Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer, Civ. A. No. 75-1737.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-1737. |
| Citation | 414 F. Supp. 939 |
| Parties | ESQUIRE, INC., Petitioner, v. Barbara A. RINGER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
George A. Arkwright, Arlington, Va., Charles L. Rowe, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
John R. Dugan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
In this mandamus action, Esquire asks the Court to direct the Register of Copyrights to register Esquire's claims to copyright for an artistic design of a lighting fixture. The fixture is in nontraditional form, devoid of ornamentation or decoration but of pleasing shape and used apparently for outside lighting of parking lots and other open spaces and is well suited to accompany structures of so-called functional design. It is conceded that the design of the fixture is original and would be qualified and accepted for registration if it did not have solely an obvious utilitarian purpose. In challenging the Register's refusal to register, Esquire relies on Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, the copyright law, Title 17, U.S.C., and applicable regulations, notably 37 C.F.R. § 202.10, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954). The matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment after briefs and oral argument. Since registration is essentially a ministerial act, the proper remedy is mandamus. Bouve v. Twentieth-Century Fox Film Corp., 74 U.S. App.D.C. 271, 122 F.2d 51 (1941).
Although there is no dispute that the features are original creations having aesthetic appeal, registration was denied on the theory that there was nothing separate or distinguishable from the shape of the intrinsically useful object and that the design as a whole could not be separately identified as a work of art.
The Register insists that the shapes and forms of all useful articles are not protected by the Copyright Act. She points out that the proposition that the shape of utilitarian objects cannot be copyrighted has been expressed constantly since 1910, when the initial regulations stated "productions of the industrial arts utilitarian in purpose and character are not subject to copyright registration, even if artistically made or ornamental," Copyright Office Regs., 1910, Rule 12(g), cited in Mazer v. Stein, supra, 347 U.S. at 212 n. 23, 74 S.Ct. at 467, 98 L.Ed. at 639.
Mazer v. Stein, supra, controls the outcome of the elusive semantic dispute inherent in 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(c). In Mazer the Court held that works of art are eligible articles for copyright even if intended for use in industry. The Court explicitly stated that if a work of art is an element in a manufactured article having a utilitarian purpose it is not barred from registration.
The Register concedes that an independent work of art in the historic and ordinary sense does not lose its character by incorporation in a useful article. The Register has for many years registered forms of traditional sculpture and indeed, as this record and Mazer note, when such sculpture is used in household lamps and candlesticks it has repeatedly been accepted for registration.
But the term "art" is not confined to traditional forms of fine arts, as Mazer also teaches. See also Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251-52, 23 S.Ct. 298, 300, 47 L.Ed. 460 (1903). The forms of the articles here in dispute are clearly art.
These outdoor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer
...The district court disagreed, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Register to enter the claim to copyright. Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer, 414 F.Supp. 939 (D.D.C.1976). For the reasons expressed below, we Although the issues involved are fairly complex, the facts may be briefly stated. Ap......
-
Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc.
...case reversed Judge Gesell's finding of conceptual separateness in the overall artistic design of an outdoor lighting fixture, 414 F.Supp. 939 (D.D.C.1976). See 591 F.2d 796, 800 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 1217, 59 L.Ed.2d 456 (1979).5 These cases were decided un......
-
Brandir Intern., Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., 828
...markets." Id. (citing 17 U.S.C. Sec. 113(a) (1976)).3 We are reminded not only by Judge Gesell in the district court in Esquire, 414 F.Supp. 939, 941 (D.D.C.1976), but by Holmes in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251-52, 23 S.Ct. 298, 300-01, 47 L.Ed. 460 (1903), by ......
-
Cheffins v. Stewart
...utilitarian purpose. As Judge Gesell once noted: “Art through the ages has often served a utilitarian purpose[ ].” Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer , 414 F.Supp. 939, 941 (D.D.C. 1976), rev'd 591 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Many outstanding sculptures, including the Caryatids of the Acropolis and the......