Ocean Atl. Woodland Corp. v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc. - No. 02 C 2523, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4698 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2004)

Rule:

To establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Direct evidence of copying is usually unavailable and therefore, copying may be inferred where the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work. The test used by courts of the Seventh Circuit for determining whether there is "substantial similarity" is that of an ordinary observer: whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectable expression by taking material of substance and value.

Facts:

On April 9, 2002 Ocean Atlantic acquired copyright ownership in two development plans for the Liberty Grove development in the Village of Plainfield. These development plans were previously incorporated into the annexation agreement for the Liberty Grove development by the Village of Plainfield. Ocean Atlantic lost its right to develop the land under the development plans when it attempted to close on the sale of the land late. Ocean Atlantic now asserts copyright infringement of the development plans by the defendants in their development of Liberty Grove. Defendants filed a motion for a protective order, and Ocean Atlantic filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents. The lower court granted in part and denying in part the motion for protective order and the motion to compel answers.

Issue:

Did the lower court err in ruling that some of defendants’ plans relating to the development need not be produced because they conform to the plans in the annexation agreement, and are not copies of them?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

It was undisputed that Ocean Atlantic owned a copyright in the development plans and that the defendants had access to the development plans. Therefore the relevant evidence would pertain to whether the accused work was substantially similar to the copyrighted work. Ocean Atlantic maintained that the defendants allegedly infringed upon their copyrighted development plans attached to the annexation agreement for Liberty Grove.