Meshworks v. Toyota
528 F.3d 1258 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A work is not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection if it is a slavish copy of a pre-existing object, even if creating the copy required significant skill and labor or involved a change in medium. To be copyrightable, a depiction of a pre-existing object must incorporate the author's own original expressive contributions, such as choices regarding lighting, angle, or background.
Facts:
- In 2003, Toyota's advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, hired Grace & Wild, Inc. (G&W) to supply digital models of Toyota vehicles for an advertising campaign.
- G&W subcontracted with Meshwerks to create the initial digital wire-frame models of the vehicles.
- Meshwerks created the models by first taking copious physical measurements of the cars with a computerized arm, a process called digitization.
- Meshwerks personnel then spent 80 to 100 hours per vehicle manually refining, or "sculpting," the data points on a computer to create a wire-frame that replicated the vehicle's appearance as precisely as possible.
- The final models produced by Meshwerks were unadorned two-dimensional wire-frame depictions that appeared three-dimensional on screen, but lacked any color, shading, lighting, or background.
- After receiving the models, G&W and Saatchi & Saatchi added creative elements such as color, texture, lighting, and animation for use in Toyota's advertisements.
- Meshwerks alleged that it had contracted with G&W for only a single use of its models but that the defendants reused them in a host of other media.
Procedural Posture:
- Meshwerks sued Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., and other defendants in the U.S. District Court, alleging copyright infringement and a state-law contract claim.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Meshwerks' wire-frame models lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the copyright claim, finding the models were merely copies of Toyota's products.
- After dismissing the federal copyright claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Meshwerks’ state-law contract claim.
- Meshwerks, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Toyota and the other defendants as appellees.
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 digital wire-frame model of a pre-existing, three-dimensional object possess sufficient originality to qualify for copyright protection when its sole purpose is to replicate the object's appearance as accurately as possible, without adding creative elements like lighting, shading, or background?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch, Circuit Judge.
No. A digital wire-frame model that is an unadorned, slavish copy of a pre-existing object lacks the requisite originality for copyright protection. The Supreme Court's decision in Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. established that originality, which requires both independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity, is the 'sine qua non' of copyright. The court analogized this case to the copyright principles governing photography, where one cannot copyright the subject of a photograph (an unprotectable fact or idea) but can copyright the original expression of that subject, which comes from the photographer's decisions about lighting, angle, pose, and background. Here, Meshwerks' models are the equivalent of an unadorned depiction of the 'car as car,' stripped of any such expressive elements. The models are not independent creations but rather copies of Toyota's vehicle designs, which owe their origin to Toyota, not Meshwerks. The significant skill, labor, and effort invested by Meshwerks in the creation process are irrelevant to the originality of the final product, as is the mere fact of translating the work from a three-dimensional physical medium to a two-dimensional digital one.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the fundamental requirement of originality in copyright law applies with full force to works created in new digital media. It establishes the precedent that merely translating an object from a physical to a digital form, even with immense skill and effort, does not satisfy the originality requirement if the goal is slavish imitation. The ruling reinforces the idea/expression dichotomy by treating the underlying physical object as an unprotectable 'fact' and requiring the author of a representation to add their own separable, expressive elements to gain copyright protection. This case serves as a crucial guidepost for future disputes involving 3D scanning, digital modeling, and other forms of digital replication, particularly in commercial art and advertising.
