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.

Recent issues in home improvement commonly deal with architectural imitation, although not all of these issues are taken to court as formal copyright infringement cases. Betsey Schiffman provides some live examples of architectural imitation in her article in the home improvement section of Forbes magazine.  The first example she discusses is about a $1 million home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, built by a citizen named Truett Miley.  Miley designed most of the home himself and was convinced that it would be unique, but following his own creation, a house very similar to his arose in his neighbors' plot. Miley owns his own contracting company, and he filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against his neighbors Graham and Sharon Stone, who had built the similar house. One of Miley's major concerns was that the imitation house could affect the value of his own home if he decided to sell it, since it was so similar, and right next door. Although his neighbors' imitation could be interpreted as a form of flattery, Miley pointed out that it would have been much more flattering if the house was in another city or state, since this would be less likely to impact the value of his own home. Miley's attorney, Marc Whitfield, pointed out that it is very difficult to place monetary value on architectural originality. Because most homes have common features such as columns and shutters, it is difficult to prove that a home is "substantially similar" to another one. In a court case, a plaintiff must provide evidence that the features of a building are original and have not been used before, and this is very rare. Schiffman brings up the example of Cinderella's Castle in Disney World, which is said to be inspired by the German castle Neuschwanstein, which was built nearly 100 years before Disney World opened. In this case, it is nearly impossible to tell whether this is an issue of copyright infringement. Schiffman mentions other copyright infringement cases involving architecture, such as a case where Hablinski + Manion Architecture in Los Angeles found a home in Beverly Hills that looked remarkably similar to one they had designed. The firm discovered that the "copycat" house's creator, Mehran Shahverdi, had been an employee with them before, and had taken ideas from their firm and from another that he had been employed with previously. This case has actually not gone to trial yet, but is interesting and relevant because it provides a very current example of architectural copyright and its monetary implications. Schiffman's commentary in this article proves useful for my overall paper because it brings up the issue of monetary consequences following imitation in architecture, rather than just discussing the philosophical reasons for the AWCPA or other copyright infringement issues.

In this New York Times article, Fred Bernstein comments on previous cases involving architecture and copyright, most notably the Shine v. Childs case dealing with the Olympic Tower and the Freedom Tower, and their implications for the present. He brings up an example of early copying in architecture by referring to Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia, and how it mimics a Neo-Roman style in America. The first United States copyright act was passed in 1790, and copyright legislation in the United States did not involve architecture until 200 years later in 1990. Just as in other areas such as publication and music composition, it is sometimes extremely difficult to discern what parts of a creative work are similar to other works because of deliberate copying or mere coincidence. Although there are numerous obstacles in situations involving imitation in architecture, some architects see imitation or resemblance to their own work as forms of flattery. Architect Daniel Libeskind has presented two points of view on imitation. He doesn't mind that Donald Bates, creater of Federation Square (a large, commercial development in Melbourne, Australia), used acute angles similar to those used in his own work. However, Libeskind has objected to Peter Eisenman's design for the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, because it looked too similar to a memorial garden he had designed for the Jewish Museum in Berlin. However, the previous two examples deal more with intellectual debate than with copyright law. Copyright is only able to cover "tangible expression", not ideas, which is a clash that is often encountered with copyright issues in architecture. One of the major points of this article is that issues involving plagiarism in architecture rarely make it to court, because architecture is a largely collaborative effort. There is too much activity, combined from project architects, students, project designers, and consultants, for specific copyright cases to be honed out. Bernstein mentions three current cases involving architectural similarities, including one dealing witha partition in a first-class lounge in Kennedy Airport. Mr. Sharples, a partner at the firm SHoP/Sharples Holden Pasquarelli accused architect Zaha Hadid of copying the screen in the airport lounge from one of his firm's designs.  This is an example of how copyright cases can sometimes bring out absurdity in issues, especcially in architectural issues in which it is extremely difficult to discern between outright imitation and coincidental similarity.

  This article provides an interesting take on issues dealing with copyright and architecture before the AWCPA was passed in 1990. The author, Arthur S. Katz, discusses his definition of the term "copyright" itself, and how it should apply to architecture, even though no specific legislation had been passed on the subject during the time this article was written (Spring of 1954). Katz first explains how protection granted under copyright principles is a "pecuniary matter", meaning that if there is an indiscriminate use of an author's work, he is not protected under copyright law. Katz then discusses how an architect can be compared to a composer of music, more so than an author, because he uses signs, symbols, and graphic representations, rather than just words.  Because this article was written before the AWCPA, Katz states that it should be assumed that an architect's unpublished work, such as his designs and plans, are protected under common copyright principles against any misuse. Katz also then brings up his opinion that the concept of "novelty", or originality, in architecture should refer to creations that are not new to a creater himself, even though they might exist already. This article is intriguging because with the AWCPA not yet in existence, the author compares copyright in architecture to copyright in writing and publication. He refers to the fact that it is difficult to distinguish one publication from another in many cases, and this is directly analogous to copyright in architecture.  Katz's arguments and points that he brings up are useful tools in the analysis and discussion of my thesis, because they provide a perspective from the past, and can be applied to a discussion about present issues such as substantial similarity, and the "concept and feel" test in architecture.

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.