Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-fz4lj Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2021-07-25T01:17:50.849Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Architectural copyright: recent developments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2008

Robert Greenstreet
Affiliation:
School of Architecture and Urban PlanningPO Box 413Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, USA
Russell Klingaman
Affiliation:
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Attorneys100 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2600Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4114, USA

Abstract

This article traces the development of American copyright law as it applies to architectural works from its earliest foundations in the United States Constitution until the enactment of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act in 1990. By focusing on the outcomes of the latest legislation through recent case law affecting residential design, the authors evaluate the effectiveness of the protection and illustrate some unintended consequences. In addition, they discuss architectural originality and its relationship to legal protection in the context of individual design freedom.

Type
Practice
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Batlin and Sons, Inc. v. Snyder (1976). 536 F.2d 486, 490 (2nd Circuit).Google Scholar
Brainard, E. (1984). ‘Innovation and Imitation: Artistic Advance and Illegal Protection of Architectural Works’, Cornell Law Review 70, 81, 9194.Google Scholar
Buecher, J. (1990). ‘Reinforcing the Foundations: The Case Against Copyright Protection for Works of Architecture’, Emory Law Journal, 39, 1261.Google Scholar
Coates-Freeman Assoc., Inc. v. Polaroid Corp. (1992). 792 F. Supp. 879 (D. Mass.).Google Scholar
Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc. (1988). 843 F.2d 600, 607 (1st Circuit).Google Scholar
Demetriades v. Kaufman (1988). 690 F. Supp. 658, 664 (S.D.N.Y.).Google Scholar
Durham Industries v. Tomy Corp. (1980). 630 F.2d 905(2nd Circuit).Google Scholar
Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer (1978). 591 F.2d 796, 801 (D.C. Circuit).Google Scholar
Gracen v. Bradford Exchange (1983). 698 F.2d 300,305 (7th Circuit).Google Scholar
Greenstreet, R. (1998). ‘The Case for Copyright: Protecting Originality and the Architect's Rights of Ownership’, A/A Architect, American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C., 03.Google Scholar
Hancks, G. B. (1996). ‘Copyright Protection For Architectural Design: A Conceptual and Practical Criticism’, Washington Law Review, 71, 177.Google Scholar
Hartfield v. Peterson (1937). 91 F.2d 998 (2d Circuit).Google Scholar
Hayden v. Chalfant Press, Inc. (1959). 177 F. Supp. 303, 311 (S.D. Cal.).Google Scholar
Hewett, (1985). Architecture and Copyright, 19 UNESCO Copyright Bull. 6.Google Scholar
Hixon, T. (1995). ‘The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990: At Odds With the Traditional Limitations of American Copyright Law’, Arizona Law Review, 37, 629.Google Scholar
Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1980). 618 F.2d 972, 978 (2nd Circuit).Google Scholar
Howard v. Sterchi (1992). 974 F.2d 1272 (11th Circuit).Google Scholar
Hubert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian (1971). 6 F.2d 738 (9th Circuit).Google Scholar
Imperial Home Corp. v. Lamont (1972). 458 F.2d 895(5th Circuit).Google Scholar
J. R. Lazaro Builders, Inc. v. R. E. Ripberger Builders, Inc. (1995). 883 F. Supp. 336 (S.D. Ind.).Google Scholar
Mazer v. Stein (1954). 347 U.S. 201, 217.Google Scholar
Newsam, R. W. (1997). ‘Architecture and Copyright: Separating the Poetic From the Prosaic’, Tulane Law Review, 71, 1073.Google Scholar
Norris Indus. v. IT&T Corp. (1983). 696 F.2d 918 (11th Circuit).Google Scholar
Past Pluto Prod. Corp. v. Dana (1968). 627 F. Supp. 1435 (S. D. N. Y.).Google Scholar
Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp. (1960). 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2nd Circuit).Google Scholar
Pinner, H. (1960). World Copyright.Google Scholar
Pollack, A. (1992). ‘The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act: Analysis of Possible Ramifications and Arising Issues’, Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 70.873.Google Scholar
Ray, K.P. (1995). ‘An Analysis of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990’, The Construction Lawyer, 04.Google Scholar
Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop (1976). 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2nd Circuit).Google Scholar
Ricketson, S. (1987). The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886–1986, at 254.Google Scholar
Roth, L. M (1979). A Concise History of American Architecture, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
Scalione, (1992). Building Upon the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, 61 Fordham L. Rev. 193.Google Scholar
Scholl, (1992). The Architectural Works Protection Act of 1990: A Solution or Hindrance?, 22 Men.St. U.L. Rev. 807.Google Scholar
Sherry Mfg. Co. v. Towel King of Florida, Inc. (1985). 753 F.2d 1565, 1568 (11th Circuit).Google Scholar
Shipley, (1986). Copyright Protection for Architectural Works, 37 S.C.L. Rev. 393, 439.Google Scholar
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc.v. McDonalds Corp. (1977). 562 F.2d 1157, 1167–68 (9th Circuit).Google Scholar
Thiel, C.T. (1996). ‘The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act??? of 1990, or, “Hey, That Looks Like My Building!”Journal of Arts and Entertainment Law, DePaul University College of Law, Fall, Vol. VII, No. 1.Google Scholar
United States Congress (1988). The Berne Convention: Hearings on S. 1301 and S. 1971 Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 54–55.Google Scholar
United States Copyright Office (1989). A Report of the Register of Copyrights: Copyright in Works of Architecture.Google Scholar
United States Congress (1990a). Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act 1990 (AWCP Act), Pub. L. No. 101–650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5133 (codified throughout Title 17 of the U.S. Code).Google Scholar
United States Congress (1990b). Architectural Design Protection: Hearings on H-R 3990 and 3991 Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Property and the Administration of Justice of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 101st. Cong. 2d Sess. at 111, 115–16.Google Scholar
United States Congress (1990c). H.R. Rep. No. 735, 101st Cong. 2d Sess (reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6951–52).Google Scholar
Wickham v. Knoxville Int'l Energy Exposition, Inc. (1983). 555 F. Supp. 154, ED. Tenn.Google Scholar
Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Bally Mfg. Corp. (1983). 568 F. Supp. 1274, 177980, N.D. Ill.Google Scholar
Winnick, R. (1992). Copyright Protection For Architecture After The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, 41 Duke L.J. 1598.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Architectural copyright: recent developments
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Architectural copyright: recent developments
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Architectural copyright: recent developments
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *