Analysis of Criteria for Originality of Architectural Works in Intellectual Property Law

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Economics, Khomeinishahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Esfahan University, Esfahan, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Architectural works have been protected as one of the most important fields of art in international documents (such as Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Berne Convention) and the law of different countries (such as Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Law on the Protection of Authors, Writers and Artists of Iran). In practice, it faces several serious challenges such as analyzing the concept of the building, separating the original work (plan) from the building, and analyzing the element of originality. In the present article, we have attempted to analyze the element of originality as one of the pillars of a work that can be supported in the field of architecture. The most important criteria of originality in architectural works can be called non-functional criterion, dissection criterion and absolute criterion. However, due to the lack of any of these criteria, there are also sub-criteria that can help the judge in this respect. The analysis of each of these main and sub-criteria ultimately leads us to the conclusion that there is no superior or absolute criterion.

Keywords

References

Adrian, A. (2008). “Architecture and copyright: a quick survey of the law”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 3(8), pp. 524-529.
Bradberry, L. J. (2015). “Putting The House Back Together Again: The Scope Of Copyright Protection For Architectural Works”, Louisiana Law Review, 76(1), The Voting Rights Act At 50: The Past, Present, And Future Of The Right To Vote, A Symposium Of The Louisiana Law Review, Available At: Https://Digitalcommons.Law.Lsu.Edu/Lalrev/Vol. 76/Iss1/14.
Bucher, J. B. (1990). Comment, Reinforcing The Foundation: The Case Against Copyright Protection For Works Of Architecture, 39 Emory L.J., 39, pp. 1261-1268.
Check Out These Interesting Photos Of The Guggenheim Museum In New York, Boomsbeat. http://www.boomsbeat.com/articles/2161/20140415/check-out-these -interesting-photos-of-the-guggenheim-museum-in-new-york.htm [http://perma.cc /K74R-ND6X]
Colombet, C. (2011). Fundamental Principles of Copyright and Neighboring Rights in the World, translated by Alireza Mohammadzadeh Vadghani, Mizan Legal Foundation, second edition. (in Persian)
Gervais, D. (2002). Feist goes global: a comparative analysis of the notion of Originality in copyright law, Copyright Society of the U.S.A.
Goldstein, Paul & P. Bernt Hugenholtz (2013). International copyright: principles, law, and practice New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenstreet, R. & Klingaman, R. (2000). Architectural Copyright: Recent Developments, University Of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Architecture and Urban Planning, pp. 177-192.
Hosseini-Nik, S. A. (1392). Iran's criminal policy in support of copyright, Majd Scientific and Cultural Association. (in Persian)
Jafari, F. & Yousefpour, J. (2013). “The place of architectural works in intellectual property law”, International Conference on Architecture, Urban Planning, Civil Engineering, Art and Environment; Future horizons, look to the past.
James Bingham Bucher, (1990), Comment, Reinforcing the Foundation: The Case Against Copyright Protection for Works of Architecture, 39 EMORY L.J. 1261, 1268
Kim, J.S. (2018). Filtering, Copyright Infringement Analysis In Architectural Works, University Of Illinois Law Review, 1, 282-112.
Mann, P. (2010). Who Owns The Copyright Of Architectural Works And Designs?, School Of Construction Management And Engineering, University Of Reading, Whiteknight, Reading, Rg6 6ah, United Kingdom, pp. 733-748.
Mann, P. & Denoncourt, J. (2009). Copyright Issues On The Protection Of Architectural Works And Designs. 25th Annual Conference Of Association Of Researchers In Construction Management (Arcom), September 2009, Albert Hall, Nottingham, Available At Http://Centaur.Reading.Ac.Uk/4621/.
Margoni, Thomas (2016). The Harmonisation of EU Copyright Law: The Originality Standard.
Mir-Hosseini, S. H. (2006). Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property Rights, Literary and Artistic Property Rights, Mizan Publishing, Vol. II. (in Persian)
