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  Because this article was written before the AWCPA, Katz states that it should be assumed that an architect's unpublished work, such as his designs and plans, are protected under common copyright principles against any misuse.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.