On May 2, 2016, the US Supreme Court stated that it would hear a case between two cheerleader uniform suppliers to redefine the scope of the country's copyright law. In 2010, Star Athletica published a catalogue of its first cheerleading uniform, but was sued. Varsity Brands, the world's largest manufacturer of uniforms for cheerleading and dance teams, accused Star Athletica of designing uniforms that infringe Varsity's copyright-protected designs.
The impact of the lawsuit between the two clothing manufacturers has exceeded the fashion field. Recently, three 3D printing companies - Formlabs, Matter and Form and Shapeways have submitted an amicus brief, requesting the High Court to accept the case in order to seek a clear distinction between creative design protected by copyright law and copyright. The functional object of the law protection, as this is very important for defining an increasingly large number of 3D printing designs.
Let me briefly introduce the case:
Star believes that Varsity's copyright requirements are based on the functional elements of the uniform and should not be allowed. The United States has never allowed copyright to be granted to "useful articles," a rule that has long included clothing. As a result, Star won the district court, but the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the verdict, which in turn determined that Varsity won. Star then appealed again to the Supreme Court.
In an appeal filed with the Supreme Court, Star stated that the decision of the Court of Appeal “exacerbated the differences in the judiciary and denied the recognition of the deprivation of copyright protection of clothing designs or uniforms, despite the clothing design industry of the past century. I have been lobbying for this."
If the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is not overturned, "the industrial designer can then claim the copyright on the pleats on the tennis skirt, the button patterns on the golf shirts, and the color stripes on the football uniforms. "Star Athletica said.
The Circuit Court, the US Copyright Office, and academics created “at least nine different test standards†to separate copyright content from utility. "But the Sixth Circuit Court rejected all of the above nine standards and created the tenth one by itself," Star Athletica's lawyer wrote.
In addition, Star Athletica also complained about Varsity's aggressive strategy, saying the latter has sued or acquired several other competitors. "This result has led to the expansion of uniform prices and harmed the interests of American families," the appeal said.
Art and function
In two court decisions, the judges of the District Court found it difficult to cut the design of Varsity with the “utility function of the general cheerleading uniformâ€. If you make a dress of the same form, "there is no team color, stripes and chevrons", it will not be considered a cheerleading uniform.
However, the judges of the Court of Appeal disagreed with this view, arguing that Varsity's stripes and herringbone patterns did not have functional functions. "A pure white cheerleading shirt and white skirt will not affect the cheerleading team wearing it cheering, jumping, kicking and flipping." The judge of the second trial wrote: "There is no banner, V-shaped, zigzag or ribbon tops and The skirt is still easily identified as a cheerleading uniform."
3D printing company's appeal
Of course, for us, what's more important is why three well-known 3D printing companies, Formlabs, Matter and Form, and Shapeways, are coming in. In the non-participant statement submitted, the three companies asked the US Supreme Court to provide clear boundaries based on the case to conceptually distinguish what is copyright and what is not.
According to the statement, 3D printing is a revolutionary technology that is changing the industry. However, some objects have clear copyrights, while others do not. There are a lot of gray areas in between. The standard is not clear.
For example, those "purely ornamental and functional" 3D printed objects, such as sculptures and jewellery, are clearly copyrighted; and those "purely functional" designs, like a wrench, are clearly not copyrighted. But a significant percentage of 3D printed objects combine functionality and artistry. To this end, these 3D printing companies want to clarify a standard and let them know what their responsibilities are.
AUTRENDS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , https://www.petspetscleaning.com