FEDERAL · 17 U.S.C. · Chapter 1
Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
17 U.S.C. § 113
Title17 — Copyrights
Chapter1 — SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
This text of 17 U.S.C. § 113 (Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
17 U.S.C. § 113.
Text
(a)Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.
(b)This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a work that portrays a useful article as such, any greater or lesser rights with respect to the making, distribution, or display of the useful article so portrayed than those afforded to such works under the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on December 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by a court in an action brought under this title.
(c)In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc.
601 F.3d 1224 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
580 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Robert R. Jones Associates, Inc. v. Nino Homes, Michele Lochirco, Diebele-Ginter
858 F.2d 274 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)
Kelley v. Chicago Park District
635 F.3d 290 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P.
950 F.3d 155 (Second Circuit, 2020)
S&L VITAMINS, INC. v. Australian Gold, Inc.
521 F. Supp. 2d 188 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co.
834 F.2d 1142 (Second Circuit, 1987)
Leicester v. Warner Bros.
232 F.3d 1212 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Richmond Homes Management, Inc. v. Raintree, Inc.
862 F. Supp. 1517 (W.D. Virginia, 1994)
National Medical Care, Inc. v. Espiritu
284 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D. West Virginia, 2003)
Ultraflo Corporation v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc.
845 F.3d 652 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Donald Frederick Evans & Associates, Inc. v. Continental Homes, Inc.
785 F.2d 897 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)
Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc.
445 F. Supp. 875 (S.D. Florida, 1978)
Cohen v. G & M Realty L.P.
988 F. Supp. 2d 212 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc.
288 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D. Massachusetts, 2003)
Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.
852 F. Supp. 228 (S.D. New York, 1994)
Bryant v. Gordon
483 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Illinois, 2007)
Kerson v. Vermont Law School, Inc.
79 F.4th 257 (Second Circuit, 2023)
Forest River, Inc. v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC
753 F. Supp. 2d 753 (N.D. Indiana, 2010)
Cort v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Companies, Inc.
311 F.3d 979 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2560; Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, §604, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5130.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
house report no. 94–1476
Section 113 deals with the extent of copyright protection in "works of applied art." The section takes as its starting point the Supreme Court's decision in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) [74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630, rehearing denied 74 S.Ct. 637, 347 U.S. 949, 98 L.Ed. 1096], and the first sentence of subsection (a) restates the basic principle established by that decision. The rule of Mazer, as affirmed by the bill, is that copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work will not be affected if the work is employed as the design of a useful article, and will afford protection to the copyright owner against the unauthorized reproduction of his work in useful as well as nonuseful articles. The terms "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" and "useful article" are defined in section 101, and these definitions are discussed above in connection with section 102.
The broad language of section 106(1) and of subsection (a) of section 113 raises questions as to the extent of copyright protection for a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work that portrays, depicts, or represents an image of a useful article in such a way that the utilitarian nature of the article can be seen. To take the example usually cited, would copyright in a drawing or model of an automobile give the artist the exclusive right to make automobiles of the same design?
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights stated, on the basis of judicial precedent, that "copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, portraying a useful article as such, does not extend to the manufacture of the useful article itself," and recommended specifically that "the distinctions drawn in this area by existing court decisions" not be altered by the statute. The Register's Supplementary Report, at page 48, cited a number of these decisions, and explained the insuperable difficulty of finding "any statutory formulation that would express the distinction satisfactorily." Section 113(b) reflects the Register's conclusion that "the real need is to make clear that there is no intention to change the present law with respect to the scope of protection in a work portraying a useful article as such."
Section 113(c) provides that it would not be an infringement of copyright, where a copyright work has been lawfully published as the design of useful articles, to make, distribute or display pictures of the articles in advertising, in feature stories about the articles, or in the news reports.
In conformity with its deletion from the bill of Title II, relating to the protection of ornamental designs of useful articles, the Committee has deleted subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 113 of S. 22 as adopted by the Senate, since they are no longer relevant.
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 [Pub. L. 101–650], referred to in subsec. (d)(1)(B), is set out as an Effective Date note under section 106A of this title.
Amendments
1990—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 101–650 added subsec. (d).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 101–650 effective 6 months after Dec. 1, 1990, see section 610 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as an Effective Date note under section 106A of this title.
house report no. 94–1476
Section 113 deals with the extent of copyright protection in "works of applied art." The section takes as its starting point the Supreme Court's decision in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) [74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630, rehearing denied 74 S.Ct. 637, 347 U.S. 949, 98 L.Ed. 1096], and the first sentence of subsection (a) restates the basic principle established by that decision. The rule of Mazer, as affirmed by the bill, is that copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work will not be affected if the work is employed as the design of a useful article, and will afford protection to the copyright owner against the unauthorized reproduction of his work in useful as well as nonuseful articles. The terms "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" and "useful article" are defined in section 101, and these definitions are discussed above in connection with section 102.
The broad language of section 106(1) and of subsection (a) of section 113 raises questions as to the extent of copyright protection for a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work that portrays, depicts, or represents an image of a useful article in such a way that the utilitarian nature of the article can be seen. To take the example usually cited, would copyright in a drawing or model of an automobile give the artist the exclusive right to make automobiles of the same design?
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights stated, on the basis of judicial precedent, that "copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, portraying a useful article as such, does not extend to the manufacture of the useful article itself," and recommended specifically that "the distinctions drawn in this area by existing court decisions" not be altered by the statute. The Register's Supplementary Report, at page 48, cited a number of these decisions, and explained the insuperable difficulty of finding "any statutory formulation that would express the distinction satisfactorily." Section 113(b) reflects the Register's conclusion that "the real need is to make clear that there is no intention to change the present law with respect to the scope of protection in a work portraying a useful article as such."
Section 113(c) provides that it would not be an infringement of copyright, where a copyright work has been lawfully published as the design of useful articles, to make, distribute or display pictures of the articles in advertising, in feature stories about the articles, or in the news reports.
In conformity with its deletion from the bill of Title II, relating to the protection of ornamental designs of useful articles, the Committee has deleted subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 113 of S. 22 as adopted by the Senate, since they are no longer relevant.
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 [Pub. L. 101–650], referred to in subsec. (d)(1)(B), is set out as an Effective Date note under section 106A of this title.
Amendments
1990—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 101–650 added subsec. (d).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 101–650 effective 6 months after Dec. 1, 1990, see section 610 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as an Effective Date note under section 106A of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
17 U.S.C. § 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/17/113.