Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; September 10, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Harris Custom Builders, Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Richard Hoffmeyer, claiming that Hoffmeyer unlawfully copied architectural plans created by architect Maxwin Heimann for Harris in 1983. The district court ruled in favor of Harris, determining that the copyright on the plans was both valid and infringed. The case falls under the 1976 Copyright Act, prior to amendments by the Berne Convention Implementation Act.
In 1983, Harris utilized the plans to construct the Mundhank House and later published a brochure featuring incomplete drawings based on these plans, which lacked a copyright notice and was not registered. In 1988, Harris built another home, Spring Creek, using the same plans and registered the blueprints as "English Manor," asserting authorship based on a claim of 'work made for hire.' Harris also claimed ownership through various legal means, with no contest from Heimann or Meana.
In 1989, Hoffmeyer constructed a house using blueprints he obtained from a brochure prepared for Harris by Baird. Warner, which was similar to the earlier brochure. The district court found Hoffmeyer's design to be substantially similar to Harris's plans as represented in the brochure. However, it was determined that Hoffmeyer and his architect, Nick DeLuca, had no direct access to the original Harris plans, which led to summary judgment motions regarding access being denied due to unresolved factual questions. Ultimately, Harris shifted its argument to assert that Hoffmeyer's architect copied from the brochure, thereby infringing on the copyright.
Nicholas DeLuca created the Schwartz working drawings directly from the Baird Warner brochure, indicating that he did not have literal access to the original blueprints. Consequently, Harris has abandoned any claim regarding direct access to the blueprints. The district court determined that Hoffmeyer, having access to the brochure, also had access to the copyrighted material, and found the Hoffmeyer blueprints substantially similar to those of Harris, leading to a finding of copyright infringement. The court upheld the validity of Harris's copyright and denied Hoffmeyer's defense of being an "innocent infringer."
This case is governed by the 1976 Copyright Act, with amendments from the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. Under the Copyright Act, copyright ownership typically vests in the author, defined as the party who creates the work, although works made for hire shift ownership to the employer. The Supreme Court's decision in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid clarified the criteria for works made for hire, emphasizing the application of common law agency principles over mere control or supervision.
Hoffmeyer challenges the validity of Harris's copyright registration, arguing that the plans were not a work made for hire per Reid. Harris contends that this is irrelevant since Reid was decided after the registration, and his belief in the work-for-hire status was reasonable at the time. The court agrees not to invalidate the copyright based on this argument. To establish a claim for copyright infringement, Harris must prove ownership of a valid copyright and that original elements of the work were copied.
Additionally, under the 1976 Act, a work published without proper copyright notice may enter the public domain, but remedy provisions exist. If registration occurs within five years of such publication and efforts to correct the notice are made, the copyright can still be maintained.
Under the 1976 Copyright Act, Harris' plans remained protected as long as they were unpublished, published with notice, or published without notice but registered within five years. The plans were unpublished until registered in 1989, while brochures containing abbreviated versions were published without notice in 1983, and the cure provisions did not apply since registration occurred after five years. The brochure's abbreviated drawings entered the public domain, leading to a dispute regarding the implications of that status.
Harris argued that despite the brochures being public domain, the drawings remained copyrighted due to the underlying work's copyright, claiming infringement by Hoffmeyer, who used the brochure as a basis for his drawings. The district court found that Hoffmeyer had access to the copyrighted material and infringed upon the unpublished plans.
However, it was determined that a published work cannot remain copyrighted if it was published without proper notice. Harris forfeited its rights by publishing the brochure without notice, as the law mandates that published works must have proper copyright notice or meet specific cure provisions to retain protection. Thus, the publication of the derivative brochure constituted publication of the underlying works, leading to the forfeiture of copyright for the abbreviated drawings contained within. Harris' copyright protection was contingent on the plans being unpublished, which was no longer the case after the brochure's publication.
Harris could succeed in a copyright claim if the architectural plans were registered or published with notice. The case of *Imperial Homes Corp. v. Lamont* illustrates this; it involved registered architectural drawings and an advertising brochure that included a floor plan from those drawings. The court ruled that using the floor plan did not waive the copyright, but reproducing it in the brochure constituted infringement. Harris may argue that under the 1976 Act, an unpublished work retains "statutory copyright" even if part is used in a derivative work. However, this does not allow for a copyright claim on unpublished works once they are published with permission. If an unauthorized party published the work, it could infringe on the unpublished copyright. The concept of a derivative work implies that it is only considered infringing if the original material was used without consent. Since Harris published the abbreviated drawings, it cannot claim copyright based solely on their unpublished status. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in *Donald Frederick Evans* aligns with this understanding, where architectural plans were published without copyright notice in various publications, leading to a developer creating similar homes without proper authorization, indicating potential infringement.
Evans forfeited its copyright due to authorization of publication, despite not publishing all brochures itself. The court clarified that forfeiture cannot arise from unauthorized distribution without notice, as the notice requirement pertains only to works published by the copyright owner. The court concluded Evans authorized the publications, leading to forfeiture. It further emphasized that Harris forfeited its copyright as it itself published the 1983 brochure. Additionally, Hoffmeyer's copying of drawings from the brochure did not constitute infringement since those works are in the public domain. The court found the copyright overly broad, as it was based on unpublished status, while the material in the brochure was published without notice, rendering the copyright registration invalid for that material. Consequently, the summary judgment awarded to Harris was reversed.
