Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Functionality Rulings Are Nothing To Cheer About
What do cheerleading uniforms and laminated faux-maple flooring have in common? And what does either one have to do with copyright law? Read on: Both have recently been the subject of dubious rulings about the copyrightability of useful articles that could, if not reversed, further muddy the already murky doctrinal waters the courts have created around this issue. This article discusses Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26279 (W.D.Tenn. 2014), and Home Legend v. Mannington Mills, 2014 WL 3687334 (N.D.Ga. 2014), and will suggest that they misconstrued what the Copyright Act means when it refers to the “utilitarian aspects” of a useful article. Under settled copyright principles, both the cheerleader uniforms in Varsity Brands and the laminated flooring in Home Legend certainly qualify as useful articles, but in analyzing the copyrightability of their decorative elements, these decisions fail to follow basic principles enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal case of Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
From 'Mazer' to Copyright Act
The foundation of current law concerning copyright for useful articles is the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Mazer v. Stein.'The work in Mazer was a lamp, the base of which incorporated a sculptural figure of a Balinese dancer. The court concluded that the sculptural figure was copyrightable under '5(g) or '5(h) of the Copyright Act of 1909, 17 U.S.C. 1 et seq. (1909), as a “work of art” even though it was part of a useful object which fell outside the scope of copyright law.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.