)( Fi sher , J . , di ssent i ng) ( "The sol e pur pose of l egi sl at i ng att hi s t i me i s t o pl ace t he Uni t ed St at es unequi vocal l y i ncompl i ance wi t h i t s Ber ne Convent i on obl i gat i ons. " ( quot i ng H. R.Rep. No. 101- 735, at 20) ) .

7 As t he def endant s acknowl edge, because t he Br ecki nr i dgedr awi ngs and pl ans wer e publ i shed two years pr i or t o t he passageof t he AWCPA, t he home i t sel f woul d not have even been subj ect t opr ot ect i on as an ar chi t ect ur al wor k. 37 C. F. R. 202. 11( d) ( 3) ( i ) . The r ecor d does not r ef l ect whet her t he ot herhomes were ever r egi st ered under sect i on 102( 8) .

13

Pr i or t o t he enact ment of t he AWCPA, whi l e1

ar chi t ect ur al st r uct ur es t hemsel ves di d not r ecei ve copyr i ght2

pr ot ect i on, ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, bl uepr i nt s, and t echni cal3

dr awi ngs, as wel l as or i gi nal , creat i ve sket ches of t he t ype at4

i ssue her e, wer e i ndeed cover ed under t he Copyr i ght Act ' s5

pr ot ect i on of " pi ct or i al , gr aphi c, and scul pt ur al wor ks. " 176

U. S. C. 102( a) ( 5) . 67

Schol z cont ends t hat t he dr awi ngs are pr otect ed under8

sect i on 102( a) ( 5) , and not under sect i on 102( 8) , whi ch, as par t9

of t he AWCPA, added pr ot ect i on f or "ar chi t ect ur al wor ks. " 710

Accor di ng t o Schol z, t he AWCPA i s t her ef or e i nappl i cabl e. We11

agr ee. The AWCPA di d not af f ect t he copyr i ght pr otect i on t hat12

sect i on 102( a) ( 5) has l ong extended t o ar chi t ect ur al pl ans,13

dr awi ngs, and bl uepr i nt s.14

Hi st or i cal l y, copyr i ght l aw pr ovi ded l i mi t ed15pr ot ect i on t o wor ks of ar chi t ect ur e.16


14/26

14

Ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, whi l e not expl i c i t l y1ment i oned i n t he Copyr i ght Act of 1976, were2cover ed under a pr ovi si on af f or di ng3pr ot ecti on t o "pi ctor i al , gr aphi c, and4scul pt ur al wor ks. " But ar chi t ect ur al5st r uct ur es t hemsel ves wer e af f or ded vi r t ual l y6

no pr ot ect i on.7

. . .8

[ Af t er t he AWCPA, ] t he hol der of a copyr i ght9i n an ar chi t ect ur al pl an . . . has t wo f or ms10of pr ot ect i on, one under t he pr ovi si on f or an11"ar chi t ect ur al wor k" under 17 U. S. C. 12102( a) ( 8) , and anot her under t he pr ovi si on13f or a "pi ct or i al , gr aphi cal , or scul pt ur al14work" under 17 U. S. C. 102( a) ( 5) .15

T- Peg, I nc. v. VT. Ti mber Wor ks, I nc. , 459 F. 3d 97, 109- 10 ( 1st16

Ci r . 2006) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Or avec v. Sunny I sl es17

Luxur y Vent ur es, L. C. , 527 F. 3d 1218, 1228 n. 8 ( 11t h Ci r . 2008)18

( "[ T] he scope of copyr i ght pr ot ect i on f or ar chi t ect ur al pl ans19

r egi st er ed under 102( a) ( 5) was unaf f ect ed by t he AWCPA. " ) ; H. R.20

Rep. No. 101- 735 ( 1990) , r epr i nt ed i n 1990 U. S. C. C. A. N. 6935,21

6950- 51. ( "Prot ect i on f or ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, dr awi ngs, and22

model s as pi ct or i al , gr aphi c, or scul pt ur al wor ks under sect i on23

102( a) ( 5) . . . i s unaf f ect ed by t hi s bi l l . . . . The bi l l ' s24

i nt ent i on i s t o keep [ t he copyr i ght i n t he ar chi t ect ur al wor k and25

t he copyr i ght i n pl ans and dr awi ngs] separ at e. An i ndi vi dual26

cr eat i ng an ar chi t ect ur al wor k by depi ct i ng t hat wor k i n pl ans or27

dr awi ng wi l l have t wo separ at e copyr i ght s, one i n t he28

ar chi t ect ur al wor k ( sect i on 102( a) ( 8) ) , t he ot her i n t he pl ans or29

dr awi ngs ( sect i on 102( a) ( 5) ) . ") .30


15/26

15

Thus, pr i or t o passage of t he AWCPA cour t s had hel d1

t hat use of copyr i ght ed ar chi t ect ur al pl ans t o const r uct a2

bui l di ng woul d not const i t ut e i nf r i ngement , but t hen as now,3

copyi ng t hose pl ans woul d. See Nat ' l Med. Car e, I nc. v.4

Espi r i t u, 284 F. Supp. 2d 424, 435 ( S. D. W. Va. 2003) ( expl ai ni ng5

t hat pr i or t o t he passage of t he AWCPA "most cour t s agr ee[ d] t hat6

copyi ng a st r uct ur e depi ct ed i n pl ans, wi t hout copyi ng t he pl ans7

t hemsel ves, [ was] not copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , " but t hat "an8

unaut hor i zed copy of an ar chi t ect ur al pl an i nf r i nges on a9

t echni cal dr awi ng copyr i ght " ) ; see al so I mper i al Homes Cor p. v.10

Lamont , 458 F. 2d 895, 899 ( 5t h Ci r . 1972) ( copyr i ght ed11

ar chi t ect ur al pl ans do not conf er excl usi ve r i ght t o r epr oduce12

t he depi ct ed bui l di ng) ; Nat ' l Med. Car e, 284 F. Supp. 2d at 43513

( "[ A] n as- bui l t st r uct ur e or f eat ur e cannot be an i nf r i ngi ng copy14

of a t echni cal dr awi ng. ") . The di st r i ct cour t summar i zed t hi s15

case l aw cor r ect l y when i t expl ai ned t hat " [ t ] he r ul e whi ch16

emerges f r om [ t he pr e- AWCPA] cases i s t hat one may const r uct a17

house whi ch i s i dent i cal t o a house depi ct ed i n copyr i ght ed18

ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, but one may not di r ect l y copy t hose pl ans19

and t hen use the i nf r i ngi ng copy to const r uct t he house. " Schol z20

Desi gn, 2011 WL 2899093, at *2, 2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 76663, at21

*8 ( i nt er nal quotat i on marks and emphasi s omi t t ed) . As a22

comment at or r ecent l y expl ai ned:23


16/26

16

Even though our copyr i ght st atut es were1si l ent about ar chi t ect ur e unt i l 1990, i t was2wel l est abl i shed t hat pl ans, bl uepr i nt s and3model s wer e copyr i ght abl e wr i t i ngs under t he41909 Act ' s cat egor y of "dr awi ngs or pl ast i c5wor ks of a sci ent i f i c or t echni cal6

char act er , " and t hen as " pi ct or i al , gr aphi c,7and scul pt ur al works" under t he 1976 Act .8The scope of an ar chi t ect ' s copyr i ght9pr ot ect i on was, however , qui t e l i mi t ed. The10unaut hor i zed copyi ng of pl ans or bl uepr i nt s11const i t ut ed i nf r i ngement , but most12aut hor i t i es concl uded t hat pl ans wer e not13i nf r i nged by usi ng t hem, wi t hout t he14ar chi t ect ' s per mi ssi on, t o const r uct t he15bui l di ng t hey depi ct ed. Mor eover , t he16pr evai l i ng vi ew was t hat an ar chi t ect ' s17r i ght s di d not ext end t o t he act ual bui l di ng18der i ved f r om hi s or her pl ans. A bui l di ng,19as a usef ul ar t i cl e, coul d be pr ot ect ed by20copyr i ght onl y t o t he ext ent i t had ar t i st i c21f eat ur es t hat coul d be i dent i f i ed separ at el y22f r om, and wer e capabl e of exi st i ng23i ndependent l y of , t he st r uctur e' s ut i l i t ar i an24aspect s.25

