Three Criteria for Copying

In order for a plaintiff to prove copying, three criteria must be met:

First, that the plaintiff owns a valid copyright in the
architectural work it accuses defendants of having
copied.
Second, that the defendant actually copied that architectural
work.
Third, that the defendants' copying of the
architectural work was so extensive that it rendered
the defendants' work and the copyrighted work substantially
similar.

Without all three elements, the claim fails.

In our case, the first criteria was met - the judge ruled that T-Peg held a valid copyright, even though we argued that the saltbox design had been around since the 1600's or earlier: See the Doe Garrison House. The fact that Doe Garrison was so similar in size and shape to the T-Peg design would not be allowed by the court because we had no evidence that T-Peg had ever seen the photographs of it. Oddly enough, in copyright law, a design is original if someone creates it on their own even if a substantially similar design already exists that they have not seen.

We also brought up problems with the copyright registration and the unsigned contract that transferred ownership between the Timberpeg family of companies.

In the second and third cases, actual copying and substantial similarity, the jury found for Vermont Timber Works.