On May 14, 2008, a federal appellate court issued an important decision in Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., concerning copyright protection of architectural works. This ruling underscores the importance of correctly registering works under both forms of copyright protection available to architects, one for "pictorial, graphical, or sculptural work" and another for "architectural works."
In 1995, Plaintiff Paul Oravec developed a high-rise building design. After registering it with the U.S. Copyright Office, Oravec then marketed his design to developers in South Florida. During the same time period, the Dezer defendants began developing the Trump Palace and the Trump Royale (collectively, "Trump Buildings"), twin high-rise beachfront condominiums in Florida. In February, 2003, Oravec saw a newspaper advertisement featuring a photograph of the Trump Palace model. The following day, he visited the resort's sales office and viewed models and brochures depicting the Trump Buildings. At the time, neither building had been constructed; only the foundation of the Trump Palace had been laid. Believing the designs resembled his own, Oravec secured additional copyright registrations in March of 2004 for his unregistered designs. Important, Oravec deleted his claim for an "architectural work" copyright and only obtained a "pictorial, graphical, or sculptural work" co pyright. This oversight later proved to be costly.
In November, 2004, Oravec sued several parties associated with the Trump Buildings for copyright infringement. Oravec contended that design elements were present in both his design and the Trump Buildings. The district court determined that Oravec could not establish infringement of copyrights because no reasonable jury could find that the Trump Buildings were substantially similar to his designs. Oravec appealed.
On May 14, 2008, the appellate court affirmed that ruling. First, the court carefully compared the distinctive features of Oravec's designs with the Trump Buildings and concluded that numerous and significant differences existed in the expression of these elements. To find for Oravec, observed the court, "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 finding would "effectively bar all other architects from incorporating these concepts into new and original designs" and lead to "a diminished store of ideas" available for future works, and thus would be contrary to the fundamental purposes of copyright law.
The appellate court also affirmed the ruling on the March 2004 Copyright. Oravec registered his March 2004 designs as "pictorial, graphical, or sculptural works" rather than as "architectural works." Oravec could not establish infringement of these works because, unlike an "architectural work" copyright, a "pictorial, graphical, or sculptural work" copyright does not protect against the construction of a building based on copyrighted architectural plans; it only prohibits copying of the plans themselves. In effect, because Oravec failed to properly register his design as an "architectural work", he could not seek damages for the construction of the Trump Buildings.
Source: Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., Case No. 06-14495 (11th Cir., May 14, 2008).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andres Quintana, Esq. is the principal attorney at the Quintana Law Group, APC, an intellectual property law firm in Los Angeles County, California. He may be reached at or (818) 914-2100. For more information about the Quintana Law Group, APC, please visit
iAutoblog the premier autoblogger software
No comments:
Post a Comment