Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc.
754 F.3d 95
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Zalewski, an architect through Draftics, licensed colonial home designs to T.P. Builders and Cillis Builders in the 1990s.
- After licenses expired, Sofía Engineering and DeRaven Design & Drafting allegedly customized and marketed designs without Zalewski’s consent.
- Cicero Builders built two houses using DeRaven designs allegedly based on Zalewski’s originals.
- Zalewski asserted copyright infringement and DMCA claims; Defendants argued designs copied unprotected elements only.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants on remaining claims and awarded attorney’s fees to some defendants.
- Court affirms in part, vacates and remands for reconsideration on attorney’s fees, and remands to apply correct standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether architectural works are protectable same as other works | Zalewski contends architectural works are protectable. | Intervest-style view treats architecture as thin compilation of unoriginal elements. | Architectural works are protectable; not all elements are uncopyrightable. |
| Whether copying involved wrongful copying given unprotected elements | Defendants copied Zalewski’s designs closely overall. | Most similarities are unprotectable design parameters and standard features. | Copying existed but was of unprotected elements; no wrongful copying. |
| DMCA claim viability | DMCA claims exist due to removal of copyright management information. | No adequate pleadings or evidence support DMCA claims. | DMCA claims properly dismissed. |
| Attorney’s fees award correctness | Fees were improperly awarded given the initial complaints’ lack of basis. | District court based on objective unreasonableness; affirmed fee award. | Remand to reconsider fees under correct standard; vacate current award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laureyssens v. Idea Grp., Inc., 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1992) (distinguishes substantial vs probative similarity)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (Supreme Court 1991) (compilations require original arrangement)
- Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir.2008) (architectural works receive thin protection; compilations framework)
- Attia v. Society of the New York Hospital, 201 F.3d 50 (2d Cir.1999) (ideas and concepts not protected; prelim sketches)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Development Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.2010) (design parameters and general notions of placement unprotected)
- Sparaco v. Lawler, Matusky, Skelly, Engineers LLP, 303 F.3d 460 (2d Cir.2002) (topography and site plans not copyrightable)
- Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc’ns, 118 F.3d 955 (2d Cir.1997) (merger and separation of ideas from expression; protection limits)
- Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir.1946) (copying and originality standards for infringement)