American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans Association
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26957, 126 F.3d 977, 44 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1296 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A taxonomy, as a classification system involving original selection and arrangement of terms and numbers, possesses the requisite originality to be a copyrightable 'original work of authorship' under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). The fact that a work is useful or functional does not preclude it from copyright protection, nor does it render the work an uncopyrightable 'system' under § 102(b).
Facts:
- The American Dental Association (ADA) created the 'Code on Dental Procedures and Nomenclature,' a taxonomy classifying dental procedures.
- The Code assigns a unique number, a short description, and a long description to each procedure.
- The first edition of the Code was published in 1969 and has been revised frequently in response to changes in dental knowledge.
- The ADA obtained copyright registrations for its 1991 and 1994 versions of the Code.
- Delta Dental Plans Association published its own work, 'Universal Coding and Nomenclature,' which included most of the numbering system and short descriptions from the ADA's Code.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Dental Association sued Delta Dental Plans Association in federal district court for copyright infringement.
- Delta asserted several defenses, including that the Code was not copyrightable subject matter.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Delta, ruling that the Code could not be copyrighted.
- The American Dental Association (as appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a taxonomy of dental procedures, which consists of a numbering system and short and long descriptions, lack the requisite originality to be copyrightable subject matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
No. A taxonomy of dental procedures does not lack the requisite originality to be copyrightable subject matter. The court reasoned that the level of originality required for copyright protection is low and that a work's usefulness does not prevent it from being copyrightable. The court rejected the district court's analogy to utilitarian objects like lamps, stating that the 'separability' test for sculptural works does not apply to literary works. Classification itself is a creative endeavor; the ADA made original choices in grouping procedures, devising descriptions, and structuring the numbering system. These elements are expressions of the ADA's authorship and do not 'merge' with the uncopyrightable facts of dental procedures. The Code is not an uncopyrightable 'system' under § 102(b) because, while it may be used in various systems, the Code itself is a descriptive work, not a method of operation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies copyright protection for functional literary works like taxonomies, databases, and catalogs, as long as they contain a 'modicum of creativity.' It clarifies that the usefulness of a work does not negate its originality for copyright purposes. The case is significant for rejecting the application of the 'utilitarian object' separability test to literary works, preventing a major and confusing expansion of that doctrine. By protecting such works, the court incentivizes organizations like the ADA and AMA to invest in creating and maintaining industry standards that facilitate commerce and communication.
