United States Court of Appeals, 10th division

Summary

United States Court of Appeals, 10th division Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.… (2008)

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.
Source: Wikisource

United States Court of Appeals, 10th division Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.… (2008)

Of course, this is not to say that the accidental or spontaneous artist will be denied copyright protection for not intending to produce art; it is only to say that authorial intent sometimes can shed light on the question of whether a particular work qualifies as an independent creation or only a copy.
In this case, the undisputed evidence before us leaves no question that Meshwerks set out to copy Toyota’s vehicles, rather than to create, or even to add, any original expression.
Source: Wikisource

United States Court of Appeals, 10th division Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.… (2008)

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.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature