691 F.3d 182
2d Cir.2012Background
- Scholz alleges three front-elevation drawings were copied and posted online in violation of copyright.
- Drawings, created in the late 1980s, were registered with the Copyright Office.
- Sard constructed homes under Builder Agreement I (1992) and II (1995) using Scholz's plans and paid Scholz per square foot up to $50,000/year; agreements prohibited copying or using Scholz materials beyond terms.
- After termination, Sard and others allegedly posted copies of Scholz's drawings to advertise homes; Scholz also alleges additional infringement through other means.
- The district court granted dismissal, holding the drawings lacked sufficient detail for copyright protection under 102(a)(5) and precluded DMCA/breach claims; Scholz appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of protection for pictorial works vs. architectural works | Scholz argues drawings are protectable as pictorial works regardless of AWCPA | Sard/Coldwell claim insufficient detail precludes protection | Copyright protection extends to pictorial works; details are not required for 102(a)(5) protection |
| Effect of AWCPA on pre-existing 102(a)(5) protection | AWCPA does not diminish prior 102(a)(5) protection | AWCPA alters scope for architectural works only | AWCPA does not affect protection Scholz had under 102(a)(5) prior to AWCPA |
| Infringement standard when copying architectural drawings | Exact copies of eligible drawings infringed Scholz's rights | Only construction based on drawings is infringing | Copying of protected pictorial drawings constitutes infringement, regardless of construction |
| DMCA and breach of contract claims independent of copyright | DMCA/breach claims survive if copying occurred | Claims fail absent valid copyright infringement | Vacates district court's dismissal of breach-of-contract and DMCA claims to the extent based on copyright status; remand needed |
| Fair use applicability | Not addressed at dismissal; issue viable on remand | Fair use could negate infringement | Remand invited; no ruling on fair use at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (minimum creativity required; not novelty threshold)
- Attia v. Soc. of N.Y. Hosp., 201 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1999) (protects expression; ideas not protected; concept vs. expression)
- Robert R. Jones Assocs. v. Nino Homes, 858 F.2d 274 (6th Cir. 1988) (copying plans infringes; building may be constructed from plans)
- Lamont, 458 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1972) (copying floor plan promotional material may infringe rights)
- Sparaco v. Lawler, Matusky, Skelly Engineers LLP, 303 F.3d 460 (2d Cir. 2002) (distinguishing ideas from protectable expression; architectural context)
- T-Peg, Inc. v. VT. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2006) (protectability of architectural depictions; pre-AWCPA context)