dissenting.
Writing for the majority, Judge Ripple has applied his usual thorough and scholarly approach to this difficult intellectual property problem; however, I cannot join the majority opinion because I am not persuaded that the “Mara” mannequin is copyrightable. All functional items have aesthetic qualities. If copyright provided protection for functional items simply because of their aesthetic qualities, Congress’s policy choice that gives less protection in patent than copyright would be undermined. See American Dental Ass’n v. Delta Dental Plans Ass’n, 126 F.3d 977, 980 (7th Cir.1997).
The majority rightly assumes that Mara is a “useful article” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101. Opinion at 920. To receive copyright protection as a “sculptural work,” then, Mara must come within the narrow restrictions placed on “useful articles” in the definition of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works:
[T]he design of a useful article ... shall be considered a ... sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates ... sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). As the district court noted, the statute requires, on its face, that sculptural features must be separately identified from the utilitarian aspects of the article (“conceptual separability”) and they must exist independently from the utilitarian aspects of the article *933(“physical separability”) in order to receive copyright protection. As to whether both conceptual and physical separability are required for copyrightability, most courts and commentators have concluded that only one or the other test is appropriate. But that issue is not presented here because Mara is not copyrightable regardless of whether both or either is applied.
Taking physical separability first, the district court used examples from case law to illustrate that the sculptural features in many useful items can be physically removed from the object and sold separately without affecting the functionality of the useful article. See, e.g., Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954) (holding that a sculpture of a dancer carved into the base of a lamp may be copyrighted); Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir.1980) (holding that decorative belt buckles could be copyrighted as separate objects sold not to hold up one’s pants).
Mara, on the other hand, has only functional attributes. Thus, any physical separation of a portion of her would not be independent of her utilitarian aspects. She is sold to beauty schools as a teaching device; students style her hair and apply makeup as realistic training for such pursuits on live subjects. A mannequin head without a neck, or with different eyes and musculature, would not serve the utilitarian purpose of applying makeup or teaching the art of matching hair styles to facial features. As the district court explained: “Beauty students style hair to flatter the face, not to be worn on featureless ovoids. The use of a mannequin head in training students of beauty schools lies in its aesthetic qualities.” There is nothing in Mara that we could physically remove that would not be part of Mara’s utility as a teaching aid. Like mannequins of human torsos, Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 418-19 (2d Cir.1985), mannequins of human faces are not physically separable from their functional purpose and are therefore not copyrightable.
Next, the district court considered various restatements of the meaning of “conceptual separability” (whether features can be identified or conceived of separately from the utilitarian aspects) and applied the most appropriate one to Mara. Professor Goldstein, in his treatise, Copyright: Principles, Law & Practice, presents a reasonable explanation of the statutory text: “a ... sculptural feature incorporated in the design of a useful article is conceptually separable if it can stand on its own as a work of art traditionally conceived, and if the useful article in which it is embodied would be equally useful without it.” Mara has no conceptually separable features to which copyright protection could be granted. Her features are incapable of being identified separately from the utilitarian use of those features. Without features, the mannequin’s head and neck would be little more than an egg on a stick, useless for its intended purpose. Mara possesses neither physical nor conceptual separability.
The majority, concluding that Congress intended “to state a single, integrated standard,” deduced that the standard must be “conceptual separability.” This may be correct, as it is very difficult to divine the distinction between physical and conceptual separability if those standards are properly stated. In my view, however, the majority’s explanation of conceptual separability lacks a basis in the statute. As the majority sees it, conceptual separability “exists ... when the artistic aspects of an article can be conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function.” Opinion at 931. The majority further explains that the way to determine if this is the case is to look to the process of design: if independent “artistic” choices were made in the sculpture’s creation, and such *934choices were not later sullied by the influence of industrial design, then some of the useful article is a conceptually separable sculpture and therefore copyrightable, Opinion at 931-32.
Problematically, the majority’s test for conceptual separability seems to bear little resemblance to the statute. The statute asks two questions: Does the useful article incorporate “sculptural features that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects” of the article? And are these features “capable of existing independently” from the utilitarian aspects? The copyright statute is concerned with protecting only non-utilitarian features of the useful article. To be copyrightable, the statute requires that the useful article’s functionality remain intact once the copyrightable material is separated. In other words, Pivot Point needs to show that Mara’s face is not a utilitarian “aspect” of the product “Mara,” but rather a separate non-utilitarian “feature.” The majority, by looking only to whether the features could also “be conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function” and ignoring the more important question of whether the features themselves are utilitarian aspects of the useful article, mistakenly presupposes that utilitarian aspects of a useful article can be copyrighted. If we took away Mara’s facial features, her functionality would be greatly diminished or eliminated, thus proving that her features cannot be copyrighted.
Moreover, the “process-oriented approach,” advocated by the majority drifts even further away from the statute. Opinion at 930. The statute looks to the useful article as it exists, not to how it was created. I believe it simply is irrelevant to inquire into the origins of Mara’s eyes, cheekbones, and neck. If such features have been fully incorporated as functional aspects of the mannequin, then copyright does not provide protection. Even if we were to look at the “process” that led to the creation of Mara, it is undeniable that, from the beginning, Pivot Point intended Mara to serve a functional purpose and commissioned her creation to fulfill that purpose (not to create a work of art for aesthetic beauty).
The majority, as evidenced by its emphasis on the fact that Charlene Products apparently copied Mara with its doll, “Liza,” seems unduly concerned in this context with Charlene’s questionable business practices. This is immaterial to the determination of whether the Mara doll is protected by copyright law. Importantly, other possible legal protections for Pivot Point’s intellectual property — design patent, trademark, trade dress, and state unfair competition law — are available to address the majority’s concerns. Copyright does not protect functional products. Charlene is free, under its own brand name, to copy and sell copies of useful articles that do not have patent protection. See, e.g., TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 121 S.Ct. 1255, 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001); Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). I fear that the majority’s opinion grants copyright protection to functional aspects of a useful article. I would, therefore, affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Charlene Products and Mr. Yau.