Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
754 F.3d 95 · 2014
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 1202 (§ 103 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) · 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Scott v. Harris · Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Arnstein v. Porter · Warner Bros Inc Ag Dc v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc J
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[M]any of the similarities are a function of consumer expectations and standard house design generally. Plaintiff can get no credit for putting a closet in every bedroom, a fireplace in the middle of an exterior wall, and kitchen counters against the kitchen walls. Furthermore, the overall footprint of the house and the size of the rooms are “design parameters” dictated by consumer preferences and the lot the house will occupy, not the architect. [Further], most of the similarities between Plaintiffs and Defendants’ designs are features of all colonial homes, or houses generally. So long as Plaintiff was seeking to design a colonial house, he was bound to certain conventions. He cannot claim copyright in those conventions. ... Plaintiff makes no attempt to distinguish those aspects of his designs that were original to him from those dictated by the form in which he worked. For example, Zalewski claims that the “front porches are the same design, size, and in the same location.” But a door centered on the front of the house is typical of many homes, and colonials in particular. Moreover, there are subtle differences in the paneling, size, and framing of Plaintiffs and Defendants’ doors. These differences are not great, but given the constraints of a colonial design, they are significant. The same is true of the windows and garage doors that Plaintiff claims are identical. They are quite similar in location, size, and general design, but again, the similarities are due primaril”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny author may draw from the history of English-speaking peoples, but no one may copy from A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Any artist may portray the Spanish Civil War, but no one may paint another Guernica. "). Copyright protection can be afforded to the manner in which an author selects, coordinates, or expresses unprotectible elements in a work so long as it possesses "some minimal degree of creativity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]lements of a work that are indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given topic -- like cowboys, bank robbers, and shootouts in stories of the American West -- get no protection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.