## Facts

- Thomas Shine, a Yale architecture student, created two skyscraper designs in a 1999 studio: “Shine ’99” and the more developed “Olympic Tower.”
- Shine presented his work to a Yale jury of invited experts, including architect David M. Childs, using models, renderings, and technical drawings; Childs commented on the project.
- Childs and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP later participated in developing an early design for the “Freedom Tower” at the World Trade Center site.
- Shine alleged the 2003 Freedom Tower design copied protectable elements of his student designs, including a twisting form and a diamond-patterned exterior “skin.”
- Shine registered his designs with the Copyright Office in 2004.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment; the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Shine ’99 and Olympic Tower qualify as copyrightable “architectural works,” as original expression rather than unprotectable ideas or standard building features.
2. If protectable, whether the Freedom Tower design is substantially similar to either student design in protectable expression such that infringement could be found.

## Decision

- The court held both Shine ’99 and Olympic Tower were protectable architectural works under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act and Copyright Act.
- The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the infringement claim insofar as it was based on Shine ’99, finding no substantial similarity in protectable expression.
- The court denied summary judgment insofar as the claim was based on Olympic Tower, holding a reasonable jury could find substantial similarity in the protectable arrangement and composition of elements.
- The action proceeded on the Olympic Tower theory.

## Legal Principles

- Architectural work protection covers a building design’s overall form and the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements, but not individual standard features or generalized concepts.
- Originality for architectural works is a low threshold and may lie in the particular selection, coordination, and arrangement of architectural elements, even when functional considerations are present.
- Access may be inferred where a defendant had an opportunity to view the plaintiff’s work, supporting an inference of copying when combined with similarity evidence.
- Substantial similarity analysis in architecture focuses on protectable expression (overall form and composition), not similarities attributable to common skyscraper features or unprotectable ideas.
- Summary judgment is improper where a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to protectable similarity that a reasonable jury could resolve for the nonmovant.

## Conclusion

The court recognized both student skyscraper designs as copyrightable architectural works, but ruled that only the Olympic Tower claim raised a triable dispute over whether the Freedom Tower’s design copied protectable expression in the overall arrangement and composition of architectural elements.


Shine v. Childs, 382 F. Supp. 2d 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)