Gay Toys, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Buddy L Corporation, Defendant-appellant, 703 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1983)

Indeed, underneath the region court’s thinking, almost any “pictorial, visual, and sculptural work” wouldn’t be copyrightable being a “useful article.” a artwork of Lindbergh’s Spirit of St. Louis invites the audience “to dream also to allow his / her imagination soar,” and wouldn’t be copyrightable beneath the region court’s approach. However the statute plainly promises to extend copyright protection to paintings. The region court might have the article that is”useful exclusion ingest the typical guideline, and its own rationale is wrong. See 1 Nimmer on Copyright Sec. 2.08 [B] at 2-93 letter. 107 (1982).

This summary is in keeping with numerous decisions that are prior holding either clearly or implicitly that toys are copyrightable. See, e.g., initial Appalachian Artworks, Inc.