Hunt

Hunt v. Pasternack

Good Law
179 F.3d 683·99 Daily Journal DAR 5285·1999 WL 346620·50 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1861·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11172
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 2, 1999No. 97-16853California1,395 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schroeder, J.

Before us for the first time is a question regarding the validity of a copyright under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 (“the Act”). That statute amended 17 U.S.C. § 102 to add “architectural works” to the categories of works that can be copyrighted. See 17 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(8). It also defined an “architectural work” as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of ex *684 pression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 .

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in this infringement action on the ground that there could be no valid copyright in the design of a building that had not yet been constructed. The plaintiff had obtained a copyright by submitting his work as embodied in the plans. Because the statute provides that the copyright is in the design as embodied not only in a building, but alternatively in the architectural plans, we hold that construction of the actual building was not required. We remand for further proceedings.

The project involved in the litigation is an “Organ Stop Pizza” restaurant designed to hold a “Mighty Wurlitzer” organ and located in Mesa, Arizona.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.