Does copyright protect an idea or just its expression? In affirming a trial court’s non-infringement finding in Paul Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sheds light on unique copyright issues for architectural works.

While designers, including architects, are entitled to copyright protection, not all copying constitutes infringement. Substantial similarity must be determined but it must focus on similarity of expression which is copyright-protected. One clearly cannot copyright the concept of a concave/convex design, for example, as this would extend the protections of copyright law and, as the Eleventh Circuit stated, would “effectively bar all other architects from incorporating these concepts into new and original designs,” diminishing the number of ideas available for future works and undermining the spirit and scope of the copyright law.

This idea/expression dichotomy lies at the heart of the court’s decision.

It all started when Paul Oravec, a Czech-born architect, developed a design for a high-rise building which featured alternating concave and convex shapes with elevator cores protruding through the building’s roofline. Oravec obtained a copyright for his design in 1996 and a second one in 1997 for refinements he made to the original, and started marketing it to developers. At about the same time, the beachfront resort that would be the site of the Trump Buildings were being developed.

In early 2003, Oravec saw models and brochures that depicted the Trump Buildings and was convinced they resembled his designs. After getting copyright registrations for all of his unregistered designs, he brought an infringement action under Copyright Act, 17 USC §§ 101 et seq., against parties associated with the Trump Palace and Trump Royale, twin high-rise condominiums in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida.

According to Oravec, the Trump Buildings – which featured among others alternate concave and convex sections, three elevator shafts protruding above the roof of the building, rounded building ends and a twin-tower motif – infringed his copyrighted architectural designs. Although the District Court acknowledged that Oravec owned valid copyrights to his 1996 and 1997 designs and that some defendants’ access to these designs was still in dispute, the Court nevertheless granted summary judgment to the defendants. The main reason was the issue of substantial similarity. Oravec could not claim infringement of his 1996 and 1997 copyrights because no reasonable jury could find that the Trump Buildings were substantially similar to his designs.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision. In a blog article on filewrapper.com, as well as in a summary of the case featured at lawupdates.com, the authors expounded on the appellate court’s ruling:

• On establishing copyright infringement – Two elements must be present: ownership of a valid copyright and copying of constituent parts of the work that are original. Absent direct proof of copying, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants had access to the copyrighted work and establish substantial similarity.
• On substantial similarity – Infringement exists if similarities (of expression, not concept) between the works are substantial from the viewpoint of an average lay person – and at a level of protected expression (similarities must involve copyrightable material).
• On whether concepts are copyrightable – The District Court determined, and the Eleventh Circuit agreed, that the similarities between Oravec’s designs and the Trump Buildings exist only at the broadest sense and at a conceptual level (concave and convex sections, protruding elevator shafts). However, there were many significant differences in the expression of these concepts. For example, whereas the alternating segments appear on both sides of Oravec’s designs, they are only on one side of the Trump Buildings. Thus, finding substantial similarity here would mean that Oravec owned the copyright for the concave/convex idea – which he cannot.

In an ideal environment, protecting a creator’s work means also means ensuring that such protection does not exceed a copyright law’s scope. And maintaining a creator’s rights to his designs goes hand in hand with making sure the idea behind it is available for all to share. It’s a delicate balance – and the courts seem to have achieved it.