The Long, Slow Road to Protecting Fashions by Copyright
Fair use will remain about as subjective in application as is the quality of the artworks and all the rest to which it is intended to apply.
August 27, 2021 at 02:20 PM
8 minute read
The first Copyright Act was promptly made law in 1790, just over one year following ratification (by quill pen) of the Constitution that enabled Congress to do so. It has been revised comprehensively only four times since. The current version, which became effective in 1978, is charmingly obsolescent despite heavily promoted, patchwork updates. That has left much of the modernization to the scholarship, skill and, on occasion, predilections and fancies of a federal judiciary tasked with applying the current Copyright Act to things unknown when it was enacted, such as smartphones, the Internet, and something my 12-year-old says goes by the name of TikTok.
Such was the perambulating pace of change that, when the first modern case of whether and to what extent fashion could be protected by copyright made its way to a federal appellate court, the opinion started with, "This case is on a razor's edge of copyright law." Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980). The question presented to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by predecessors at my law firm on behalf of the plaintiff, the jeweler Barry Kieselstein-Cord, was whether the ornamental elements of the buckles on two styles from his line of luxury belts were protectable by copyright. In copyright law terms, the issue was whether those decorative elements could be separated conceptually from the utilitarian elements, even if embodied together in a single, molded piece of precious metal. The court held that it could. "We see in appellant's belt buckles conceptually separable sculptural elements, as apparently have the buckles' wearers who have used them as ornamentation for parts of the body other than the waist." 632 F.2d at 993.
It remains the law today that, merely because an object has a function—such as holding up your pants—does not mean that decorative elements of the object are precluded from protection by copyright. The converse is not true: Just because it is decorative does not mean it is protectible, and that devil brings some of the details that have inhabited lawsuits ever since.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWalmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
3 minute readNY Federal Judge Rules Online-Only Retailers Cannot Face ADA Claims
Morrison Cohen Debuts Luxury Brands Practice as Retailers Navigate Post-Pandemic Landscape
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 2Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 3Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 4People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 5How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250