Home » Copyright Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions » Current Summary
Copyright Law Summary
Tenth Circuit Denies Copyright Protection for Meshwerks’ Digital Models of Cars in Suit Against Toyota
Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., et al.
No. 06-4222, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 06/17/2008
Companies Mentioned: 3D Recon, Grace & Wild, Inc. d.b.a. Division X, Meshwerks, Inc., Saatchi & Saatchi North America, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.
Holding
In this advertising dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the digital wire-frame models of Toyota sedans used in a 2004 promotional campaign were not entitled to copyright protection for Meshwerks, Inc., the company that was hired to create them. Citing a basic rule that a work must be independently created and possess some degree of creativity for it to receive copyright protection, the Tenth Circuit held that plaintiff-appellant Meshwerks, Inc. merely copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. Therefore, the car models reflected, no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles, the designs of which actually owed their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and no unique or original expressions were added to the automobiles. With its digital models not sufficiently original, Meshwerks had no valid copyright over them, and no judgment of infringement could issue.
Detailed Summary
This case involved the application of copyright principles to the relatively new technology of digital modeling. In 2003, defendants-appellees Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (“Toyota”) and its advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi North America (“Saatchi”), prepared Toyota’s model-year 2004 advertising campaign. Toyota and Saatchi agreed that the campaign would involve, among other things, digital models of Toyota’s vehicles on Toyota’s website and various other media. These digital models have substantial advantages over mere product photographs because they allow the advertiser to change the color of the car, its surroundings, and even edit its physical dimensions to portray changes in vehicle styling.
To supply these digital models, Saatchi and Toyota hired defendant-appellee Grace & Wild, Inc. (“G&W”). In turn, G&W subcontracted with plaintiff-appellant Meshwerks to assist with two initial aspects of the project – digitization and modeling. Digitizing involves collecting physical data points from the object. In the case of Toyota’s vehicles, Meshwerks took copious measurements of Toyota’s vehicles by covering each car, truck, and van with a grid of tape and running an articulated arm tethered to a computer over the vehicle to measure all points of intersection in the grid. In other words, the vehicles’ data points (measurements) were mapped onto a computerized grid and the modeling software connected the dots to create a “wire frame” of each vehicle.
This dispute arose because, according to Meshwerks, it contracted with G&W for only a single use of its models – as part of one Toyota television commercial – and neither Toyota nor any other defendant was allowed to use the digital models created from Meshwerks’ wire-frames in other advertisements. Opinion, p. 5. Thus, Meshwerks argued that defendants-appellees redistributed the models created by Meshwerks in a host of other media in violation of copyright law as well as the parties’ agreement. Id. In support of the allegations that defendants-appellees misappropriated its intellectual property, Meshwerks showed that it had received copyright registration on its wire-frame models. Id. In response, defendants-appellants filed a motion for summary judgment in the District Court on the theory that Meshwerks’ wire-frame models lacked sufficient originality to merit copyright protection. Id. Specifically, defendants argued that any original expression found in Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived the vehicle designs in the first place. Id., p. 6.
The District Court agreed with Toyota. The District Court held that the wire-frame models were merely copies of Toyota’s products, not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection, and stressed that Meshwerks’ “intent was to replicate, as exactly as possible, the image of certain Toyota vehicles.” Id., citing D. Ct. Opinion, p. 8. Because there was no valid copyright, there could be no infringement, and, having granted summary judgment on the federal copyright claim, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Meshwerks’ state-law contract claim. Id.
Similarly, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the District Court, noting that Meshwerks’ models were not actually “independent creations” since they were merely (very good) copies of Toyota’s vehicles, at least six of the eight vehicles at issue are still covered by design patents belonging to Toyota. Id., p. 12; 16. In reaching this conclusion, the Tenth Circuit relied on: (1) an objective assessment of the particular models before it: and (2) the parties’ purpose in creating them. Id.
Assessing the models before it, the Tenth Circuit found that Meshwerks’ digital models depicted Toyota’s vehicles without any individualizing features: they were untouched by a digital paintbrush; they were not depicted in front of a palm tree, whizzing down the open road, or climbing up a mountainside. Id. And the Tenth Circuit agreed with the unequivocal lesson from Feist is that works are not copyrightable to the extent they do not involve any expression apart from the raw facts in the world. Id., p. 13, citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 346 (1991).
Further, assessing Meshwerks’ intent in making its wire-frame models provided additional support for the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion. The undisputed evidence left no question that Meshwerks set out to copy Toyota’s vehicles, rather than to create, or even to add, any original expression. The purchase order signed by G&W asked Meshwerks to “digitize and model” Toyota’s vehicles, and Meshwerks’ invoice submitted to G&W for payment reflects that this is exactly the service Meshwerks performed. Id., pp. 21-22, citing Aplt’s App. at 113,115.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment and denied Meshwerks’ copyright protection for its digital models.
View a PDF of the judicial opinion.Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