Davi d E. Shi pl ey, The Ar chi t ect ur al Wor ks Copyr i ght Pr ot ect i on26

Act at Twent y: Has Ful l Pr ot ect i on Made a Di f f er ence? 18 J .27

I nt el l . Pr op. L. 1, 3 ( 2010) ( f oot not es omi t t ed) ; see al so Dani el28

Su, Not e, Subst ant i al Si mi l ar i t y and Ar chi t ect ur al Wor ks:29

Fi l t er i ng Out "Tot al Concept and Feel , " 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1851,30

1861, 1863 (2007) ( " [ A] r chi t ect ur al pl ans and dr awi ngs wer e31

pr ot ect ed under t he Copyr i ght Act of 1976. They f i t comf or t abl y32

wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on of ' pi ctori al , gr aphi c and scul pt ur al33

wor ks' . . . . However , copyri ght ed pl ans di d not gi ve t he34

aut hor i ng ar chi t ect t he excl usi ve r i ght t o bui l d t he st r uct ur e35


17/26

17

depi ct ed wi t hi n t he pl ans. . . . [ T] he AWCPA ext end[ ed]1

copyr i ght pr ot ect i on t o physi cal bui l di ngs. ") .2

D. The Di st r i ct Cour t Opi ni on3

Sket ches or dr awi ngs such as t hose al l egedl y i nf r i nged4

her e, t her ef or e, di d r ecei ve pr ot ect i on bef or e enact ment of t he5

AWCPA, al t hough t he archi t ect ur al works t hey depi ct ed di d not .6

The di st r i ct cour t seems t o have mi sunderst ood t he i mpor t and7

r el evance of t hi s di st i nct i on i n concl udi ng t hat under sect i on8

102( a) ( 5) , ar chi t ect ur al sket ches or dr awi ngs are r equi r ed t o9

i ncl ude a cer t ai n l evel of det ai l t o r ecei ve pr ot ect i on. Wher e10

t he compl ai nt al l eges unl awf ul copyi ng of a pi ct or i al wor k11

r egi st er ed under sect i on 102( a) ( 5) , t her e i s no r equi r ement of12

any l evel of det ai l .13

The di st r i ct cour t r el i ed pr i nci pal l y on t hree ot her14

cases i n det er mi ni ng t hat t he dr awi ngs at i ssue wer e not15

copyr i ght abl e. See Schol z, 2011 WL 2899093, at *3, 2011 U. S.16

Di st . LEXI S 76663, at *9 ( "Under At t i a, as wel l as J ones, and17

Lamont , copyr i ght pr ot ect i on ext ends t o t he component i mages of18

ar chi t ect ur al desi gns t o the ext ent t hat t hose i mages al l ow a19

copi er t o const r uct t he pr ot ect ed desi gn. " ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .20

Fi r st , t he cour t l ooked t o At t i a, whi ch exami ned whet her t he21

def endant s had i nf r i nged t he pl ai nt i f f ' s dr awi ngs of a pr oposed22

expansi on of New Yor k Hospi t al . 201 F. 3d at 57. The pl ai nt i f f23

had submi t t ed a pl an f or t he hospi t al ' s moder ni zat i on. He24


18/26

18

pr epared a ser i es of pr el i mi nary dr awi ngs and sket ches1

i l l ust r at i ng hi s pl an, whi ch woul d have expanded t he hospi t al2

t hr ough a new bui l di ng const r uct ed i n t he ai r space over t he FDR3

Dr i ve i n New Yor k Ci t y. I d. at 52. The pl ai nt i f f and hi s f i r m4

wer e not sel ect ed t o be t he ar chi t ect s f or t he pl an. El i At t i a5

l at er saw a New Yor k Ti mes art i cl e di scussi ng a si mi l ar desi gn.6

He br ought a copyr i ght i nf r i ngement sui t agai nst t he ar chi t ect7

who had cr eat ed t hat pl an al l egi ng i nf r i ngement of hi s drawi ngs.8

I d. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment t o t he9

def endant s af t er concl udi ng t hat t hei r desi gn and pl ai nt i f f ' s10

desi gn coul d not be consi der ed "subst ant i al l y si mi l ar " as a11

mat t er of l aw. 201 F. 3d at 53.12

For pur poses of t hat appeal , we assumed t hat t he13

si mi l ar i t i es bet ween t he pl ai nt i f f ' s and def endant s' dr awi ngs14

