Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corporation, 708 F.3d 573

Building Graphics owns valid copyrights in Chadwyck, Ballantrae, and Springfield plans.
Lennar planned Charlotte market entry; hired Drafting & Design to create new plans, basing them on the Fairfax design.
Drafting & Design produced Summerlin, Hampton, Hudson, Abbey, and Bluffton plans derived from Fairfax.
Dispute centers on whether Lennar had a reasonable opportunity to view Building Graphics’ plans (access) before creating challenged plans.
District court granted summary judgment for Lennar and Drafting & Design, finding no substantial similarity given thin protection; appeals court affirms.
Court acknowledges potential substantial similarity analysis but reserves it, as access was not shown, so infringement not proven at summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lennar had a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted plans	Building Graphics shows due diligence process could reveal access	Lennar’s access was not reasonably possible; only mere possibility	No reasonable possibility of access; district court affirmed
Whether substantial similarity would support infringement if access existed	Plans are substantially similar to Chadwyck/Ballantrae/Springfield	Even if access were shown, no substantial similarity	Not reached; affirmance based on lack of access

Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579 (4th Cir. 1996) (necessity of reasonable access; bare possibility insufficient)
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 241 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2000) (chain of transmission supports access)
Ale House Mgmt., Inc. v. Raleigh Ale House, Inc., 205 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2000) (access must be reasonably possible, not merely possible)