Stadia
In honor of the World Cup, the Architecture Museum Der Tu in Munich is holding an exhibit on the history of the stadium. Via Design Boom.
« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 13, 2006
June 07, 2006
Copyright protection for motorcycles?
I was reading through an old post on the Patry Copyright Blog and in a comment [by Michael Eisenberg] found this gem:
The design of the Kikker 5150 bike (as shown in the below photo) is actually registered as a "sculpture" (VA 1-213-363 and VA 1-213-362).
June 01, 2006
Protecting The Skyline
The image on top is 3D rendering of a Google Earth photo of the Columbus Circle area of Manhattan, and a model made wih a 3D printer.
As one example of the uses to which OGLE software can be put, Eyebeam shows examples of 3-D models created from photographs of portions of Manhattan in GOOGLE EARTH (above).
Setting aside any issues as to copyrights in the photos themselves, could such models infringe the copyrights in certain architectural works? In general, U.S. Copyright law protects architectural works created after 1990, giving the owner of the copyright certain exclusive rights in the work, including the rights to make reproductions. However, Section 120 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 120, provides that such exclusive rights "do[] not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." (Emphasis added.)
Although a 3-D model of a city block does not appear to implicate the core of protection of architectural works, as it is not intended to be used to recreate the protected building, neither is it a "picture, painting, or other pictorial representation. Thus, to the extent any protected architectural works are incorporated in such a model, the model would appear to be a techincal infringement. Would the courts carve out an exception, by torturing the definition of "pictorial representation," deem it a fair use, or actually find an infringement?
Stay tuned!
Glenn Mitchell is head of litigation for the Schwimmer Mitchell Law Firm.
CAFC Denies Rehearing Requests in Lawman Armor Design Patent Appeal
The CAFC's troublesome decision in Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner Int'l, LLC lives on. In its original decision, the CAFC ruled that, for purposes of determining infringement of a design patent, the overall appearance of a design cannot itself be a "point of novelty."
On May 31, 2006, the CAFC denied Lawman's request for rehearing (here) and for rehearing en banc (here). In denying the rehearing request, the three-judge panel issued a "Supplemental Opinion," attempting to explain its earlier decision:
"In our decision, we did not intend to cast any doubt upon our prior decisions indicating that in appropriate circumstances a combination of design elements itself may constitute a "point of novelty." Such a combination is a different concept than the overall appearance of a design which, as indicated, our cases have recognized cannot be a point of novelty."The CAFC then considered the petition for rehearing en banc. "A poll was requested, taken, and failed." Judge Newman, joined by Judges Rader and Gajarsa, dissented from the denial of an en banc hearing, asserting that the panel's view of design patent law "is contrary to the weight of Federal Circuit precedent and, as the several amici curiae point out, will have a seriously adverse effect on design patent law."
"The amicus curiae point out that many, if not most, design patents are novel combinations of known design elements, and that recognition of a design's overall appearance can constitute a point of novelty, in the usage that has evolved in design patent law. The Patent and Trademark Office grants design patents on this basis."Judge Newman urged that the case be considered en banc so that the court might issue a "consistent statement of law, overruling whatever body of precedent is negated." Otherwise, design patent law will exist in an "unpredictable limbo."
Shape Blog comment: If a combination of elements can be a point of novelty, according to the panel, why can't a combination of all the elements (i.e., the overall appearance of the design) constitute a point of novelty?