While I agree that the 5x6 layout is not copyrightable, and that the passage from the Second Circuit's opinion which concludes that it is copyrightable confuses originality with idea-expression (see below), that passage should be considered in the context of the entire opinion. The court carefully looked at the quilts at issue (two of Ps, three of Ds) and held that two of Ds quilts infringed one of plaintiffs quilts, but it affirmed the dismissal of all of the other infringement claims, despite the fact that some of the other claims also involved quilts with similar layouts. With regard to the quilts found to be infringing, the court noted many similarities in the colors used for each letter, not just in the layout alone. The court's conclusion regarding layout was only one part of a copyrightable compilation (original selection and arrangement of layout and colors). Unfortnately, the court's overbroad language will encourage others with weaker claims to go forward.
Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
Here is the two-paragraph passage from the opinion:
"To support its finding that the layouts of plaintiffs' quilts were not protected by copyright, the district court relied upon evidence submitted by defendants showing that alphabet quilts have been in existence for over a century, suggesting that such layouts were also in the public domain. One circa 1900 quilt displayed letters and icons in blocks arranged in the same format used in "School Days I." From this evidence the court reasoned that such formation belonged to the public domain. Although it made specific findings only as to the block formation in "School Days I," we presume for purposes of our discussion that, in the absence of a specific finding as to the "School Days II" format, the trial court intended its findings on unprotectibility to extend to the layouts of both of plaintiffs' quilts.
"These findings are clearly erroneous. Not only did plaintiffs obtain valid certificates of copyright registration, but also the alphabetical arrangement of the letters in the five-by-six block format required some minimum degree of creativity, which is all that is required for copyrightability. Moreover, unlike the use of letters, no federal regulation establishes that the use of this layout is unprotectible. These factors create a presumption that the layout is original and therefore a protectible element. Therefore, if defendants want to contest this presumption, they bear the burden of proving that this particular layout is not original. Cf. Gaste, 863 F.2d at 1064 (explaining that burden of proof is on defendant in infringement action who claims the plaintiff's copyright registration is invalid). At trial, defendants asserted that the particular layout of plaintiffs' quilts was copied from the public domain, but they presented insufficient proof to establish that proposition."
According to the new ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the five-by-six block format on a quilt with the alphabetical arrangement of the letters in the first 26 blocks and four icons in the last four blocks is copyrightable and therefore can be protected by copyright. The ruling can be found at:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/007300.html
I found that very hard to believe. The court should know better that the layout of any two-dimensional block format with anything filled in it is a pure idea and therefore is not copyrightable. Filling the first 26 blocks with the letters and the remaining blocks with anything else is also an idea and therefore is not copyrightable. These ideas are commonly found in different places for kids such as children books, posters, and toys.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 6,230
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Wed Dec 12 2001 - 22:05:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:44 GMT