Goss, a manufacturer of printing presses and related goods, filed suit against A-American Machine Assembly Co. d/b/a A-American Press Parts Division (APPD), a competitor, in June 2007. Goss claimed that APPD was using Goss’s copyrighted designs on its Web site. The designs at issue were used by Goss in its product catalogs and technical and operation manuals. Essentially, the designs, which were created by Goss, are simplified mechanical renderings of its parts. Goss filed several copyright applications for these depictions in February and May of 2007.

After learning that APPD was using its designs on its Web site, Goss filed suit claiming the company was infringing on its copyrights in the designs. APPD did not dispute that it had used the designs on its Web site but instead moved to dismiss this claim, arguing that Goss’s images were not protected under copyright law.

Copyright protect extends to original, tangible works of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Essentially, this means that a work that is innovative, tangible and sufficiently creative should be entitled to copyright protection so long as the work is not functional or factual in nature. For example, a drawing of a bicycle may be protected by copyright if the drawing is original and creative. However, the bicycle itself would not be protected under US copyright law since it is a functional object.

Factual works are also not capable of receiving copyright protection. Thus, the names in a telephone book, or the cities shown on a map, would not be protectable under US copyright law. Instead, protection would only extend to the manner in which these items were displayed or organized if done in an original and creative manner. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

In this case, APPD argued that Goss’s drawings were not original because they were “merely renderings” of Goss’s parts, which were functional objects, and did not involve any creativity or originality. The court disagreed. Specifically, Judge Robert W. Gettleman explained that the drawings did not merely replicate the functional pieces of the part but that they, instead, simplified the parts so that a customer could identify each independent piece when making a purchasing decision. WL 4294744 (2007). The court emphasized that only a minor amount of creativity will suffice to establish the originality for copyright protection.

This court’s decision is good news for a manufacturer who is attempting to protect the content in its catalogs. Under this decision, a manufacturer may input only a slight amount of creativity to claim copyright protection in portions of its catalogs.

Arent Fox will continue to monitor this case. Please contact Anthony V. Lupo or Sarah Bruno with questions.

Anthony V. Lupo
lupo.anthony@arentfox.com
202.857.6353

Sarah L. Bruno
bruno.sarah@arentfox.com
202.775.5760