MJ Bogatin (“Bo”) of Bogatin, Corman & Gold, is an Arts and Entertainment Attorney in San Francisco. He is also a long-time President of California Lawyers for the Arts. www.calawyersforthearts.org. Bo is available to answer some of your questions surrounding the business of Art Licensing. - THANKS BO!
Always happy to discuss copyrights in the news, Jeff! Let me summarize the case to which you are referring. It is called Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Varsity Brands is one of the largest purveyors of cheerleading uniforms in the country. Star Athletica is a smaller competitor. Varsity registered its copyrights on certain “chevron designs” used in a new series of uniforms. Star’s catalogue the following year included a number of similar chevron designs in its new uniforms. Varsity sued.
What is a chevron? I didn’t know! Here is a link to some other legal bloggers who dug up the Varsity copyrighted designs and the Star catalogue uniforms: https://www.knobbe.com/news/2016/11/chevrons-stripes-cheerleaders-and-copyright-supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-star Now I know what a chevron is!
The matter sounds straightforward enough, doesn’t it, Jeff? What’s the issue that brought such a case all the way to the SCOTUS? It is simply this: Is the Varsity chevron an article that is part of a useful item like a cheerleading uniform, or is it something else; something uniquely creative simply added to the useful article? Copyright does not apply to “useful items”. It has always applied to the sculpture that is turned into a lamp, and the illustrations that are added to mugs, but what about clothing? Historically, clothing and its elements, from zippers to hidden pockets, have always been considered useful items. Some of these items may be entitled to patent protection, but not copyright.
Copyright is limited to “original works of authorship” that are not in themselves “functional”. (See 17 USC Section 101: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a ) Section 101 defines a useful article as:
an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a “useful article”.
Reasonable minds can differ. The Federal District Court in Varsity’s copyright infringement case found that the chevrons had a utilitarian function with respect to the uniforms. Varsity appealed. The Federal Circuit Appellate Court reversed, finding that the chevron was a design that “incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article” per 17 U.S.C. § 101. Star appealed to SCOTUS. Undoubtedly, as indicated by the reversal of the original Judgment, Stars’ attorneys considered this to be “a close question.” And no doubt there were a lot of damages at stake. Remember, having lost on appeal, Star could be liable not only for large damages, but for all Varsity’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for bringing their action, as well as Stars’ own.
When it came right down to it, SCOTUS did not consider this to be such a close question. It applied the usual legal “test”: Do the artistic features of the useful articles includes a separate identification or “separability” requirement and an independent existence requirement. More particularly, “(1) can the chevron designs be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would they qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article?”
Justice Thomas, writing for a five-member majority of the Court, affirmed the Judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This majority identified the two key requirements – that the chevron features were separately identifiable from the cheerleading uniform, and are capable of existing independent of the utilitarian aspects of the uniform. It also reasoned that removing the surface decorations from the uniforms in the abstract and applying them in another medium would not replicate the uniform itself.
So, Jeff, you want to make a million bucks? Attach some of your original artwork in ambiguous fashion to a top-selling article of clothing. Register your copyright, and let me know when you someone infringes on your design. We’ll rack up.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is not intended and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Because the law is not static, and one situation will differ from the next, the results will differ as well, thus we do not assume responsibility for any actions taken based on any information contained herein. Also, be aware that the laws vary from state to state. Therefore, this website cannot replace the advice of an experienced attorney who practices within the jurisdiction involved in your issue or dispute. Receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. MJ Bogatin, Bogatin, Corman & Gold www.bcgattorneys.com
© 2017 mjbogatin