In JBrick, LLC v. Chazak Kinder, Inc. et al, 1-21-cv-02883 (EDNY Sep. 21, 2023) (Hector Gonzalez), the District Courtroom for the Jap District of New York granted the plaintiff’s movement for abstract judgment relating to the validity of its copyright.
The plaintiff had created a “distinctive, precisely scaled, real LEGO®-brick interpretation” of the Second Beit Hamikdash, or Second Holy Temple (“Second Holy Temple”).” The plaintiff created a LEGO®-brick Second Holy Temple product (“Second Holy Temple Product”) based mostly on unbiased analysis and no less than three years of finding out historic teachings. The plaintiff additionally consulted with varied rabbis as a part of the design course of for the Second Holy Temple Product. The plaintiff additionally testified that the Second Holy Temple Product is a “tangible, sculptural interpretation of what . . . the [Second Holy Temple] might have appeared like in actual life, based mostly on the written phrases and interpretation of the Hebrew scholar and thinker Maimonides.” The plaintiff owns copyright registrations for its Second Holy Temple Product and its {photograph} of its Second Holy Temple Product (the “Copyright Registrations”).
Within the case, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants produced “virtually an actual reproduction” of Plaintiff’s Second Holy Temple Product, containing “the entire distinctive options that set the JBrick . . . set other than its rivals.” In protection, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s Second Holy Temple Product fails “to exhibit enough creativity or originality to be entitled to copyright safety or registration.” Plaintiff responded that it’s entitled to abstract judgment on Defendants’ copyright invalidity counterclaim as a result of Defendants have produced no proof that helps their allegations that Plaintiff’s Second Holy Temple Product just isn’t authentic.
Beneath the Copyright Act of 1976, a copyright registration creates a rebuttable presumption that the copyright is legitimate. The presumption of validity could also be rebutted “the place different proof casts doubt on the query.” Thus, right here, on condition that the plaintiff has Copyright Registrations, the burden shifts to Defendants to come back ahead with “proof that the work[s] [were] copied from the general public area.”
Defendants argued that as a result of data regarding the Second Holy Temple is within the public area, Plaintiff’s copyrighted works should not authentic. In consequence, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s Second Holy Temple Product may be copied and utilized in by-product works. Defendants additional argued {that a} “traditionally correct replication doesn’t represent a brand new authentic work.”
Plaintiff responded that: (i) there isn’t any proof to help that Plaintiff’s depiction of the Second Holy Temple is within the public area; (ii) there isn’t any proof that Plaintiff’s depiction is a traditionally correct replication as a result of the Second Holy Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. and there are not any photographs from earlier than the constructing was destroyed; and (iii) with a view to create the Second Holy Temple Product, Plaintiff learn quite a few “written textual descriptions and translated phrases right into a 3D sculpture,” additional supporting its originality.
To qualify for copyright safety, a piece should be authentic to the writer. Unique, because the time period is utilized in copyright, means solely that the work was independently created by the writer (versus copied from different works), and that it possesses no less than some minimal diploma of creativity.” Thus, the Courtroom discovered Defendants didn’t present any proof that the work had been copied from the general public area. Actually, in response to Plaintiff’s request for the manufacturing of paperwork, the Courtroom famous “that type the idea for or to help or refute the assertion . . . that the [Second Holy Temple Product] is an unoriginal rendition of the [Second] Holy Temple, or that the set wouldn’t be copyrightable as a result of it’s based mostly on recognized public area components,” Defendants recognized 4 written texts. Nonetheless, the Courtroom reasoned “a copyright is invalid provided that the topic work exhibits no originality — that’s if the copyrighted work is on no account a distinguishable variation on one thing already within the public area.”
Thus, the Courtroom discovered that no cheap juror may disagree that Plaintiff’s Second Holy Temple Product, which each events agree relies on a translation of analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of written Jewish spiritual texts right into a 3D sculpture of a construction destroyed in 70 C.E., is sufficiently artistic to warrant copyright safety. And, due to this fact the Courtroom held the plaintiff is entitled to abstract judgment on the defendants’ copyright invalidity counterclaim.