Summary Judgment for Defense Affirmed in Copyright Action Where the Similarity in Architectural Plans Was in Unprotectable Concepts and Not Expression

Case: Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C. , No. 06-14495 (11th Cir. 5/14/08)

The One Sentence Summary: Summary judgment of non-infringement for defendants of copyright in architectural plans is upheld where similarities were only in non-protectable ideas and concepts rather than in expression of ideas.



Eleventh Circuit Holdings:

• "[N]on-infringement may be determined as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment, either because the similarity between two works concerns only non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiff’s work, or because no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find that the two works are substantially similar.”
• In comparing works, the court must determine if there is substantial similarity in expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves which cannot be copyrighted.
• "[W]hile individual standard features and architectural elements classifiable as ideas are not themselves copyrightable, an architect’s original combination or arrangement of such features may be."
• Differences in the designs "preclude a finding of substantial similarity. While it is true that Oravec’s designs and the Trump Buildings have a number of features in common, those elements are similar only at the broadest level of generality. At the level of protected expression, the differences between the designs are so significant that no reasonable, properly instructed jury could find the works substantially similar. As the district court observed, to conclude otherwise would require a finding that Oravec owns a copyright in the concept of a convex/concave formula or in that of using three external elevator towers that extend above the roof of a building. Such a conclusion would extend the protections of copyright law well beyond their proper scope."
• Protection of broad concepts under copyright would not be allowed because it would diminish the store of ideas available to other architects.
• Construction of a plan registered as a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work rather than as an architectural work under the Copyright law was not an infringement.
• “[A]lthough an owner of copyrighted architectural plans is granted the right to prevent the unauthorized copying of those plans, that individual . . . does not obtain a protectable interest in the useful article depicted by those plans.”
• Effective registration doctrine did not allow protection of unregistered elements of models in later registration as a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work that did not incorporate those models.
• The district court did not abuse discretion in denying late amendment of plaintiff's complaint.