Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc.
754 F.3d 95, 2014 WL 2521388, 111 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1023 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection for architectural works does not extend to elements that are standard conventions of a particular style, functional, or dictated by consumer expectations and design parameters. Copying only these unprotected elements does not constitute wrongful copying and therefore is not copyright infringement.
Facts:
- In the 1990s, architect James Zalewski created several designs for colonial-style homes.
- Zalewski granted licenses to construction companies, including T.P. Builders and Cillis Builders, to use these designs.
- After the licenses expired, T.P. Builders and Cillis Builders allegedly continued to use Zalewski's designs without his permission.
- T.P. Builders hired V.S. Sofía Engineering and DeRaven Design & Drafting to customize the designs for its customers.
- Cillis Builders also hired DeRaven Design & Drafting to customize the designs.
- The construction companies marketed and built homes based on Zalewski's original designs or the customized versions.
- Cicero Builders constructed two houses using DeRaven designs that Zalewski alleged were based on his originals.
- Zalewski claimed the defendants copied the overall size, shape, silhouette, and the arrangement of rooms, windows, doors, and other architectural features.
Procedural Posture:
- James Zalewski filed a copyright infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against numerous builders, engineers, and homeowners.
- Zalewski filed a Third Amended Complaint after the district court dismissed his earlier complaints.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing a lack of substantial similarity, while Zalewski cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants and denied Zalewski's motion.
- The district court subsequently granted a motion for attorney's fees to defendants T.P. Builders and Cicero Builders.
- Zalewski appealed the dismissal, the grants of summary judgment, and the award of attorney's fees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 copying of standard, functional, or style-dictated elements of an architectural design, such as the general layout and features of a colonial-style house, constitute wrongful copying under the Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Wesley, J.
No. The copying of standard, functional, or style-dictated elements of an architectural design does not constitute wrongful copying under copyright law. To prove infringement, a plaintiff must show not only that the defendant copied their work, but that the copying was 'wrongful,' meaning it appropriated the work's protected, original expression. The court reasoned that copyright does not protect ideas, facts, or elements in the public domain. In architecture, this means unprotectable elements include: (1) features indispensable to a particular style (scènes-à-faire), like the common characteristics of a colonial house; (2) design elements dictated by efficiency, engineering necessity, or building codes; and (3) features driven by consumer demand and market expectations, such as placing a closet in every bedroom. The court rejected the Eleventh Circuit's approach in Intervest which categorized architecture as a 'compilation' deserving only 'thin' protection, arguing instead that courts must simply filter out unprotectable elements from any creative work. Because the similarities between Zalewski's and the defendants' designs consisted only of these unprotected colonial-style conventions and standard housing features, no wrongful copying occurred.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Second Circuit's framework for analyzing copyright infringement in architectural works, aligning it with traditional copyright principles rather than creating a special category for architecture. It clarifies that architects who work within established styles, like colonial, possess a 'thin' copyright, making it difficult to prove infringement unless a defendant copies the architect's unique, original expression, not just the standard features of the style. The ruling provides a defense for builders who create homes in popular styles, so long as they do not engage in 'very close copying' of an architect's specific, original contributions. This case serves as a key application of the abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis to architecture, emphasizing the need to dissect a work to separate protectable expression from unprotectable ideas, styles, and functional elements.
