In Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene Products, Inc., the Seventh Circuit examines the merger doctrine and conceptual separability as manifested in mannequins:
Conceptual separability exists, therefore, when the artistic aspects of an article can be “conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function.” Carol Barnhart, 773 F.2d at 418. This independence is necessarily informed by “whether the design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer’s artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences.” Brandir, 834 F.3d at 1145. If the elements do reflect the independent, artistic judgment of the designer, conceptual separability exists. Conversely, when the design of a useful article is “as much the result of utilitarian pressures as aesthetic choices,” id. at 1147, the useful and aesthetic elements are not conceptually separable.
The court ultimately holds that the mannequins are sufficiently creative and divorced from mere functionality to deserve copyright protection.
Does the conceptual separability doctrine conflict with innovative design? Doesn’t the copyright lawyer’s requirement for conceptual separability inhibit the designer’s work to achieve the simple elegance of form following function?
(via Guiding Rights)