wer e i ndeed at t r i but abl e t o copyi ng.15

The probl em under l yi ng Pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai m of16copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , however , i s t hat not17al l copyi ng f r om copyr i ght ed mat er i al i s18necessari l y an i nf r i ngement of copyr i ght .19Ther e ar e el ement s of a copyr i ght ed wor k t hat20ar e not pr ot ect ed even agai nst i nt ent i onal21copyi ng. I t i s a f undament al pr i nci pl e of22our copyr i ght doct r i ne t hat i deas, concept s,23and pr ocesses are not pr ot ect ed f r om copyi ng.24. . . A copyr i ght t hus pr ot ect s not t he25aut hor ' s i deas, but onl y her expr essi on of26

t hem.27I d. at 53- 54.28


19/26

19

"The pr obl em of di st i ngui shi ng an i dea f r om i t s1

expr essi on i s par t i cul ar l y acut e when t he wor k of ' aut hor shi p' i s2

of a f unct i onal nat ur e, as i s a pl an f or t he accompl i shment of an3

ar chi t ect ur al or engi neer i ng pr oj ect . " I d. at 55. For exampl e,4

"gener al i zed not i ons of wher e t o pl ace f unct i onal el ement s, how5

t o r out e t he f l ow of t r af f i c, and what met hods of const r uct i on6

and pr i nci pl es of engi neer i ng t o rel y on" ar e i deas, and can be7

appr opr i at ed by ot her s wi t hout i nf r i ngi ng on a copyr i ght . I d.8

We det er mi ned t hat t he al l eged si mi l ar i t i es of t he al l egedl y9

pr ot ect ed wor k t o t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng wor k, wer e "concept s10

and i deas, " and "bar el y a f i r st st ep t owar d t he r eal i zat i on of a11

pl an. " I d. at 55- 56. Whi l e many of t he i deas and pl acement s12

wer e si mi l ar , over al l , "Def endant s' desi gn has ver y l i t t l e i n13

common wi t h Pl ai nt i f f ' s. " I d. at 57.14

The di st r i ct cour t i n t he case bef or e us concl uded t hat15

t he At t i a cour t ' s r ef er ence t o pr el i mi nar y concept s and i deas16

meant t hat non- det ai l ed dr awi ngs coul d not be subj ect t o17

copyr i ght pr ot ect i on. But At t i a never al l eged t hat hi s sket ches18

t hemsel ves wer e unl awf ul l y copi ed. I nst ead he cont ended t hat19

cer t ai n el ement s of hi s sket ches wer e i ncor por at ed i nt o t he20

al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng pl ans, such as pl acement of t he hospi t al21

expansi on above t he FDR Dr i ve. We i n no way suggest ed t hat t he22

pl ai nt i f f ' s dr awi ngs i n At t i a di d not enj oy copyr i ght pr ot ect i on.23

Our r ul i ng was mer el y t hat , assumi ng t he def endant copi ed24


20/26

20

somet hi ng f r om t he pl ai nt i f f ' s drawi ngs, what was copi ed was onl y1

unpr ot ect ed i deas, and not t he pl ai nt i f f s pr ot ect ed expr essi on2

of t hose i deas. That r ul i ng si mpl y does not suppor t t he di st r i ct3

cour t ' s anal ysi s her e.4

The pl ai nt i f f here does not al l ege, as di d At t i a, t hat5

some "concept " or " i dea" r ef l ect ed i n hi s sketches was6

appr opr i ated - he al l eges t hat t he ent i r e sket ch was copi ed.7

At t i a t her ef or e has l i t t l e r el evance t o t he case bef or e us. I t8

