Similar to books, movies, and songs, home plans are afforded protection under federal copyright laws so long as they are original. These laws serve to prohibit any unauthorized reproduction, modification, or reuse of the plans or designs by individuals other than the copyright owner. The question then becomes, to what extent is a custom home plan protected? With only so many ways to plan or design, for example, a four-bedroom home, how has the law been shaped to avoid monopolies over home plans?
The case of Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, LTD., v. Perry Homes, LLC, has played a pivotal role in shaping the application of copyright law to architectural works. Specifically, the Lennar Homes case established that size and dimensions of home designs, the general layout of the home, and the overall form, look, and feel of the home are not protectable by copyright laws. The holding of this case serves as a guide for architects and designers, outlining the parameters of copyright protection in the context of custom home plans.
Originality of Home Plans as a threshold.
The court in Lennar Homes first discussed the threshold for originality of home plans. It explained that the threshold for originality is low, merely requiring independent creation by the author and at least a minimal degree of creativity. The court stated that novelty is not a prerequisite, and even a slight amount of creativity is deemed sufficient. Further, when faced with a challenge to the originality of copyrighted material, the presumption of validity can only be overcome with evidence of copying or similarly probative evidence of originality. However, the court noted that when an idea can only be expressed in a limited number of ways, copyright protection is “thin,” and a work must be “virtually identical” to infringe. Lennar Homes of Tex. Sales & Mktg., Ltd. v. Perry Homes, LLC, 117 F. Supp. 3d 913, 934 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 616 F.3d 904, 913–14 (9th Cir. 2010)).
The Lennar Homes court further explained that in order to prove actionable copying, a plaintiff must first show that the defendant actually used the copyrighted material to create his own work. This is known as “Factual Copying.” Once factual copying is established, the plaintiff must then show that the infringing work is substantially similar to protectable elements of the infringed work.
Factual copying, as the court explained, involves proving that the defendant used plaintiff’s copyrighted material to create their work. Substantial similarity requires a side-by-side comparison to determine if a layman would view plaintiff and defendant’s works as substantially similar.
When drafting, or having a third-party draft, custom home plans, ensure that any party involved in the creation of your custom home plans has not directly utilized copyrighted material without permission. Further, to avoid copyright infringement, confirm that your custom home plans are not substantially similar to other custom home plans such that an ordinary person would not perceive the plans as similar.
Copyright only protects the constituent elements of a work that are original to the author. “The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected.” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1289, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991).
Under the Copyright Act, an architectural work “includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, standard configurations of spaces, as well as common windows, doors, and other staple building components are excluded from copyright protection. However, “individual features that ‘reflect the architect’s creativity’ are not excluded.” H.R.Rep. No. 101–735, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.M. 6935, 6949. Accordingly, should you wish to protect your original home plans from being copied, it is best to include creative features that stray from standard arrangements and compositions and incorporate unique design elements.
The idea/expression dichotomy and scènes-à-faire both apply to architectural works. The idea/expression dichotomy provides that an author may not copyright facts or ideas, rather, only the expression of those facts or ideas. Thus, “‘[w]hen an idea can be expressed in very few ways, copyright law does not protect that expression, because doing so would confer a de facto monopoly over the idea.’” Lennar Homes of Tex. Sales & Mktg., Ltd. v. Perry Homes, LLC, 117 F. Supp. 3d 913, 934 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527, 533 (5th Cir. 1994)). The scènes-à-faire doctrine “excludes from copyright protection ‘expressions that are standard, stock or common to a particular subject matter or are dictated by external factors,’ including ‘industry demand and practice.’” Id. (quoting Eng’g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 46 F.3d 408, 1344, 1347 (5th Cir. 1995)).
The Court in Lennar Homes explained that under the scènes-à-faire doctrine, applying it to architecture designs, standard house designs and market expectations such as features used by all architects, because of consumer demand, get no copyright protection. Id. at *939. To navigate these doctrines effectively while drafting your custom home plans, prioritize original and creative elements in your design, steering clear of commonplace features that fall under the scènes-à-faire doctrine.
"Scène à faire" is a French term used in copyright law to describe a scene, theme, or element in creative works that is considered necessary for the genre. The concept acknowledges that certain elements are standard or customary for particular genres and are therefore not subject to copyright protection. For example, in a detective novel, a scene where the detective gathers all suspects and reveals the murderer can be considered a "scène à faire" because it's a standard element of the mystery genre.
The term is often used in legal contexts to argue that certain elements of a work cannot be copyrighted because they are standard in the genre and not original to any specific author. This can be crucial in copyright infringement cases, where the defendant might argue that the similarities between their work and another's are just "scène à faire" elements typical of the genre, and thus not a violation of copyright.
The idea/expression dichotomy is a fundamental principle in copyright law that distinguishes between ideas, which are not copyrightable, and the expression of those ideas, which are. This principle is based on the understanding that while individual expression of an idea can be protected by copyright, the underlying idea itself remains free for anyone to use.
Here's a breakdown of the two components:
Idea: This refers to the concept or subject matter of a work. Ideas are often broad and can include themes, concepts, principles, or methodologies. For example, the idea of a love story, the concept of time travel, or the principle of good vs. evil in storytelling are all ideas. Under copyright law, these are not protected, meaning anyone is free to create their own work based on these ideas.
Expression: This is how the idea is manifested and communicated. The expression of an idea can take the form of writing, music, art, or other mediums. It's the specific, tangible, and original way in which an idea is rendered. For example, a particular novel about time travel, a specific painting depicting a love story, or a unique movie script about the battle of good vs. evil. These specific expressions are what copyright law aims to protect.
The dichotomy is crucial because it ensures that copyright does not stifle creativity and innovation. By preventing people from monopolizing ideas, it allows others to explore and express those same ideas in their own unique ways, leading to a diverse range of creative works in the same genre or theme. In legal disputes, distinguishing between idea and expression is often complex and central to determining whether copyright infringement has occurred.
Lot size, market conditions, market expectations, consumer demand, and external constraints, such as zoning regulations, all contribute to whether certain elements of home plans are copyrightable. As such, generally, the general layout, overall form, look and feel of a home plan are not protectable elements. Accordingly, many home plans are not copyrightable as a “whole.” Rather, as discussed above, it is the original and distinctive elements of a home plan that is copyrightable.
Architects must balance between protecting the creative endeavors of architects and designers and acknowledging the inherent limitations posed by copyright law. The Lennar Homes case serves as a guide, explaining that while certain fundamental aspects of home plans may not be subject to copyright protection, the original and distinctive elements remain safeguarded.
As professionals in the field navigate the intricate web of copyright law, it is imperative to embrace creativity, challenge the norm, and incorporate unique design features to establish the copyrightability of custom home plans. The interplay of doctrines such as the idea/expression dichotomy and scènes-à-faire demand a nuanced approach, urging architects to prioritize originality in their designs. Importantly, the factors contributing to home plan copyrightability, including market conditions and consumer demand, further emphasize the need for a tailored and thoughtful approach. Ultimately, in the field of architectural creativity, the protection of original home plans hinges on a comprehensive understanding of legal nuances, empowering architects to weave innovation into their designs while navigating an intricate legal landscape.
Our copyright attorneys can assist in planning your copyright.
Have an idea for a blog? Click and request a blog and we will let you know when we post it!
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)