Intellectual Property Protection of Works of Applied Art, where is the line drawn?
Works of applied art exist at the intersection of function and aesthetics. For many years, this has created uncertainty as to the scope of copyright protection. This uncertainty has largely been clarified through case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has established that works of applied art must be assessed according to the same criteria as other works under copyright law.
The originality requirement, the central criterion
In order to qualify for copyright protection, it is both necessary and sufficient that the work is original. Originality exists where the object reflects the author’s personality by expressing their free and creative choices. This criterion applies regardless of the type of work. Works of applied art must therefore not be subject to a stricter assessment than, for example, works of fine art or sculpture.
Functional considerations and creative constraints
Works of applied art differ from purely artistic works in that they are utilitarian objects with a functional purpose. As a result, the creator’s freedom of design is often limited by technical and practical considerations. At the same time, applied art is typically characterised by the use of already known forms and by drawing inspiration from existing objects. These factors do not, however, exclude copyright protection.
What is decisive is whether the arrangement and composition of the elements used constitute an expression of the author’s own free and creative choices. Even where inspiration is clearly identifiable, originality may still be present if the result bears the mark of an independent creative effort.
Scope of protection where inspiration and reuse are involved
Where a work has been created on the basis of existing objects, copyright protection is limited to those elements that can be identified as the author’s own creative contributions. This means that commonplace forms, technically dictated solutions, and well known design features fall outside the scope of protection, whereas the specific creative treatment may be protected.
Copyright and design protection, two distinct legal regimes
Copyright protection and design protection are governed by different criteria and must not be conflated. Copyright requires originality, whereas design protection requires novelty and individual character. An object may therefore be protected under both regimes, provided that the objective conditions of each system are fulfilled.
The two forms of protection also pursue different objectives. Design protection is aimed at products that can be industrially or serially manufactured and has a limited duration of up to 25 years. Its purpose is to allow the right holder to recoup their investment without unduly restricting competition. Copyright protection, by contrast, has a significantly longer duration and does not pursue the same commercial and competition related balancing.
Infringement and recognisability
In addition to the originality requirement, a further criterion applies when assessing infringement. The original elements of the protected work must be recognisable in the allegedly infringing object. It is irrelevant whether the original work and the infringing object produce the same overall visual impression. The decisive factor is solely whether the protected, creative elements of the author have been reproduced.
Concluding remarks
Case law shows that works of applied art today enjoy a clearer and more predictable level of copyright protection than in the past. The assessment is concrete and centred on the author’s free and creative choices. For designers, architects, and manufacturers, this means that even functional objects may qualify for copyright protection where they embody a personal and creative expression.
© Svend Onø