does not suggest t hat i n t he domai n of ar chi t ect ur al dr awi ngs9

pr ot ect i on cannot be af f or ded t o pr el i mi nar y or concept ual10

r ender i ngs.11

The di st r i ct cour t al so r el i ed on Robert R. J ones12

Assocs. v. Ni no Homes, 858 F. 2d 274, 280 ( 6t h Ci r . 1988) , whi ch13

exami ned under pre- AWCPA l aw t he al l eged i nf r i ngement of14

ar chi t ect ur al pl ans ef f ect ed by copyi ng t hose pl ans and t hen15

const r uct i ng a bui l di ng based on t hem. "The r ul e whi ch emerges16

. . . i s t hat one may const r uct a house whi ch i s i dent i cal t o a17

house depi ct ed i n copyr i ght ed ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, but one may18

not di r ect l y copy t hose pl ans and t hen use the i nf r i ngi ng copy t o19

const r uct t he house. " I d. at 280.20

The ci r cui t cour t r ul ed: " [ O] ne may const r uct a house21

whi ch i s i dent i cal t o a house depi ct ed i n copyr i ght ed22

ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, but one may not di r ect l y copy t hose pl ans23

and t hen use t he i nf r i ngi ng copy t o const r uct t he house. " I d.24


21/26

21

The di st r i ct cour t i n t he case bef or e us appears t o1

have under st ood Rober t R. J ones t o st and f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat2

t her e i s an i nf r i ngement onl y when a pl an i s ( 1) copi ed and ( 2)3

used t o const r uct a home. We di sagree.4

Rober t R. J ones does not st and f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat5

no i nf r i ngement can occur wi t hout const r uct i on. The l ast t en6

words of t he sent ence quoted above ( about usi ng t he i nf r i ngi ng7

copi es t o const r uct ) wer e surpl usage. What t he cour t seems t o8

have meant was t hat , whi l e t he const r uct i on of t he home based on9

copyr i ght ed pl ans i s not an i nf r i ngement ( under t he pr e- AWCPA10

l aw) , t he copyi ng of t he pl ans i s an i nf r i ngement . The copyi ng11

of t he dr awi ngs const i t ut ed i nf r i ngement r egar dl ess of whet her12

one goes on t o const r uct t he house.13

Fi nal l y, i n Lamont , upon whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t al so14

r el i ed, t he cour t concl uded t hat t he copyi ng of t he f l oor pl an of15

a home f r om copyr i ght ed dr awi ngs i n a pr omot i onal br ochur e woul d16

be an i nf r i ngement .17

[ N] o copyr i ght ed ar chi t ect ur al pl ans . . .18may cl ot he t hei r aut hor wi t h t he excl usi ve19r i ght t o r epr oduce t he dwel l i ng pi ct ur ed.20However , not hi ng . . . pr event s such a21copyr i ght f r om vest i ng t he l aw' s gr ant of an22excl usi ve r i ght t o make copi es of t he23copyr i ght ed pl ans so as t o i nst r uct a woul d-24

be bui l der on how t o pr oceed t o const r uct t he25 dwel l i ng pi ct ur ed.26

458 F. 2d at 898- 99. I n r emandi ng t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t ,27

t he cour t of appeal s expl ai ned t hat "[ t ] he excl usi ve r i ght t o28


22/26

22

copy what i s copyr i ght ed bel ongs t o t he ar chi t ect , even t hough1

t he pl ans gi ve hi m no uni que cl ai m on any f eat ur e of t he2

str uct ur e t hey det ai l . I f i t i s det er mi ned . . . t hat t he3

[ def endant s] copi ed t he f l oor pl an set f or t h i n t he pr omot i onal4

bookl et di st r i but ed by [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] , t hen t hi s copyi ng woul d5

const i t ut e an i nf r i ngement of [ t he pl ai nt i f f ' s] copyr i ght6

pr i vi l eges. " I d. at 899 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .7

The di st r i ct cour t i n t he case bef or e us i nf er r ed t hat8

i nf r i ngement coul d onl y occur i f t he pl ans wer e suf f i ci ent l y9

det ai l ed t o al l ow f or const r uct i on, per haps because i n Lamont t he10

