Esquire, Inc. v. Barbara A. Ringer
192 U.S. App. D.C. 187, 591 F.2d 796 (1978)
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection for utilitarian articles is limited to those design features that are physically or conceptually separable from the article's utilitarian aspects and capable of existing independently as a work of art; the overall shape or configuration of a utilitarian article, even if aesthetically pleasing, is generally not copyrightable.
Facts:
- Esquire, Inc. manufactured stationary outdoor luminaries (floodlights) of contemporary design with rounded or elliptically-shaped housings.
- Esquire, Inc. submitted three applications to the Copyright Office for registration of these designs, describing them as "artistic design[s] for lighting fixture[s]."
- Esquire, Inc. asserted that the designs were eligible for copyright protection as "works of art."
- The Register of Copyrights refused to register Esquire's claims, citing that Copyright Office regulations preclude registration of the design of a utilitarian article when all design elements are directly related to its useful functions and cannot exist independently as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work.
Procedural Posture:
- Esquire, Inc. submitted three applications to the Copyright Office for registration of its lighting fixture designs.
- The Register of Copyrights refused to register the claims, citing Copyright Office regulations regarding utilitarian articles.
- Esquire, Inc. twice requested reconsideration of its copyright applications, and the Register twice refused.
- Esquire, Inc. then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the Register to issue copyright certificates.
- The district court ruled in favor of Esquire, Inc., concluding that registration was required and ordered the Register to issue the certificates.
- The Register of Copyrights appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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 the overall shape or configuration of a utilitarian article, such as an outdoor lighting fixture, qualify for copyright protection as a "work of art" under 17 U.S.C. § 5(g) and 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(c) if its design elements are directly related to its useful functions?
Opinions:
Majority - BAZELON, Circuit Judge
No, the overall shape or configuration of a utilitarian article, such as Esquire's lighting fixtures, does not qualify for copyright protection as a "work of art" when its design elements are directly related to its useful functions and lack features capable of independent existence as a copyrightable work apart from their utilitarian aspect. The court affirmed the Register of Copyrights' interpretation of 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(c), which bars copyright registration for the overall shape or configuration of a utilitarian article, regardless of aesthetic appeal, if the design elements are not physically or conceptually separable. This interpretation is deemed reasonable and well-supported by Congress's consistent policy against copyrighting industrial designs, as evidenced by repeatedly rejected legislation and the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act. The court distinguished Mazer v. Stein, explaining that Mazer involved concededly artistic statuettes incorporated into lamp bases, which were clearly separable from the utilitarian function, unlike the overall shape of Esquire's fixtures. The court rejected the argument that the Register's interpretation amounted to impermissible discrimination against abstract modern art, reasoning that while there might be an unintentional disproportionate impact, it was justified by the legitimate congressional goal of not extending copyright to industrial designs. Therefore, the Register's denial of registration was not an abuse of discretion.
Concurring - LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge
Yes, I concur with the majority's judgment that the Register of Copyrights' interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § 5(g) and 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(c) correctly precludes registration for the design of a useful article and for any design elements that cannot be identified separately from the article's utilitarian aspects. Justice Leventhal emphasized that the overall legislative policy against granting monopolies for industrial designs supports the Copyright Office's effort to differentiate between aesthetic elements that are conceptually severable and those inextricably interwoven with the article's utilitarian function. He also clarified the jurisdictional basis for mandamus actions against federal officials, noting that while district courts have the authority to issue such orders, the Register's application of regulations often involves broad discretion, making successful challenges to denials of copyright applications rare.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidifies the "separability test" in copyright law, clarifying that an object's overall aesthetic appeal is insufficient for copyright protection if its design is intrinsically tied to its utilitarian function. It underscores the judiciary's deference to administrative agencies' interpretations of their own regulations, especially when those interpretations align with established legislative policy. The ruling has a lasting impact on product designers and manufacturers, compelling them to ensure that any artistic elements they wish to copyright on utilitarian articles are distinct and capable of existing independently, thereby preventing the monopolization of basic product shapes or configurations.
