Read the following passage carefully.
The doctrine of conceptual separability in copyright law seeks to determine whether the aesthetic elements of a useful article can be protected independently of its utilitarian aspects. While physical separability—where an artistic feature can be removed without impairing the object's function, such as a hood ornament on a car—presents a straightforward analysis, conceptual separability has fractured appellate courts. The Second Circuit, historically the most influential in this domain, has oscillated between two primary frameworks. The "primary-subsidiary" test, articulated in the early 1980s, granted protection if and only if an object's aesthetic features were objectively primary to its overall form, while its utilitarian function remained subsidiary. This metric proved unworkable for highly integrated designs, such as minimalist furniture, where form and function are inextricably fused in the final product.
In response, a subsequent Second Circuit ruling introduced the "design-process" test, which asks whether the designer's aesthetic choices were significantly influenced by functional considerations. Under this paradigm, if the artistic decisions were dictated by the article's intended use, conceptual separability categorically fails. Critics argue that this test unfairly penalizes functionalist design philosophies, such as the Bauhaus movement, which deliberately harmonize utility and aesthetics. Furthermore, by shifting the fulcrum of copyrightability to the creator's subjective intent, courts risk denying protection to highly original works simply because the designer prioritized ergonomics alongside visual appeal during conception. Meanwhile, a third approach, the "ordinary-observer" test championed by the Seventh Circuit, ignores the creator's process entirely. It focuses instead on whether a typical consumer would perceive the object primarily as a work of art or a functional tool. Yet, this approach often collapses into a subjective popularity contest among consumers, offering little predictability for industrial designers navigating the boundary between patent and copyright law.
Based on the passage, is the following statement true or false?
The "primary-subsidiary" test and the "ordinary-observer" test share the characteristic of evaluating conceptual separability without relying on the designer's historical motivations or subjective intent during the article's creation.
Answer: Answer