Copyright Law: Darden 052407

Darden v. Peters, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 06-1177 (May 24, 2007):

Issue:
Darden runs a site located at appraisers.com. For this site, Darden compiled U.S. Census maps and hired someone to touch them up. The work-for-hire contractor colored all the maps blue and added shading to all the objects on the maps to create a three-dimensional feel. Using standard fonts, Darden also added labels to the maps. Darden filed for copyright protection for the maps as a technical drawing. The claim was rejected for lack of a creative spark. Darden refiled, this time typifying his work as the compilation of maps. The claim was again rejected for lack of a creative spark. However, the examining attorney did say that the labels, as content, might be able to be copyrighted if submitted as a separate application. He submitted the case for review and heard the same. Not liking the second, or third, answer any more than the first, Darden filed suit looking for a de novo -- not abuse of discretion -- review, citing statutory and Constitutional grounds for such. Summary judgment was granted to the government, and Darden appealed. Darden argues that when another competitor used Darden's maps for its site, a large number of Darden's clients became confused as to the ownership of the competitor site, so -- clearly -- there was some level of creative expression in the maps sufficient enough to cause people to recognize the authorship in different contexts.

Pertinent issues of copyright law:
1) Was Darden entitled to a de novo review of the copyright rejections?
2) Were the maps copyrightable as a technical drawing or as a compilation?
3) Was the confusion of the customers a sufficient basis on which to challenge the rulings of the lower court and Copyright Office?

Conclusion:
No, no, no.

The court found that while copyrights were provided for in the Constitution, copyright protection was the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. As such, review of copyright rejections were necessarily on their terms. Congress has provided disappointed copyright applicants the right to file for a review of their rejections and the right to seek judicial review of rejections during an action against an alleged copyright infringer. The court did not outright say but seemed to imply that if there was to be any additional forms of redress, it would be Congress, not the court, that would create it. Thus, an abuse of discretion, not de novo, review was proper.

The court found that the level of creativity, if any, involved in modifying the maps from their public document nature was so minimal that the prior decisions could not be flawed for an abuse of discretion.

As for Darden's customer confusion argument, the court found that Darden's argument was better suited for a trademark claim and bore no weight on the legitimacy of the copyright.

Judgment affirmed.