Definition
"Of designs" as a legal phrase appears primarily as a qualifying term in copyright law, identifying the subject matter of protection as aesthetic or ornamental designs applied to useful articles or works of visual art. It distinguishes design copyright — covering the original, non-functional visual character of an object or work — from literary, musical, or dramatic copyright. In early Anglo-American copyright statutes, "designs" referred specifically to patterns, engravings, and ornamental configurations intended for reproduction, particularly in the textile and print trades.
The phrase is not a standalone term of art but a categorizing modifier, typically encountered as "copyright of designs," "registration of designs," or similar constructions. Its legal significance depends entirely on the statutory context in which it appears.
Common Confusion
"Designs" in copyright law must be distinguished from design patents, which protect the ornamental appearance of a functional article through patent law rather than copyright. The two forms of protection overlap conceptually but differ in duration, registration requirements, and the scope of rights granted. Historically, English law developed a separate statutory scheme for designs protection (the Ornamental Designs Act 1842 and its successors) distinct from general copyright, a bifurcation that confused early American commentators who worked primarily from English sources. Researchers treating "designs" in a pre-1900 English source as equivalent to modern U.S. copyright doctrine will encounter material that does not map cleanly onto either U.S. copyright or U.S. design patent law.
Why It Matters in Research
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is strikingly compressed: it cites a single case — 2 Atk. 93 — without elaboration, signaling that mid-19th-century American legal dictionaries treated "designs" in copyright as a term requiring judicial interpretation rather than statutory definition. Researchers should treat this entry as a pointer to English equity decisions, not as a self-contained American doctrine.
Several navigational hazards arise in historical sources:
First, English and American law diverged sharply. English law created a dedicated registered designs regime, while early American copyright statutes (beginning with the Copyright Act of 1790 and significantly revised in 1870 and 1909) incorporated designs into general copyright categories inconsistently. A source citing English authority on "designs" copyright may describe rights unavailable under contemporaneous American law.
Second, the boundary between protectable design (aesthetic expression) and unprotectable function shifted across the 19th and 20th centuries. The doctrine now called the "useful articles" rule — which limits copyright in designs that are inseparable from the utilitarian function of an article — was not consistently articulated until well into the 20th century. Pre-1900 sources using "designs" may conflate what modern doctrine treats as entirely separate categories.
Third, the phrase "of designs" sometimes appears in will and devise contexts in older sources — Rapalje & Lawrence's own entry clusters "designs" with "desire," "desire and will," and related testamentary language, reflecting the loose organizational conventions of 19th-century digest-style dictionaries. Researchers must confirm context before inferring copyright meaning from any historical entry that appears under a "designs" heading.
For corpus researchers working with the Law Mind materials, the most productive connections are to design defect doctrine in products liability (where the concept of a "design" as a set of intentional choices about an article's configuration matters greatly) and to construction law (where "design" carries specific professional and contractual meanings distinct from copyright). Neither connection is direct, but both illuminate how the word "design" functions as a legal load-bearing term across multiple doctrinal areas.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence provide the sole source for this entry and offer almost no substantive content beyond the citation to 2 Atk. 93 — an early 18th-century English Chancery report (Atkyns). This is consistent with the broader pattern in 19th-century American legal dictionaries of treating English equity decisions as controlling authority on copyright questions before American doctrine had fully matured. The citation itself functions as a cross-reference to judicial elaboration rather than a dictionary definition.
No competing or diverging historical dictionary definitions are available in the supplied sources. The absence of substantive dictionary treatment is itself informative: "of designs" was apparently understood by contemporaries as a phrase whose meaning was embedded in statutory text and case law, not in common legal vocabulary requiring independent definition.
What historical sources miss almost entirely is the tension between copyright protection for designs and the emerging design patent system. By the time Rapalje & Lawrence was published (1883), U.S. design patents had existed for decades (since 1842), but legal dictionaries of this era rarely addressed the doctrinal boundary between the two regimes — a gap that would generate significant litigation well into the 20th century.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia, torts_75: Products Liability — Design Defects (Risk-Utility Test and Reasonable Alternative Design). Relevant for understanding how "design" functions as a legal term of art in the distinct context of products liability, where it describes a manufacturer's intentional configuration choices rather than aesthetic expression.
The Law Mind Real Estate Transactions & Construction Encyclopedia, realestate_87: Project Delivery Methods — Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, CM at Risk, and Integrated Project Delivery. Relevant for the contractual and professional-liability dimensions of "design" in construction contexts.