Opinion ID: 766357
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ordinary observer standard

Text: 32 The second part of the test for infringement addresses whether a substantial similarity exists between the two works to be compared. See Knitwaves, 71 F.3d at 1002. In most cases, the test for substantial similarity is the ordinary observer test, which queries whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work. Seeid.; Folio Impressions, 937 F.2d at 766. In the words of Judge Learned Hand, the ordinary observer test is whether the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960). 33 The appellants maintain that the district court erred when it applied the ordinary observer standard in comparing the two patterns at issue in this case. They contend that two artistic renderings of an item found in nature are bound to be similar, and that such designs are protected by only a weak copyright. They urge us to employ a more rigorous standard when we compare the fabric patterns because they depict objects, namely, flowers, that appear in nature. According to the appellants, there can be no finding of infringement unless there is a showing of near-exact copying or striking similarity. 34 The appellants' argument is grounded in cases such as First American Artificial Flowers, Inc. v. Joseph Markovits Inc., 342 F. Supp. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), in which the court compared plastic sculptured reproductions of tea roses. The court asserted that any two devices purporting to represent a natural prototype or archetype are likely to be similar, quite apart from any copying, and that a copyright on a work which bears practically a photographic likeness to a natural article, as here, is likely to prove a relatively weak copyright. Id. at 186. We similarly observed in Folio Impressions that, though playwrights and poets from William Shakespeare to Gertrude Stein have extolled the beauty of this five-petaled flower, by the rose's very nature one artist's rendering of it will closely resemble another artist's work. 937 F.2d at 766. Cf. Samara Bros., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 165 F.3d 120, 132 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Folio Impressions and stating that the depiction of a familiar object enjoys only a narrow copyright). 35 These considerations notwithstanding, and contrary to the appellants' assertions, the courts in Folio Impressions and First American Artificial Flowers did in fact apply the ordinary observer standard. See Folio Impressions, 937 F.2d at 765-66; First American Artificial Flowers, 342 F. Supp. at 186. The appellants argue that we applied a more discerning ordinary observer test in Folio Impressions because the fabric pattern at issue depicted flowers. They misinterpret our holding in that case. As we discuss below, we applied a more discerning test in Folio Impressions not because the pattern featured items that appeared in nature, but because the allegedly infringed pattern featured a background that was copied from a design in the public domain. See Knitwaves, 71 F.3d at 1003; Folio Impressions, 937 F.2d at 765-66. Thus, the fact that the designs at issue in this case portrayed flowers does not preclude the use of the ordinary observer standard. 36 In any event, it should be noted that the designs of Hamil America Pattern No. 96 and GFI's Pattern No. 330 do not bear practically a photographic likeness to real flowers. First American Artificial Flowers, Inc., 342 F. Supp. at 186. Rather, the floral patterns are stylized and not lifelike. Wang, who designed the infringing floral pattern, stated at trial that he made . . . up the flower. In its findings of fact, the district court stated that the pattern is not simply the depiction of a flower as it would appear in nature. It is an artistic rendering that has its own unique qualities . . . . 37 We conclude that the district court reviewed the two fabric designs under the appropriate ordinary observer standard. 38