Moeini, H. & Qaderi, M. S. (2013). “The Doctrine of Integration and the Doctrine of Compulsory View in Literary and Artistic Property Law”, Medical Law Quarterly, 7, pp. 201-179. (in Persian)
Scholl, A. (1992). The Architectural Works Protection Act Of 1990: A Solution Or Hindrance?. 22 Men.St. U.L. Rev. 807.
Shareef, V. A. (2018). The Meaning Of Originality In Architecture And How Can It Be Measured. Department Of Architecture, Faculty Of Engineering, Koya University, Oya Koy45, Kurdistan Region – F.R. Iraq. (Jpmnt) Journal Of Process Management–New Technologies, International, 6(3), pp. 15-29.
Shipley, D. E. (2010). “The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act At Twenty: Has Full Protection Made A Difference?”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law, University Of Georgia Law, 18(1), pp. 1-19.
Tang, X. (2013). “Narrativizing The Architectural Copyright Act: Another View Of The Cathedral”, Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 21(33), pp. 11-22. Available At: Https://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=2169090.
Zakolski, L. A. (2014). Copyright And Literary Property 18 Am. Jur. 2d Copyright.
Zarkalam, S. (2009) . Literary and Artistic Property Rights, Organization for the Study and Compilation of University Humanities Books, Tehran, Second Edition. (in Persian)
Zhilskiy, N., Shariapova, E., & Matveeva, M. (2019). Protection Of Intellectual Property Of An Architect, Saint Petersburg State University Of Architecture And Civil Engineering, 190005, Vtoraja Krasnoarmejskaja Ul. 4, St. Petersburg, 190005, Russia, , Ttps://Doi.Org/10.1051/E3sconf /20199105029
Documents
Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act) Copyright Act of 9 September 1965 (Federal Law Gazette Part I, p. 1273), as last amended by Article 8 of the Act of 1 October 2013 (Federal Law Gazette Part I, p. 3714)
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9, 1886, as revised at Paris on July 24, 1971 and amended in 1979, S. Treat Do. No. 99-27 828 U.N.T.S 221.
COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS ACT, Based on Articles 78 and 83, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, and as proposed by the Council of Ministers, THE ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA DECIDED: Official Bulletin Year 2016 - Number 64, LAW NO. 35/2016
Estonian Copyright Act
Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act, CopA) of 9 October 1992 (Status as of 1 April 2020), The Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation
Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation
Cases
Attia v. Society of the New York Hosp (1999)
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (2001)
Drayton Controls (Engineering) v Honeywell Control Systems (1992)
Dream Custom Homes, Inc. v. Modern Day Construction (2011)
Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Company (1991)
Gomme (E.) Ltd v. Relaxateze Upholstery Ltd (1976)
Harvester, Inc. v. Rule Joy Trammell Rubio (2010)
Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc. (1989)
Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc. (2008)
Jeff Benton Homes v. Ala. Heritage Homes, Inc. (2013)
Jones v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2001)
Keeler Brass Co. v. Continental Brass Co. (1988)
Kenrick Co v Lawrence Co (1890)
Ladbroke Football Ltd v William Hill Football Ltd (1964)
Meikle v Maufe (1941)
Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1981)
Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. DCCM Rest. Grp., LLC (2016)
Moser Pilon Nelson Architects v. HNTB Corp (2005)
Nelson-Salabes Inc. v. Morningside Holdings (2001)
Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures (2008)
Patriot Homes, Inc. v. Forest River Housing Inc. (2008)
Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd (2002)
Satava v. Lowry (2003)
Shine v. Childs (2005)
Sparaco v. Lawler, Matusky, Skelly, Engineers LLP (2002)
Stovin-Bradford v Volpoint Properties Ltd (1971)
Towler v. Sayles (1996)
University of London Press v University Tutorial Press (1916)
Viad Corp. v. Stak Design, Inc. (2005)
Yankee Candle Co. v. New England Candle Co (1998)
Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc. (2014)
Zapsib electro engineering v. FGC UES (2015)
Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (2009)
 
Private Law
Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2021
Pages 177-201

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics