Want to stay current on e–commerce law? Sign up for Email Newsletter.
Appeals Court Finds Rule-Based Works are not "Original" for U.S. Copyright Law
In a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) the court considered the issue of the degree of originality required for copyright protection of a rule-based work. Southco, a manufacturer of hardware such as rivets, latches, handles and fasteners, developed a numbering system for its products using part numbers to indicate product characteristics such as thread size, composition of screw and finish. Its parts numbers were well understood by its customers. A competitor, Kanebridge, began to use the same system in comparison charts that were included in advertisements and other literature provided to customers.. The majority of the Court of Appeals held that there was no copyright infringement because Southco's work did not meet the test of originality as required by the Copyright Act and as interpreted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Services Co. This conclusion was based on the majority's analysis of what constituted the idea and what constituted the expression. For the majority, the rules assigning numbers for specific characteristics constituted the "idea". There was no copyright in the idea. The application of the rules to specific products generated product numbers automatically without need for any element of thought or creativity at that stage. Thus the product number, the "expression", was not sufficiently creative to be copyrightable.
In a strong dissent, Circuit Judge Roth, argued that the majority had drawn the line between idea and expression incorrectly. In the minority's view, the idea was the use of a code to describe products. The expression was the use of pre-determined numbers to portray given characteristics of particular products and specific product numbers were merely a part of the expression. There was no copyright in the idea of using a code and Southco was not trying to prevent Kanebridge from using that idea. However, Southco did have copyright in its system of numbers which was one of many possible expressions of the idea of using a code. Roth J. pointed out that the majority's reasoning was inconsistent with a number of post-Feist cases in which a fairly low element of creativity or originality has been required. In addition, Roth J. said that the majority decision created an "unjustified and unexplained bias against copyright protection for all rule-based expression". The numbering scheme was no less creative or original simply because it was governed by rules rather than the more indeterminate ideas typically associated with art or literature.
For a summary and a link to the decision, see:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf