Design Ideas LTD. v. Things Remembered, Inc., 2009 WL 426218 (C.D.Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)

Design Ideas marketed wire sculptures of flowers.  The sculptures were designed by an employee and produced by a Chinese manufacturing firm.  Things Remembered marketed a metal basket decorated with wire flower sculptures.  Design Ideas brought suit for copyright infringement.  Things Remembered moved for summary judgment on three grounds related to registration:

Collective work

Design Ideas registered the series of flower sculptures on one application form.  Times Remembered argued that this registration method created a collective work, and that Design Ideas was only able to bring an action for infringement of the entire collective work as a whole.  Thus, Things Remembered argued that Design Ideas couldn’t bring a claim alleging infringement of the “individual wire flower sculptures.”

Judge Scott of the Central District of Illinois pointed to 37 C.F.R. § 202.3(b)(4)(i)(A):

(4) Registration as a single work. (i) For the purpose of registration on a single application and upon payment of a single registration fee, the following shall be considered a single work: (A) In the case of published works: all copyrightable elements that are otherwise recognizable as self-contained works, that are included in a single unit of publication, and in which the copyright claimant is the same….

The Court found that the various individual wire sculptures were recognizable as self-contained works. Because all the wire sculptures were included in a single unit of publication, called Basic Book, the Court found that Design Ideas could allege infringement of the individual wire sculptures.

Not the author

Things Remembered argued that Design Ideas’ registration was invalid because their manufacturer in China was the actual author.  The court rejected this argument stating that author is the individual who “exercised artistic control over the work and acts as the inventor or mastermind.”

Work for Hire

Things Remembered argued that Design Ideas’ registration was invalid because they misrepresented that the works at issue were made-for-hire.  The Court found that evidence showed that the wire flowers were created by an employee within the course of their employment, and thus constituted a work-for-hire.

Documents: