## Facts

- Chrysalis Homes Associates (Chrysalis) hired The Heise Group, Inc. (Heise), an architectural firm, to create original residential architectural drawings, with a verbal understanding that Chrysalis would own the resulting plans.
- Heise created plans for a model titled “Verandah II” and placed a copyright notice naming Chrysalis as owner.
- In 1988, Chrysalis obtained a copyright registration listing Chrysalis as the author under a work-for-hire theory and as the claimant.
- In 1990, controlling circuit authority clarified that a homebuilder hiring an independent contractor to draft plans is not automatically the “author” under the work-for-hire doctrine.
- After that clarification, Heise executed a written “certificate of release” assigning to Chrysalis all rights and ownership in the Verandah II copyright.
- Chrysalis (while winding up) executed a written assignment on February 19, 1990 transferring its rights in the Verandah II copyright to Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. (Rutenberg).
- Rutenberg sued Drew Homes, Inc. and its president, Andrew J. Vecchio, Jr., alleging unauthorized use of the Verandah II plans and asserting copyright infringement and unfair competition.
- Drew counterclaimed for trade defamation and sought a declaratory judgment that the copyright was invalid.
- After a bench trial before a magistrate judge by consent, the court ruled Rutenberg did not own a valid copyright at the time of the alleged infringement and entered declaratory relief for Drew.

## Issues

1. Whether the copyright was invalid from inception because the initial registration inaccurately identified Chrysalis as the author under a work-for-hire theory.
2. Whether later written assignments from the actual author (Heise) to Chrysalis, and from Chrysalis to Rutenberg, vested Rutenberg with valid title sufficient to sue for infringement.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment for Drew and the declaration of invalidity.
- The court held the initial work-for-hire misidentification in the registration did not render the copyright void from inception.
- The court held the written assignment from Heise to Chrysalis validly transferred ownership to Chrysalis, and Chrysalis’s written assignment validly transferred that ownership to Rutenberg.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the conclusion that Rutenberg held a valid copyright at the relevant time.

## Legal Principles

- A misstatement in a copyright registration concerning authorship or work-for-hire status does not automatically nullify the existence or enforceability of the copyright.
- When an independent contractor creates architectural plans, the contractor is ordinarily the initial author unless the statutory work-for-hire requirements are met.
- Ownership defects in the chain of title may be cured through subsequent written assignments from the actual author to the intended owner, and such assignments can support an infringement claim if title is established for the relevant period.
- Courts distinguish between correctable registration/title errors and defects so fundamental as to negate copyright protection altogether.

## Conclusion

The court held that an erroneous work-for-hire claim in an architectural-plan registration did not void the copyright, and that later written assignments from the true author to the commissioning party and then to the plaintiff established valid ownership, requiring reversal of the declaration of invalidity and remand.


Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Drew Homes, Inc., 29 F.3d 1529 (11th Cir. 1994)