July 28, 2014

Is Your House Designer Creative or a Copier? Judge Finds an Issue of Fact Whether a House Design Infringed on a Previous Designer’s Copyright

In Bruemmer v. Reardon, Case No. 1:11-cv-988 (W.D. Mich.), Judge Bell denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment because he found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants infringed on the plaintiffs' copyright design of a residential house.  The court found that an issue of fact existed as to both of the required elements of a copyright infringement claim:

  1. that the plaintiffs owned a valid copyright—i.e., whether the plaintiffs' house design possessed a minimal degree of creativity and was independently created by the plaintiffs; and
  2. that the defendants copied elements of the plaintiffs' original work.

Marla Bruemmer, through her company Design Evolutions Inc., created drawings for the design of a custom home on Austin Lake in Portage, Michigan.  The property owners paid Bruemmer for the drawings, and Bruemmer applied for copyright protection of the drawings.  The property owners, however, hired a different designer and contractor to construct their house.  The plaintiffs, Ms. Bruemmer and her design company, alleged that the defendants utilized her copyrighted materials to design and erect the property owner's house.

The defendants made three arguments that the plaintiffs' copyright was not protectable, but Judge Bell found that a genuine issue of fact existed as to each argument. First, interestingly, the defendants argued that the plaintiff designer actually copied the defendant designer's house designs, which the plaintiffs refuted. The contrary assertions of fact, of course, created an issue of fact. Second, even though the plaintiffs' drawings use common features in houses in the public domain, an issue of fact exists as to whether the overall arrangement and combination of the common design features are sufficiently original to be afforded copyright protection. Third, despite the property owners giving detailed specifications for the drawings, Judge Bell could not say as a matter of law the extent to which the property owners' preferences accounted for the degree of similarity between the plaintiffs' drawings and the defendants' drawings.

If anything, this opinion and case can be a caution to residential home builders, such as construction companies or general contractors, when constructing houses or buildings pursuant to a designer's drawings. A defendant, like the defendants here, could be forced to litigate a case like this even though that home builder might not have had anything to do with the design of the house.

It might be up to a jury to decide whether the property owner's designer was creative, or just a plain ol' copier.

© 2014 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Kyle P. Konwinski, Varnum Law Firm, Litigation Attorney

Kyle Konwinski is a member of the Litigation and Trial Services Practice Group. A former law clerk for the Honorable Gordon J. Quist of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Kyle has experience and insight regarding trial court matters in federal court, as well as appellate matters in several different federal circuit courts. He has done work for higher education institutions and municipalities, which has included writing summary judgment motions and appellate briefs in defense of law enforcement in civil Fourth Amendment matters.  Kyle has also worked...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.