The District Court reviewed the four fair use factors and determined that there was not enough evidence to support summary judgment for the Defendant. The court found that the purpose and character of the use weighed against fair use because Plaintiff’s drawings were merely copied and the primary motive in copying the drawings was for financial gain. The nature of the work, also weighed against fair use because architectural works are generally considered creative works. The court found that the amount of work used, weighed in favor of fair use because the Defendant only used the basic features of Plaintiff’s designs. The court also found that Defendant’s actions did not negatively impact the market for Plaintiff’s work because it could be licensed to other developers. Because the fair use factors did not clearly weigh in favor of fair use the court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.