Bananas duct-taped to a wall: non c’è violazione di copyright nel caso Morford/Cattelan

Il Trib. del Distretto Sud della Florida, giudice Scola, 12 giugno 2023, Case 1:21-cv-20039-RNS, Mordford v. Cattelan, decide con itneressante sentenza la lite tra i due artisti Morford e Cattelan.

Si vedano nella sentenza le due opere a paragone: a prima vista paiono assai simili.

la corte però sfronda applicando -dopo aver affermato che non è data prova dell’access di Cattelan all’0opera azionata- il noto e importante “abstraction-filtration-comparison” test, p. 9.

Esito della filtration:

<<Where does this leave the Court’s filtration analysis? Effectively, it
removes from consideration the largest and most obvious abstracted element of
Banana and Orange: the “banana [that] appears to be fixed to the panel with a
piece of silver duct tape running vertically at a slight angle, left to right.” (Order
Denying Mot. Dismiss at 10.) This expression is not protectible under the
merger doctrine. But that is not to say that Morford’s work is wholly
unprotectible under the doctrine, and this is where the Court diverges from
Cattelan’s position. There are still protectible elements of Morford’s work: (1)
the green rectangular panel on which the fruit is placed; (2) the use of masking
tape to border the panels; (3) the orange on the top panel and banana on the
bottom panel, both of which are centered; (4) the banana’s placement “at a
slight angle, with the banana stalk on the left side pointing up.” (Id.)>>

Ma allora la ripresa da aprte di CAttelan si riduce a poco.

Si v. a p. 14 il paragone sinottico, assai chiaro, che i nostri giudici dovrebbero pure praticare.

In breve resta solo questo:

Reviewing these elements as a whole, it is clear that Banana and Orange
and Comedian share only one common feature that the Court has not already
set aside as unprotectible: both bananas are situated with the banana’s stalk
on the left-hand side of sculpture. This solitary common feature is, on its own,
insignificant and insufficient to support a finding of legal copying. See Altai,
982 F.2d at 710. And the placement of the banana’s stalk (on the right-hand
side of the sculpture versus the left, or vice-versa) would be another element
subject to the merger doctrine anyway: there are only two ways the stalk may
be placed, to the right or to the left. BUC Int’l, 489 F.3d at 1143.


(noitizia e link alla sentenza da Eleonora Rosati, IPKat)