Stealing Beauty: Pivot Point International v ... - UW Law School

2006:1067 Stealing Beauty 1071
circumstances would confer a monopoly of the idea upon the copyright
owner. 23
Because mannequins are generally based upon current societal
notions of beauty, it seems necessary for courts to apply the merger
doctrine to copyright cases involving mannequins. So doing would
prevent designers from acquiring undue monopolies by merely exploiting
these notions of beauty first. However, in Pivot Point International v.
Charlene Products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
granted copyright protection to a line of mannequins that channeled the
chic look of runway models of the 1980s 24 without adequately
considering the merger doctrine. In its decision, the court primarily
relied on the doctrine of conceptual separability, which states that the
aesthetically pleasing elements of a utilitarian item are only
copyrightable to the extent that they do not serve a utilitarian function. 25
Essentially, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that, because Pivot Point’s
mannequin heads did not require their specific facial features to serve
their utilitarian function within the cosmetology industry, those features
were copyrightable. 26 The court further held that the specific
configuration of facial features on Pivot Point’s mannequin heads were
the result of an artist’s own independent artistic judgment, and were
copyrightable for that reason as well. 27
The court’s holding is somewhat ironic. In granting copyright
protection to the mannequin’s facial features, the Seventh Circuit
protected this particular plaintiff’s artistic design from a defendant who
had clearly stolen it. 28 The mannequin’s facial features, however, were
not based on the artist’s independent idea of what is beautiful, but rather
23. See, e.g., Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l, 241 F.3d 398, 408 (5th Cir.
2001); Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1971).
24. 372 F.3d 913, 915, 931-32 (7th Cir. 2004).
25. See id. at 931. As explained later in this Note, if an aspect of a design has a
utilitarian function, then that aspect no longer falls under the Act’s definition of
“pictorial, graphic or sculptural work.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2000). This is one of eight
categories that Congress has determined fall within the scope of copyright protection.
See 17 U.S.C. § 102 (2000) (listing the eight categories of copyrightable items). Because
the other categories cover items such as written works, motion pictures, and
choreography, if a three-dimensional article does not fall into the “pictorial, graphic and
sculptural work” category, it probably will not qualify for copyright protection. The
process of determining whether an article has a utilitarian function is relatively
straightforward. Congress defined a “useful article” as an article that has an intrinsic
utilitarian function “that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or convey
information.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2000) (emphasis added). It follows, then, that an article
that has any other type of intrinsic utilitarian function would be a useful article.
26. See 372 F.3d at 931.
27. Id. at 931-32.
28. See id. at 916.