Wyrok U.S. Court of Appeals for 10th Circuit w sprawie Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., No. 06-4222 (10th Cir. Jul. 17 2008), mocno mnie zastanawia, a jednego z moich klientów bez wątpienia przyprawiłby o ból głowy a nawet o zawał serca (chociaż to osoba prawna), gdyby analogiczne orzeczenie wydał sąd polski. Zapytacie, cóż takiego się stało? Otóż powód - przedsiębiorstwo Meshwerks, Inc., dostało zlecenie od pozwanego - Grace & Wild, Inc. na stworzenie modeli 3D samochodów marki Toyota. Uzyskało do tych obiektów odpowiednie certyfikaty potwierdzające rejestrację praw autorskich. Spór pojawił się później. Przedsiębiorstwo Meshwerks stwierdziło, że pozwany nie wypłacił należnej sumy wynagrodzenia za wykreowane obiekty oraz, że zostały one wykorzystane przez Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Grace & Wild, 3D Recon, L.L.C., i Saatchi & Saatchi North America, Inc. bez odpowiedniego zezwolenia ze strony Meshwerks. Konflikt trafił do sądu. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division, wyrokiem w sprawie Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 2623935 (D.Utah), 2006 Copr.L.Dec. P 29,273, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1367 stwierdził dobitnie.
Although a great deal of skill and effort was involved in the creation of Meshwerks’s three-dimensional digital models, those models do not meet the originality requirement established by copyright law. Accordingly, the models are not entitled to copyright protection. As a result, the Toyota Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Meshwerks’s copyright claims. Further, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Meshwerks’s breach of contract claim and that claim is therefore dismissed.
U.S. Court of Appeals for 10th Circuit wyrok powyżej wspomniany i wnioski w nim zawarte potwierdził w swoim orzeczeniu.
Although we hold that Meshwerks’ digital, wire-frame models are insufficiently original to warrant copyright protection, we do not turn a blind eye to the fact that digital imaging is a relatively new and evolving technology and that Congress extended copyright protection to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (emphasis added). A Luddite might make the mistake of suggesting that digital modeling, as was once said of photography, allows for nothing more than “mechanical reproduction of the physical features or outlines of some object… and involves no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction in [the] shape of a picture.” Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 59. Clearly, this is not so.
Digital modeling can be, surely is being, and no doubt increasingly will be used to create copyrightable expressions. Yet, just as photographs can be, but are not per se, copyrightable, the same holds true for digital models. There’s little question that digital models can be devised of Toyota cars with copyrightable features, whether by virtue of unique shading, lighting, angle, background scene, or other choices. The problem for Meshwerks in this particular case is simply that the uncontested facts reveal that it wasn’t involved in any such process, and indeed contracted to provide completely unadorned digital replicas of Toyota vehicles in a two-dimensional space. For this reason, we do not envision any “chilling effect” on creative expression based on our holding today, and instead see it as applying to digital modeling the same legal principles that have come, in the fullness of time and with an enlightened eye, to apply to photographs and other media.
Originality is the sine qua non of copyright. If the basic design reflected in a work of art does not owe its origin to the putative copyright holder, then that person must add something original to that design, and then only the original addition may be copyrighted. In this case, Meshwerks copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. But the models reflect, that is, “express,” no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles. The designs of the vehicles, however, owe their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and so we are unable to reward Meshwerks’ digital wire-frame models, no doubt the product of significant labor, skill, and judgment, with copyright protection. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied.
Jak zawsze pożyteczne i głębokie komentarze dostępne są u Billa Patry’ego i Marty’ego Schwimmera.
