## Facts

- Jack Adelman, Inc. (Adelman) obtained a federal copyright registration for a drawing of a dress, issued August 3, 1933.
- Adelman alleged that Sonners & Gordon, Inc. (Sonners) manufactured and sold a dress “like the one” shown in Adelman’s copyrighted drawing, and that affiliated retailers sold the accused dresses.
- Adelman moved for a temporary injunction to stop further manufacture and sales.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing: (1) a dress is not copyrightable subject matter; (2) Adelman’s copyright covered only the drawing, and making a wearable dress is not infringement of the drawing; and (3) the copyright was invalid due to alleged failures to comply with statutory formalities (including provisions of the 1909 Act referenced as Sections 11 and 18).
- Adelman relied in part on prior decisions in which courts found infringement where a copyrighted work in one medium was reproduced in another (including a toy figure made from a copyrighted cartoon illustration and a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture).
- Jurisdiction was based solely on federal copyright law; all parties were citizens of New York.

## Issues

1. Whether a copyright in a two-dimensional drawing of a dress gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to manufacture and sell the three-dimensional dress depicted in the drawing.
2. Whether making and selling a wearable dress “like” the one shown in a copyrighted drawing constitutes “copying” the copyrighted work within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1909.
3. Whether alleged noncompliance with statutory notice/deposit requirements (Sections 11 and 18) rendered the asserted copyright invalid.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court denied Adelman’s motion for a temporary injunction.
- The court held that Adelman’s copyright protected the drawing as the copyrighted work, but did not confer a monopoly over producing the dress itself.
- Because the complaint alleged infringement based on the manufacture and sale of the dress (rather than copying and vending the drawing), the pleaded theory did not fall within the statutory exclusive rights.
- Having found no actionable infringement on the facts pleaded, the court did not need to decide the defendants’ additional arguments challenging the copyright’s validity under Sections 11 and 18.

## Legal Principles

- A copyright owner’s rights come from the statute, and the scope of protection depends on what the statute grants for “the copyrighted work.”
- Under the 1909 Act, the exclusive rights to “print, reprint, publish, copy, and vend” protect against copying and distributing the copyrighted work itself; they do not automatically bar manufacture and sale of a useful article depicted in a copyrighted picture.
- Registration of a dress drawing as a work of art (or as a model or design for a work of art under Copyright Office rules) protects the drawing’s expression, not the production of a wearable garment based on that drawing.
- Copyright does not function as a substitute for a design-patent-type right in apparel: making a dress to be worn, even if inspired by a drawing, is not necessarily a “copy” of the drawing for infringement purposes.
- When a complaint rests only on the claim that making and selling a utilitarian object infringes a copyright in a drawing of that object, dismissal is proper if the pleaded conduct does not amount to copying the copyrighted work as the statute defines it.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Adelman’s infringement suit and denied preliminary injunctive relief, holding that a copyright in a dress drawing protects the drawing itself and does not give the copyright owner the exclusive right to manufacture or sell dresses embodying the depicted design.


Jack Adelman, Inc. v. Sonners & Gordon, Inc., et al., 112 F. Supp. 187 (1934)