" f l oor pl an" was al l egedl y det ai l ed enough t o do so. That cour t ,11

however , l i ke t he cour t i n Rober t S. J ones, di d not i ndi cat e t hat12

a l ess- det ai l ed pl an or dr awi ng woul d not be ent i t l ed t o13

copyr i ght pr ot ect i on.14

I n sum, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat ar chi t ect ur al15

dr awi ngs wer e r equi r ed t o cont ai n suf f i ci ent det ai l t o al l ow f or16

const r uct i on i n or der t o r ecei ve Copyr i ght Act prot ect i on. Ther e17

i s no such r equi r ement , however , when t he cl ai m of copyr i ght i s18

f or a "pi ctor i al , gr aphi c, or scul pt ur al wor k[ ] " under secti on19

102( a) ( 5) . Al l t hat i s r equi r ed i s i ndependent cr eat i on and20

or i gi nal i t y. See J ohn Wi el and Homes & Nei ghbor hoods, I nc. v.21

Poovey, No. 3: 03CV168- H, 2004 WL 2108675, at *5, 2004 U. S. Di st .22

LEXI S 21730, at *14 ( W. D. N. C. Aug. 2, 2004) ( st at i ng t hat23

"copyr i ght pr ot ect i on ext ends t o si mpl i f i ed f l oor pl ans, t hat i s,24


23/26

23

pr omot i onal cut sheet s, of copyr i ght ed ar chi t ect ur al pl ans, " and1

t her ef or e concl udi ng that t he def endant was l i abl e when a2

dr af t sman he hi r ed essent i al l y copi ed t he cut - sheet i n pr epar i ng3

pl ans f or a home) ; see al so Donal d Fr eder i ck Evans and Assocs. v.4

Cont ' l Homes, I nc. , 785 F. 2d 897, 904- 05 ( 11t h Ci r . 1986)5

( "[ C] onst r ucti on of a subst ant i al l y i dent i cal r esi dent i al6

dwel l i ng i s not pr ohi bi t ed by t he exi st ence of a copyr i ght i n t he7

ar chi t ectur al dr awi ngs f or t he or i gi nal dwel l i ng, but . . . i f 8

t he bui l der s of t he subst ant i al l y i dent i cal st r uct ur e copi ed t he9

f l oor pl an set f or t h i n a pr omot i onal bookl et di st r i but ed by t he10

bui l der of t he or i gi nal , t hen t hi s copyi ng woul d const i t ut e11

i nf r i ngement of t he or i gi nal bui l der ' s copyr i ght pr i vi l eges. "12

( ci t at i on and f oot not e omi t t ed) ) ; Lamont , 458 F. 2d at 899 ( "I f i t13

i s det er mi ned upon r emand t hat t he [def endant s] copi ed t he f l oor14

pl an set f or t h i n t he pr omot i onal bookl et di st r i but ed by [ t he15

pl ai nt i f f s] , t hen t hi s copyi ng woul d const i t ut e an i nf r i ngement16

of [ t he pl ai nt i f f ' s] copyr i ght pr i vi l eges. ") ; Ar t hur Rut enbur g17

Cor p. v. Par r i no, 664 F. Supp. 479, 481 ( M. D. Fl a. 1987) ( r ul i ng18

t hat t he copyi ng of a f l oor pl an const i t ut ed copyr i ght19

i nf r i ngement ) .20

Al t hough we have not di r ect l y addr essed t he quest i on21

wi t h whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t gr appl ed her e, we have t wi ce22

expl ai ned t hat ar chi t ect ur al t echni cal dr awi ngs mi ght be subj ect23

t o copyr i ght pr ot ect i on even i f t hey ar e not suf f i ci ent l y24


24/26

24

det ai l ed t o al l ow f or const r uct i on. See At t i a, 201 F. 3d at 571

( " [ W] e do not meant t o suggest t hat , i n t he domai n of copyr i ght ed2

ar chi t ect ur al depi ct i ons, onl y f i nal const r uct i on dr awi ngs can3

cont ai n pr ot ect ed expr essi on. " ) ; Spar aco, 303 F. 3d at 469 ( "We do4

not mean t o i mpl y t hat t echni cal dr awi ngs cannot achi eve5

pr ot ect ed st at us unl ess t hey ar e suf f i ci ent l y compl et e and6

det ai l ed t o suppor t act ual const r uct i on. ") .7

We see t hi s, t hen, as a st r ai ght f or ward case of8

copyr i ght i nf r i ngement . The pl ai nt i f f cr eat ed or i gi nal dr awi ngs9

