On October 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by a Missouri-based residential design firm seeking to review the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. Previously, the Eighth Circuit ruled that real estate agents' use of copyrighted residential design floor plans in property listings falls under the fair use exception of copyright law (DesignWorks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., Case No. 25-235).

Case Background:

Missouri-based home design company DesignWorks Homes and its sole shareholder Charles James jointly filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement by Missouri real estate firm House of Brokers and several independent brokers. The complaint alleged that brokers, acting as agents for then-owners, entered residences, reverse-engineered the designs using computer-aided design software to create floor plans, and published these plans on websites for property marketing.

The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the brokers in 2019 under Section 120 of the Copyright Act (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 120). This provision states that “pictures, drawings, photographs, or other graphic representations” of buildings visible from the public domain are not protected by copyright.

However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned the district court's ruling, determining that architectural drawings are not protected by this exception under a proper interpretation of Section 120, as they are neither pictures nor graphic representations. After the case was remanded, the district court again issued a summary judgment in favor of the agent, this time based on the principle of fair use. The Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court's determination, ruling that creating simplified floor plans for marketing existing homes constitutes fair use of architectural designs. This is because the use differs from the original design's purpose and does not harm the architect's market interests in designing and constructing the home.

Key Issues in the Motion for Reconsideration:

1. Did the Eighth Circuit erred in finding fair use for: a real estate agent reverse-engineering a buildable floor plan; unrestricted online dissemination of the floor plan beyond genuine prospective buyers; and refusing to remove the floor plan years after the home was sold, resulting in the proprietary design's continued online exposure and infringement of the architect's copyright and the homeowner's privacy?

2. Did the Eighth Circuit err in its examination of the first fair use factor—purpose and character of the use (17 U.S.C. § 107(1))—by:     - Concluding that merely placing information online constitutes transformative use by conveying “information”; ignored this Court's caution in *Campbell* regarding marketing and advertising uses; devalued homeowners' privacy and security interests after properties were taken off the market; and failed to consider the absence of attribution to the copyright owner.

3. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in its review of the fourth factor—the effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work (17 U.S.C. § 107(4)).

Copyright law traditionally affords strong protection to creative works, but this ruling highlights the need to balance intellectual property protection with practical usage needs, particularly in industries like real estate. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case preserves the lower court's interpretation, which may establish a precedent for other jurisdictions.