Pivot Point
International, Inc. v. Charlene Prods., Inc.
372 F.3d 913 (2004)
FACTS
Cause of action: © infringement of a mannequin head.
D: mannequin head not copyrightable under © act.
ISSUE
Is the mannequin head subject to copyright protection?
HOLDING
-Mannequin head is useful. The Mara head is subject to copyright protection (that hungry look...).
RULES-If an article is not “useful”, then the article is a pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work entitled to © protection.
-A useful article falls within the definition of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works only if and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article.
TESTS
(1) Artistic features = primary, utilitarian features = secondary.
(2) The useful article would still be marketable to some significant segment of the population simply because of its aesthetic qualities.
(3) Article stimulates in the mind of the beholder a concept that is separate from the concept evoked by its utilitarian function (Temporal Displacement Test).
(4) The artistic design was not significantly influenced by functional considerations.
(5) Artistic features can stand on their own as a work of art traditionally conceived and the useful article in which it is embodied would be equally useful without it.
(6) Artistic features are not utilitarian.
ANALYSIS
-Ornamental belt buckles: The primary ornamental aspects of the buckles is conceptually separable from their subsidiary utilitarian function.
-Clothing display torsos: Not copyrightable - to the extent the forms possess aesthetically pleasing features, even when these features are considered in the aggregate, they can not be conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function.
-Ribbon bicycle rack: not copyrightable. It was, in its final form essentially a product of industrial design.
-If the elements reflect the independent artistic judgment of the designer, conceptual separability exists.
-Court says: Mara face is subject to © protection.
-It’s easy to conceptualize a human face independent of all Mara’s specific facial features.
“Hungry Look” = protected from copying. The creative aspects of the Mara statue were meant to be seen and admired.
FACTS
Cause of action: © infringement of a mannequin head.
D: mannequin head not copyrightable under © act.
ISSUE
Is the mannequin head subject to copyright protection?
HOLDING
-Mannequin head is useful. The Mara head is subject to copyright protection (that hungry look...).
RULES-If an article is not “useful”, then the article is a pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work entitled to © protection.
-A useful article falls within the definition of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works only if and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article.
TESTS
(1) Artistic features = primary, utilitarian features = secondary.
(2) The useful article would still be marketable to some significant segment of the population simply because of its aesthetic qualities.
(3) Article stimulates in the mind of the beholder a concept that is separate from the concept evoked by its utilitarian function (Temporal Displacement Test).
(4) The artistic design was not significantly influenced by functional considerations.
(5) Artistic features can stand on their own as a work of art traditionally conceived and the useful article in which it is embodied would be equally useful without it.
(6) Artistic features are not utilitarian.
ANALYSIS
-Ornamental belt buckles: The primary ornamental aspects of the buckles is conceptually separable from their subsidiary utilitarian function.
-Clothing display torsos: Not copyrightable - to the extent the forms possess aesthetically pleasing features, even when these features are considered in the aggregate, they can not be conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function.
-Ribbon bicycle rack: not copyrightable. It was, in its final form essentially a product of industrial design.
-If the elements reflect the independent artistic judgment of the designer, conceptual separability exists.
-Court says: Mara face is subject to © protection.
-It’s easy to conceptualize a human face independent of all Mara’s specific facial features.
“Hungry Look” = protected from copying. The creative aspects of the Mara statue were meant to be seen and admired.
No comments:
Post a Comment