11th Circuit Finds in Favor of Defendant Developer Donald Trump and Others Where a Development Project Was Not Substantially Similar to Plaintiff Architect Paul Oravec’s Designs

Holding:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a twin high-rise condominium complex built by developer Donald Trump and others (“defendants-appellees”) did not infringe architect Paul Oravec’s (“plaintiff-appellant” or “Oravec”) copyrighted architectural designs. In affirming the District Court’s ruling, the Eleventh Circuit found differences between plaintiff-appellant’s designs and those of the defendants-appellees’ buildings. Such differences precluded a finding of substantial similarity. In this regard, the Eleventh Circuit stated that even though the parties’ respective designs might have a number of features in common, those elements were similar only at the broadest level of generality. To rule otherwise would mean that plaintiff-appellant owned a copyright in mere ideas, which consisted of a convex/concave design formula, or the use of three external elevator towers that extend above the roof of a building. On the basis of this analysis, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees.

Detailed Summary:

Oravec was a designer for architectural firms in New York, and subsequently, for a Miami firm engaged in the design and building of real estate and promotional displays.  In 1995 and 1996, Oravec developed a design for a high-rise building that featured the use of alternating concave and convex segments and elevator cores protruding through the building’s roofline.  Oravec applied to register this design with the U.S. Copyright Office and was issued a certificate of registration on July 1, 1996 (“1996 Copyright”).  After making certain refinements to his previous design, Oravec obtained an additional copyright registration on May 2, 1997 (“1997 Copyright”).  Oravec then exerted efforts to market his designs to developers in South Florida and other places.

Oravec instituted this action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., against several parties, including Donald Trump, associated with the Trump Palace and the Trump Royale (collectively, “Trump Buildings”), twin high-rise condominiums in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida.  Oravec alleged that the Trump Buildings infringed his copyrighted architectural designs. Oravec also impleaded as defendants the architectural design firm, Sieger Suarez, including its principals, Charles M. Sieger and Jose J. Suarez, and real estate developers, Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures L.C. and Dezer Properties LLC, on a theory of direct copyright infringement.

In April 2006, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on a variety of issues.  The District Court held three summary judgment hearings in July 2006.  The District Court subsequently entered an order granting summary judgment to defendants on Oravec’s infringement claims and denying Oravec’s motion to amend.  The District Court found, inter alia, that Oravec could not establish infringement of his 1996 and 1997 Copyrights because no reasonable jury could find that the Trump Buildings are substantially similar to Oravec’s 1996 and 1997 designs.  In addition, the District Court expressed the view that Oravec could not prevail on his claims because the construction of a building cannot, as a matter of law, infringe the copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work (“PGS work”) registered under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5).  Although the District Court found that Oravec owned valid copyrights in his 1996 and 1997 designs, and that there were disputed issues of fact as to whether certain defendants had access to those designs, summary judgment turned on the issue of substantial similarity.

In determining whether the District Court had abused its discretion in resolving this issue in favor of defendants-appellees, the Eleventh Circuit looked to precedent that set forth “substantial similarity” as existing “where an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.”  Opinion, p. 9, citing Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 829 (11th Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Eleventh Circuit noted precedent where it was determined that not all copying constitutes infringement, however. Id., citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 1296, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991) at 1296.  In fact, the Eleventh Circuit had previously emphasized that the substantial similarity analysis “must focus on similarity of expression, i.e., material susceptible of copyright protection.”  Id., citing, Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454 at 459 (11th Cir. 1994).

In affirming the district court’s ruling on the 1996 and 1997 copyrights, the Eleventh Circuit found differences between plaintiff-appellant’s designs and those of the Trump buildings. Such differences precluded a finding of substantial similarity. The Eleventh Circuit stated:  “[W]hile it is true that Oravec’s designs and the Trump Buildings have a number of features in common, those elements are similar only at the broadest level of generality.  At the level of protected expression, the differences between the designs are so significant that no reasonable, properly instructed jury could find the works substantially similar.  As the district court observed, to conclude otherwise would require a finding that Oravec owns a copyright in the concept of a convex/concave formula or in that of using three external elevator towers that extend above the roof of a building. Such a conclusion would extend the protections of copyright law well beyond their proper scope.”  Opinion, p.18, citing Ale House Mgmt. v. Raleigh Ale House, Inc., 205 F.3d 137, 143 (4th Cir. 2000).

The Eleventh Circuit made it clear that if they were to grant plaintiff-appellant copyright protection, it would “effectively bar all other architects from incorporating these concepts into new and original designs. That result would lead to ‘a diminished store of ideas’ available for future works and would be contrary to the fundamental principles of copyright law.”  Opinion, pp.19-20, citing Feist, 499 U.S. at 349-50, 111 S. Ct. at 1290, and Meade v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 367, 372.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment issued in favor of defendants-appellees.

Also See:

FCC Adopts New Rules Permitting TV Channel Sharing by Broadcasters; Enacts First Step Towards Freeing UP Spectrum under Incentive Auction

FCC Modernizes Broadcast Television Public Inspection Files to Give the Public Online Access to Information Previously Available Only at TV Stations

Copyright Office Conducts Proceedings on Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems

Legislation to Deregulate Television Market Introduced in House and Senate

Copyright Office Proposes New Fee Schedule