Opinion ID: 579260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Originality

Text: 15 In order to properly receive copyright protection, Eales' drawings must be original. United States v. Hamilton, 583 F.2d 448, 450 and n. 2 (9th Cir.1978). Defendants argue that this requirement is not met because Eales' plans fit under the copyright code's useful article exception and do not substantially differ from the earlier drawings prepared by CY. Both of these arguments are meritless. 16 The useful article exception of the copyright code would prevent Eales from copyrighting her plans if they hav[e] an intrinsic utilitarian function that [does] not merely ... portray the appearance of the article or ... convey information. 17 U.S.C. § 101; see Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 218, 74 S.Ct. 460, 471, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954). The intrinsic function of an architectural plan is to convey the information necessary to enable the reader to construct a building. It is settled law that architectural drawings and plans are thus eligible for protection under the copyright code as pictorial, graphic, [or] sculptural works. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(5); see, e.g., Robert R. Jones Assoc. v. Nino Homes, 858 F.2d 274 (6th Cir.1988); Imperial Homes Corp. v. Lamont, 458 F.2d 895 (5th Cir.1972); Demetriades v. Kaufman, 680 F.Supp. 658 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Eales' plans are no exception to this general rule. 2 17 Defendants' assertion that Eales' plans do not qualify for copyright protection because they are substantially similar to the drawings prepared by CY is also unpersuasive. The originality requirement does not demand that the author add novelty to the work; it requires only that the plans display something irreducible, which is one man's alone, not that the work be novel in comparison with the works of others. Hamilton, 583 F.2d at 451 (quoting Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 250, 23 S.Ct. 298, 300, 47 L.Ed. 460 (1903)). The originality requirement is met when the work is the result of independent creation. Sid & Marty Krofft Television, Inc. v. McDonalds Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.1977). The district court determined that Eales did not copy the CY drawings and that she created the plans for the model home without consulting those drawings. That determination was not clearly erroneous.