580 U.S. 405 (2017)
Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands is the Supreme Court's leading decision on when features of a design applied to a useful article—like clothing, furniture, or industrial products—are eligible for copyright protection.
Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, when does a feature of the design of a useful article qualify for copyright protection as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—specifically, are the graphic designs applied to cheerleading uniforms copyrightable separate from the uniforms' utilitarian aspects?
A feature of the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if (1) the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and (2) the feature would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium—if imagined separately from the useful article. Protection extends only to the separable expressive feature and not to the useful article's shape, cut, or utilitarian functions. 17 U.S.C. § 101.
Yes. The surface graphic features of Varsity's cheerleading uniforms—such as the particular arrangements of chevrons, stripes, and color blocks—are separable from the uniforms' utilitarian aspects and are eligible for copyright protection as pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit.
Star Athletica establishes a single, nationally applicable separability test, replacing decades of conflicting lower-court approaches. It clarifies that surface graphics and other expressive features applied to useful articles can be protected if they can be perceived and exist as standalone artwork, even if removing them would affect the article's shape or use. This has major implications for fashion, product design, and branding: designers can leverage copyright for original patterns and graphics while recognizing that utilitarian shapes and construction details remain unprotectable. For law students, the case is a cornerstone in copyright's treatment of industrial design and its intersection with design patent and trademark law. It sharpens statutory interpretation of § 101, reaffirms Mazer's principle separating artistic expression from function, and offers a practical framework for counseling clients on how to protect designs without overreaching into functional territory.