Table of Contents
Written by : Delena Kol |
Current |
Write a comment |
Write a comment
this is the one world trade center building locally known as the freedom tower it's the main tower of the now reconstructed world trade center site in new york city of course it's most famous for being a part of a complex memorializing the victims of the 9 11 terror attacks however did you know the designers and developers of this building have been sued twice for copyright infringement once in 2004 and again in 2017 for allegedly copying the designs originally developed by other architects years ago the architecture firm responsible for the design skidmore owings and merrell denied these allegations and claimed any similarities in design are basically simple geometry that are industry standards and by no means unique so is there a threshold of originality for a building to be copyrightable can you even copyright a building and if so how does it actually work before i go any further i should say i am not a lawyer and this video is definitely not legal advice this is not just a disclaimer to cover myself through researching this video i've discovered that copyright law is really really complicated and of course it differs depending on where you are so you should obviously consult an actual lawyer if this is something you're concerned about but if you're just curious about how copyright works in architecture on a basic level here's a very general and broad overview can you copyright a building the short answer is yes architecture is generally considered an art similar to painting drawing and sculpting and similar to other works of art someone who creates an architectural work is entitled exclusive rights to use the work for a limited period of time the terms of copyright and how long that limited period is depends on where the copyright holder is located however the vast majority of the world implements a version of the burn convention for the protection of literary and artistic works an international copyright agreement that as of april 2022 has been adopted by 181 nation states the united states for instance joined the burn convention in 1989 prior to that architectural works did have partial protection under previously passed copyright protection laws such as the copyright act of 1909 which included protection of drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical nature this was clarified by congress in 1976 to include an architect's plans and drawings in 1999 congress passed the architectural works copyright protection act which provided protection for the design of a building in virtually any form an architectural designer could seek protection in two ways registering the creative work as pictorial graphic and sculpture works or through registration of the building designs including but not limited to architectural plans technical drawings other construction documents sketches models illustrations and digital renderings the act also covers the overall forms arrangements and compositions of spaces this protection however does not extend to common architectural features like windows doors and other staple building components certain standard and long established architectural features like classical orders and other recognizable historic styles are also not protected the protection also doesn't include design elements attributable to building codes topography engineering necessities and other general functional elements another important distinction is that since copyright protects creative works it does not apply to newly developed technology or improvements on products and processes these fall into the realm of patents which is a discussion for another time copyright is also different from a trademark which is the composition of letters words sounds or designs meant to distinguish one company's goods or services from another historically trademarks are applied to 2d designs like logos and packaging however in 2013 apple managed to register the design of the apple store as a trademark which kind of complicates this distinction but again story for another time back to copyright in order to prove copyright infringement you must not only demonstrate that someone has indeed copied and reproduced protected elements from a work you owned the copyright to without your permission but also that they had access to your work and the two works are substantially similar this means that making minor changes to someone else's design can't get you out of being accused of copyright infringement a work also doesn't require the copyright symbol or copyright notice written on it in order to receive copyright protection additionally just because someone paid for an architectural plan or a construction document the copyright doesn't usually get transferred to the owner or constructor usually the original architect still retains the copyright and are granting a non-exclusive license to the owner or contractor to use their material for a particular construction project having said all that though how architectural copyright infringement claims unfolded reality is quite complicated inconsistent and murky according to the american institute of architects many architectural copyright infringement cases have actually demonstrated how thin the level of copyright protection for a functional building is because some architectural designs such as the design of the vast majority of single-family homes mostly consist of standard features arranged in standard ways this often makes architectural works the least protected art form because basically anything with an intrinsic utilitarian function is likely not protectable the two cases of copyright infringement claims for the freedom tower i mentioned earlier were both withdrawn by the plaintiffs after settlement agreements with the defendants before the case has ever made it to court another high-profile example is the 2008 arrivic versus sunny isles luxury ventures case involving a 43-story high-rise condominium project in 1995 to 96 designer paul oravick developed a design for a high-rise building that featured alternating concave and convex segments and elevator cores protruding through the building's roofline in 2008 aurivic filed an action under the copyright act against parties associated with two condominiums collectively known as the trump buildings in sunny isles beach florida for allegedly being derivative of his designs and thus in violation of those copyrights the 11th circuit court disagreed with his assertions since copyright protection does not extend to ideas but only to particular expressions of ideas the similarities between the trump buildings and his designs were nothing more than at the conceptual level thus they concluded that copyright will not protect the mere idea of a convex concave building any more than it would protect the idea of an arch or dome or tower however this doesn't mean that the particularized expression of these ideas cannot be protected within the context of a particular design the court stated that while it is true that oravec's designs and the trump buildings have a number of features in common these elements are similar only at the broadest level of generality to prote
Thanks for your comment Terrance Babauta, have a nice day.
- Delena Kol, Staff Member
foreign
Thanks adeienA your participation is very much appreciated
- Delena Kol
About the author
I've studied social control at Bushnell University in Eugene and I am an expert in criminal law. I usually feel calm. My previous job was industrial therapist I held this position for 23 years, I love talking about stretching and wakeboarding. Huge fan of Patrick Stewart I practice kayaking and collect barbie dolls.
Try Not to laugh !
Joke resides here...