Lexplug logoLexplug

Shine v. Childs

District Court, S.D. New York
382 F. Supp. 2d 602, 76 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1531, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16525 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a copyright infringement claim involving an architectural work to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must show that a reasonable jury, applying the 'total concept and feel' test from the perspective of an ordinary observer, could find the two works substantially similar.


Facts:

  • In the fall of 1999, Thomas Shine, a Yale architecture student, created a sophisticated skyscraper design called 'Olympic Tower' for a class project.
  • The 'Olympic Tower' design featured a twisting tower with an external, symmetrical, diagonal column grid that created an elongated diamond pattern.
  • On December 9, 1999, Shine presented 'Olympic Tower' to a panel of expert critics that included renowned architect David M. Childs.
  • Childs publicly praised Shine's design at the presentation, and his complimentary comments were later published in a Yale alumni magazine alongside images of 'Olympic Tower'.
  • In the summer of 2003, Childs and his firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), were hired to design the Freedom Tower for the World Trade Center site.
  • The initial design for the Freedom Tower, unveiled in December 2003, was a tapering, twisting tower with an undulating, textured, diamond-shaped pattern on its facade.

Procedural Posture:

  • Thomas Shine registered copyrights for his architectural designs, 'Shine '99' and 'Olympic Tower,' in 2004.
  • Shine filed a complaint for copyright infringement against David M. Childs and his firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP (SOM), in the U.S. District Court.
  • The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing Shine's works were not original and were not substantially similar to the Freedom Tower.
  • The court opted to treat the motion as one for summary judgment because both parties submitted evidence beyond the initial pleadings.

Locked

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 triable issue of fact for copyright infringement exist when an architectural design, viewed by an ordinary observer, shares a similar 'total concept and feel' with a copyrighted work due to a unique combination of elements, even if individual elements are not original and notable differences exist between the two structures?


Opinions:

Majority - Mukasey, District Judge

Yes. A triable issue of fact for copyright infringement exists because a reasonable jury could find the works substantially similar based on their 'total concept and feel.' To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. Copying is shown through access (which defendants concede) and 'substantial similarity.' The court rejected the defendants' argument to apply the technical 'abstraction-filtration-comparison' test from computer software cases (Altai), finding the 'total concept and feel' test more appropriate for artistic works like architecture. This test is conducted from the perspective of an 'ordinary observer.' A lay observer examining the Freedom Tower and Olympic Tower side-by-side would notice similarities in their twisting, tapering forms and their undulating, diamond-patterned facades. While differences exist, a jury could reasonably conclude that the 'total concept and feel' is the same, meaning summary judgment is inappropriate for the Olympic Tower claim.



Analysis:

This case is significant for extending the 'total concept and feel' standard of substantial similarity to complex architectural works, rejecting a more technical, element-by-element analysis. It affirms that the copyright for an architectural work protects the overall form and the unique arrangement of its design elements, even if those elements individually exist in the public domain. This approach strengthens copyright protection for architects by focusing on the overall aesthetic impression rather than allowing potential infringers to escape liability by making minor modifications or pointing to the unoriginality of discrete components. The decision sets a precedent that conceptual and student architectural designs, if sufficiently expressed, are protectable and can form the basis of an infringement claim against a major commercial project.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Shine v. Childs (2005) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Shine v. Childs