Editing Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co.

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=
|citation=
|date=April 3, 1974
|subject=Copyright
|appealed_from=
|Court_opinion_parts=
}}
'''Facts''': Steven Levine formed a sculptural piece from wire. That piece later inspired him to create the “Ribbon Rack,” a functional and aesthetic bike rack. He tried to copyright it, and was denied by copyright office b/c no element was capable of independent existence as art piece apart from shape of the useful article.  
'''Facts''': Steven Levine formed a sculptural piece from wire. That piece later inspired him to create the “Ribbon Rack,” a functional and aesthetic bike rack. He tried to copyright it, and was denied by copyright office b/c no element was capable of independent existence as art piece apart from shape of the useful article.  


Line 22: Line 14:


'''Comments''': "Works of art" classification of Copyright Act of 1909 was replaced by reference to "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" in the Copyright Act of 1976, to supply a clear line between copyrightable works of applied art and uncopyrighted works of industrial design. Statutory def. of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works": if the design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from utilitarian aspects of the article. Conceptual separability: the design of a useful article is not essential for the usefulness of the article. Best Test for conceptual separability: Denicola test: should "depend on the extent to which the work reflects artistic expression uninhibited by functional considerations" Dissent: 1) Denicola test diminishes conceptual separability to its vanishing point 2) Their focus on process or sequence followed by the designer makes copyright protection depend upon largely fortuitous circumstances concerning the design creation. Conceptual separability: the article must stimulate in the mind of the beholder a concept that is separate from the concept evoked by its utilitarian function – the onlooker must perceive an aesthetic concept unrelated to the article’s use.
'''Comments''': "Works of art" classification of Copyright Act of 1909 was replaced by reference to "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" in the Copyright Act of 1976, to supply a clear line between copyrightable works of applied art and uncopyrighted works of industrial design. Statutory def. of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works": if the design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from utilitarian aspects of the article. Conceptual separability: the design of a useful article is not essential for the usefulness of the article. Best Test for conceptual separability: Denicola test: should "depend on the extent to which the work reflects artistic expression uninhibited by functional considerations" Dissent: 1) Denicola test diminishes conceptual separability to its vanishing point 2) Their focus on process or sequence followed by the designer makes copyright protection depend upon largely fortuitous circumstances concerning the design creation. Conceptual separability: the article must stimulate in the mind of the beholder a concept that is separate from the concept evoked by its utilitarian function – the onlooker must perceive an aesthetic concept unrelated to the article’s use.
[[Category:Cases:Intellectual Property]]
[[Category:Cases:Copyright]]
Please note that all contributions to Wiki Law School are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (see Wiki Law School:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: