Satava v. Lowry
323 F.3d 805 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A combination of unprotectable elements, such as ideas or standard features dictated by nature and an artistic medium, is eligible for copyright protection only if the selection and arrangement of those elements is original enough to constitute an original work of authorship.
Facts:
- Richard Satava is a glass artist who, in 1990, began creating and selling glass-in-glass sculptures of jellyfish after being inspired by an aquarium.
- Satava's sculptures depict a vertically oriented, colorful jellyfish with tendrils and a rounded bell inside a clear, bullet-shaped glass shroud, designed to be a lifelike representation of the pelagia colorata jellyfish.
- Christopher Lowry, another glass artist, also began making glass-in-glass jellyfish sculptures during the 1990s.
- Lowry's sculptures were very similar in appearance to Satava's.
- Lowry admitted he had seen a picture of Satava's work in a magazine in 1996.
- Lowry also admitted to examining one of Satava's sculptures in 1997 when a customer brought it to him for repair.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Satava filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Christopher Lowry in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
- The district court granted Satava's motion for a preliminary injunction, which prohibited Lowry from producing sculptures similar to Satava's.
- Lowry, as the appellant, appealed the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 copyright protection for a realistic glass-in-glass jellyfish sculpture extend to the general idea of a jellyfish suspended in glass or to elements of expression that are standard for jellyfish physiology and the glass-in-glass medium?
Opinions:
Majority - Gould, Circuit Judge
No. Copyright protection for a realistic sculpture does not extend to the underlying idea of the subject or to elements of expression that are standard, stock, or common to that subject matter or medium. The Copyright Act explicitly separates protectable original expression from unprotectable ideas. Therefore, Satava cannot copyright the idea of a glass-in-glass jellyfish. Furthermore, elements that are standard to the subject (scènes à faire), such as the rounded bell and tentacles of a jellyfish, or dictated by the medium, like the clear glass shroud and its tapered shape, are unprotectable parts of the public domain. While a combination of unprotectable elements can be copyrighted, it is only protectable if the selection and arrangement are sufficiently original. Here, Satava's combination of common elements lacks the 'quantum of originality' needed for broad protection, as it would effectively grant him a monopoly on the idea of a lifelike glass jellyfish. Satava's copyright is therefore 'thin,' protecting only his unique, original artistic contributions—such as the specific curls of the tendrils—against virtually identical copying.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the idea-expression dichotomy and the scènes à faire doctrine to visual arts, particularly those depicting natural subjects. The court's holding reinforces that copyright protection for realistic works is 'thin,' covering only the artist's original contributions beyond the unprotectable ideas and standard elements. This decision prevents artists from monopolizing common subjects from nature or standard artistic techniques, thereby preserving a robust public domain from which other artists can draw inspiration. Future infringement claims involving realistic art will require a careful dissection of the work to filter out unprotectable elements before comparing the remaining original expression.