whi ch wer e pr oper l y r egi st er ed wi t h t he copyr i ght of f i ce. The10

def endant s al l egedl y used exact copi es of t hose dr awi ngs wi t hout11

per mi ssi on. Not hi ng mor e i s requi r ed i n or der t o st at e a cl ai m12

f or copyr i ght i nf r i ngement . The di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of a13

mot i on t o di smi ss t hese cl ai ms i s t her ef or e r ever sed.14

III. Fair Use15

The def endant s cont end t hat even i f Schol z had a val i d16

copyr i ght i n t he dr awi ngs, t he def endant s ar e not l i abl e f or17

i nf r i ngement because t hei r usage of t he i mages const i t ut ed f ai r18

use. "[ T] he f ai r use of a copyr i ght ed wor k . . . f or pur poses19

such as cr i t i ci sm, comment , news r epor t i ng, t eachi ng ( i ncl udi ng20

mul t i pl e copi es f or cl assr oom use) , schol ar shi p, or r esear ch, i s21

not an i nf r i ngement of copyr i ght . " 17 U. S. C. 107. Four22

f act or s must be consi der ed i n deci di ng whet her a par t i cul ar use23

i s "f ai r ": "( 1) t he pur pose and char act er of t he use, i ncl udi ng24


25/26

25

whet her such use i s of a commer ci al nat ur e or i s f or nonpr of i t1

educat i onal pur poses; ( 2) t he nat ur e of t he copyr i ght ed wor k; ( 3)2

t he amount and subst ant i al i t y of t he por t i on used i n r el at i on t o3

t he copyr i ght ed wor k as a whol e; and ( 4) t he ef f ect of t he use4

upon t he pot ent i al mar ket f or or val ue of t he copyr i ght ed wor k. "5

17 U. S. C. 107.6

The di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o addr ess t hi s ar gument ,7

havi ng concl uded that i n any event Schol z had not st at ed a val i d8

copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cl ai m. Schol z Desi gn, 2011 WL 2899093, at9

*3 n. 2, 2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 76663, at *10 n. 2. "I t i s our10

set t l ed pr act i ce t o al l ow t he di st r i ct cour t t o addr ess ar gument s11

i n t he f i r st i nst ance. " Ful t on v. Goor d, 591 F. 3d 37, 45 ( 2d12

Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . On r emand, t he13

def endant s may choose t o r ai se t hi s def ense agai n. We i nt i mate14

no vi ews as t o the pr oper out come of such an i nqui r y.15

IV. DMCA and Breach of Contract Claims16

The di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed bot h of t hese cl ai ms af t er17

concl udi ng t hat t hey r equi r ed Schol z t o "have a val i d copyr i ght18

cl ai m. " Schol z Desi gn, 2011 WL 2899093, at *4, 2011 U. S. Di st .19

LEXI S 76663, at *14. The di smi ssal of t he br each of cont r act20

cl ai m was er r or . Schol z al l eged t hat Sar d used Schol z s dr awi ngs21

i n unaut hor i zed ways l ong af t er t hei r agr eement s had expi r ed.22

Thi s breach of cont r act cl ai m di d not depend on Schol z s23

possessi on of a val i d copyr i ght . We t her ef or e vacat e t he24


26/26

26

di st r i ct cour t s di smi ssal of t he br each of cont r act cl ai m. I n1

addi t i on, because we vacat e t he di st r i ct cour t s di smi ssal of t he2

copyr i ght cl ai m, we al so vacat e i t s di smi ssal of t he DMCA cl ai m.3

Agai n, we suggest no vi ews on our par t as t o t he pr oper out come4

of such an i nqui r y.5

CONCLUSION6

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct7

cour t i s r ever sed i n part , and vacated and r emanded i n part f or8

f ur t her proceedi ngs. Cost s t o Schol z agai nst Sar d and Col dwel l9

Banker .10

Documents

Scholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLC