When the subject of copyright law arises in a conversation, one might typically consider the application of copyright rules to written works, or to works of art. One profession that is significantly impacted by copyright law and that may not come to mind immediately, is architecture. Many of the same rules that apply to the creative works that we can read, experience, and hold in our own hands apply to architectural creations as well. However, the evolution of architectural copyright law has been much slower and periodic than the similar legislature that is applied to other creative works. The development of copyright law as applied to architecture found its beginning with the general Copyright Act of 1976, and continued as increasing numbers of specific cases dealing with the subject arose throughout the decades. With the creation of the Architectural Works Copyright Act (AWCPA), one of the most recent, and most important laws dealing with architecture and copyright, both architects and consumers have realized the importance of having at least some basic knowledge of copyright law.

In December of 1990, the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) was signed into law, extending protection to a very general class of architectural designs. This article, by Raphael Winick, as a whole is useful because it provides a review of all of the provisions of the AWCPA, and how they were determined. One of the important points that the author brings up is that the AWCPA is well suited to ensure that social interest in architectural creativity is protected, and that limiting copyright protection to architectural design and works maintains creativity and progress in the field of architecture as a whole. Much of this article discusses issues inherent to the field of architecture, and their implications for copyright law. One of these issues is the imporrtance of architecture as an art form. Winick states that "architecture and society have a profoundly interdependent relationship", and that it plays more than just an aesthetic role in society. Before 1990, Congress was reluctant to extend copyright law to architecture, because they thought that such protection would prevent creativity in the field. Architecture can be considered a utilitarian work, and American intellectuals assumed that when useful objects were unavailable for others to modify or use, progress and creativity would be stunted. After instituting the AWCPA, legislators decided that further extending it would in fact lessen progress in architecture. Winick brings up the important point that architects rarely create completely original designs, and borrowing from existing sources is often times required. Borrowed elements include common designs, whether functional or aesthetic, such as arches, windows, or domes. Winick points out that originality and creativity can emerge when a new design is placed in a new context. This article is useful for an argument following my thesis, because it provides essential background information on the philosophies of the architectural field, which provide support for discussion of the AWCPA and substantial similarity.

In this article, attorney Manuel R. Valcarel IV discusses copyright issues that architects deal commonly deal with. Valcarel begins his article by stating that copyright is one of the most important forms of intellectual property protection that architects are involved with, and that copyright law provides architects with an incentive to increase their creativity and originality in their designs. Original expression is not only seen in works such as books and media, but also in architecture as it surrounds us every day. Valcarel brings up the interesting point that architects have to deal with copyright defensively, and offensively. Architects need to avoid violation of third-party rights when creating new buildings, as well as protect their own rights to their original work. This article is useful because it also discusses the qualities of an architectural work that are tied into copyright law. According to Section 102 of the Copyright Act, the part of a work of architecture that can be protected does not include functional features or design elements, but includes the arrangement of spaces and elements of the design and the general form. Examples of functional structures that cannot be copyrighted are bridges, dams, or walkways. The protection for an architectural work lasts for 95 years from the date of publication. This article highlights the separation between artwork utilizing architecture and the architecture itself, by bringing up the fact that it is not a violation of copyright law for someone to take a photograph or create a painting of a building. The main point of this article is that architects need to have a thorough understanding of copyright law, and must deal with it often in their practice. It is not uncommon for clients to approach an architect with designs that they themselves, or someone else, have created, and the architect must ensure that the work that he or she creates does not infringe on any third party works.

This article examines a case between the T-Peg, Inc. corporation and Vt. Timber Works, Inc, and how it relates to copyright law in the context of architecture. T-Peg, Inc. sued Vt. Timber Works, Inc, alleging that it infringed copyright of architectural plans under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA). T-Peg claimed that Vt. Timber Works copied its design and plans for timberframed houses. The AWCPA states that the overall design of an architectural work, as well as the elements within it, are governed by the Act. In analyzing this case, the court considered a similar issue in copyright infringement cases in Strudza vs. United Arab Emirates. In this case, the plaintiff (Strudza) accused the defendant (the UAE) of using his architectural plans to construct its embassy, using components that were "hallmarks" of the plaintiff's design. This article is useful because it brings up the issue of "substantial similarity" in cases of architecture and copyright, and how the standards for substantial similarity are used to determine the outcome of cases like this. In this case with T-Peg and Vt. Timber Works, the court determined that substantial similarity must take into consideration the overall appearance of a work, as well as the appearance of individual components. A standard was developed from this that considers the overall "look and feel" of an architectural work. Another example of a case, that this article mentions, that takes into consideration the "look and feel" of a building, is the Shine vs. Childs case. In this case, the similarity between the plaintiff's Olympic Tower building, and the defendant's Freedom Tower was debated. Using the "look and feel" test, the court determined that although individual elements of the Freedom Tower were original, the overall composition of the building was too similar to the Olympic Tower, and thus the defendant was charged as guilty.

In this article, attorney Manuel R. Valcarel IV discusses copyright issues that architects deal commonly deal with. Valcarel begins his article by stating that copyright is one of the most important forms of intellectual property protection that architects are involved with, and that copyright law provides architects with an incentive to increase their creativity and originality in their designs. Original expression is not only seen in works such as books and media, but also in architecture as it surrounds us every day. Valcarel brings up the interesting point that architects have to deal with copyright defensively, and offensively. Architects need to avoid violation of third-party rights when creating new buildings, as well as protect their own rights to their original work. This article is useful because it also discusses the qualities of an architectural work that are tied into copyright law. According to Section 102 of the Copyright Act, the part of a work of architecture that can be protected does not include functional features or design elements, but includes the arrangement of spaces and elements of the design and the general form. Examples of functional structures that cannot be copyrighted are bridges, dams, or walkways. The protection for an architectural work lasts for 95 years from the date of publication. This article highlights the separation between artwork utilizing architecture and the architecture itself, by bringing up the fact that it is not a violation of copyright law for someone to take a photograph or create a painting of a building. The main point of this article is that architects need to have a thorough understanding of copyright law, and must deal with it often in their practice. It is not uncommon for clients to approach an architect with designs that they themselves, or someone else, have created, and the architect must ensure that the work that he or she creates does not infringe on any third party works.