Harvester, Inc. v. Rule Joy Trammell + Rubio, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “any decisions on arrangement and coordination made by [an architect] that were dictated by the building code and manufacturers’ clearance directives cannot be protected expression, as they would not be original to [that architect].”
• stating that “[t]he legislative history [of the Copyright Act] makes clear that functionally-required design components do not receive copyright protection under § 102(a)(8
• the “arrangement and coordination decisions in [a]rchitectural [d]rawings that were dictated by functional considerations . . . cannot be protected expression”
• “Copyright protection in architectural works, as with traditional compilations, is necessarily thin ... As with compilations and architectural works, though, the copyright in a derivative work is thin.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).