Franklin Mint Corp. v. National Wildlife Art Exchange, Inc.
575 F.2d 62 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection extends only to the particular expression of an idea, not to the idea itself. An artist does not infringe on a previously sold copyright by creating a new, original work depicting the same subject matter, even if some of the same source materials are used, so long as the new work is a distinct expression and not a copy of the first.
Facts:
- In 1972, artist Albert Earl Gilbert was commissioned by Ralph H. Stewart to paint a watercolor of cardinals.
- Gilbert completed the painting, titled 'Cardinals on Apple Blossom,' using his own source materials, including slides, sketches, and stuffed cardinal specimens.
- Stewart purchased the painting and all reproduction rights from Gilbert for $1,500, with a notation on the check specifying the transfer of these rights.
- Stewart subsequently formed National Wildlife Art Exchange, Inc. (National) and transferred the painting and its rights to the corporation, which then sold prints.
- After a proposed business venture between Gilbert and National failed, Gilbert entered into an agreement in 1975 with Franklin Mint Corporation to paint a new series of bird pictures.
- For Franklin Mint, Gilbert painted a new work titled 'The Cardinal,' which also depicted two cardinals on a branch.
- To create 'The Cardinal,' Gilbert used some of his original preliminary sketches and photographs, but also utilized new source materials and did not refer to the completed 'Cardinals on Apple Blossom' painting.
- Franklin Mint made and sold engravings of 'The Cardinal' as part of a four-painting series.
Procedural Posture:
- National Wildlife Art Exchange, Inc. filed suit against Albert Earl Gilbert and Franklin Mint Corporation in U.S. District Court, alleging copyright infringement.
- The district court conducted a bench trial (a trial with a judge and no jury).
- The district court judge found in favor of Gilbert and Franklin Mint, ruling that although National held a valid copyright, there had been no copying and therefore no infringement.
- National Wildlife Art Exchange, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 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 an artist infringe on a copyright, which he previously sold for a specific painting, by creating a new painting of the same general subject matter that is distinguishably different in its expression?
Opinions:
Majority - Weis, Circuit Judge.
No. An artist does not infringe on a copyright by creating a new, distinct expression of the same idea. Copyright law protects only the specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself. To prove infringement, a plaintiff must show both that the defendant copied the protected work and that the copying resulted in a 'substantial similarity' constituting an 'improper appropriation.' In this case, the court credited the artist's testimony that he did not copy the original work. Even if some copying from memory or source materials is assumed, the two paintings are not substantially similar in their expression. The court noted numerous differences in the composition, positioning of the birds, their attitudes, colors, and other details. These variances establish a 'diversity of expression' rather than an infringing copy. An artist is free to create 'variations on a theme' or revisit a subject matter, as this is fundamentally different from copying a specific, protected expression.
Analysis:
This case provides a significant clarification of the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law, particularly as it applies to visual arts. It affirms the principle that an artist is not barred from revisiting a subject matter even after selling the copyright to an earlier work on that same subject. The ruling protects an artist's ability to develop a specific style or focus on a particular theme throughout their career without fear of infringing on their own prior works. It reinforces that infringement requires more than just similarity of subject matter; it requires the appropriation of the specific, protected expression of that subject.
