Re: copyright/ plastic surgeon

On 05/21/97, G. de Bruin <blueger[_at_]worldaccess.nl> wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me if a plastic surgeon (in the USA) has a copyright
> on his work? So, if he or she gives you eg. a new face, is that work
> protected as a copyrightwork? And if so, how does that relates to the
> operated person?
>
> I really tried to find the answers in the Dutch law, but here in
> Holland that problem is not solved yet.

Copyrighting surgically created faces is interesting. In the US it may not fly because of 1) existing legal doctrines - functionality and the requirement of originality come to mind, and 2) public policy considerations which might operate to bar protection for these plastic surgeon creations.

First, the originality present in a recreated face would be minimal. The elements that would likely be claimed - an aquiline nose, the curve imparted to a cheek bone, for example - would likely be either non-original (lacking the mere scintilla of originality the Copyright Act requires) or dictated by the function to be performed. If the form tracks the function perfectly, you will have an insurmountable problem finding copyrightable expression.

Second, public policy might operate to bar such protections. Some plastic surgery (reconstructive) is essential and the medical complications and likely costs associated with surgeons having to make sure they are not doing a "Lambruzzi Hollywood Eye-lift" (pure fiction, no offense intended) would be serious. The chill on surgeons could be severe and contrary to public policy. The Lasercomb decision of the fourth circuit launched the concept of "misuse of copyright" and while not exactly applicable to this situation, the concept has some value here.

Jamie Powers
<Jamie[_at_]srgpe.com>  

Anyone out there with other knowledge of any copyright protection being extended to human form/features? Received on Fri May 23 1997 - 17:00:00 GMT