Things that make you go WTF #4

So this is from the Spring 2007 edition of the American Bar Association's IPL Newsletter:

Sex Toys Are Likely Too Utilitarian for Copyright Protection

ConWest Resources, Inc. v. Playtime Novelties, Inc., 2006 WL 3346226 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Plaintiff ConWest Resources, Inc. (ConWest), owner of copyright registrations in models of human penises, asserted defendant Playtime Novelties, Inc. (Playtime) was infringing its copyrights and sought a preliminary injunction. ConWest had previously licensed Playtime to manufacture and distribute the adult novelty items but terminated the relationship and contracted with another company. Playtime asserted that ConWest was unlikely to prevail on the merits, and argued that the adult novelty items were "useful articles" under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 and possessed no separable creative features, especially given that the novelty items were cast from the penises of actual persons.
The district court agreed with Playtime and denied the preliminary injunction. The district court found that the novelty items likely did not embody any creative features that were conceptually separable from their utilitarian aspects. Under the law of the Second Circuit, the independence of the utilitarian features from the artistic features is determined by whether the design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences. The district court drew similarities to a Second Circuit case that found that mannequins of partial human torsos were utilitarian works not entitled to protection. Due to the probable lack of success on the merits, the district court denied the preliminary injunction.

In short: dildos must be shaped like dicks, otherwise they lose their functionality, therefore no copyright protection. I would have loved to see the discovery in this case. I also love the court's decision to refer to the dildos as "novelty items".