DeVito v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff’s “selection of the clear glass, oblong shroud, bright colors, proportion, vertical orientation, and stereotyped jellyfish form [for his sculptures], considered together, lack[ed] the quantum of originality needed”
• recognizing that an artist “may, however, protect the original expression he or she contributes to these ideas” including “the pose, attitude, gesture, muscle structure, facial expression, coat, or texture of [the] animal . . . and the background, lighting, or perspective”
• explaining that the original “pose, attitude, gesture, muscle structure, facial expression, coat, or texture of [an] animal” may be protectable
• holding similarity of six different elements \lacks the quantum of originality needed to merit copyright protection.\
• observing that scope of copyright protection for realistic depiction of live animal was narrow and noting that “[t]hese ideas, first expressed by nature, are the common heritage of humankind, and no artist may use copyright law to prevent others from depicting them”
• glass-in-glass jellyfish sculpture only entitled to thin protection against virtually identical copying due to the narrow range of expression

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).