Let’s say I want to build a Frank Lloyd Wright house. I assume it would be rather difficult/expensive to get the original plans for one of them. But you could come up with a fairly close facsimile with enough research. It wouldn’t be made to the same plans, but it would be instantly recognizable as a Wright design.
So, is this legal? Or does the architect have rights to the design?
Good question. It is likely that FLW would have protected his designs, but I am not positive. Actually, I just found this at the FLW Foundation site. It looks like you can license his designs. Whether floor plans are covered, I don’t know. You would likely be hearing from these folk though.
However, this building is the tallest in Minneapolis and quite distinct looking. There is a smaller version of this building in Dallas. Of course both designs are inspired by the ancient Pharsos.
To answer the OP, the architect retains copyright protection to their design without needing to explicitly apply for it, which is the way copyright works. However, things are easier if you include the copyright symbol. All of the drawings in our architectural office carry a copyright symbol. They also carry a statement that the work is performed for the contracted client only.
So, exact copies are protected, but similar work would require a trial to determine if you violated the copyright, much like they do in music publishing cases. (such as John Fogarty being sued for copying himself)
For Frank Lloyd Wright, unless his estate has renewed the copyright, it will expire at the usual time after his death. If you aren’t recieving compenstation from copying his designs, they may not care, but IANAL.
A slight tangent: When Maxis was designing SimCity 2000, they attempted to use the Trans America tower in San Francisco as one of their buildings. However, they were told that the company had registered the building as part of their trademark.
They must have worked something out, though, since I see it in SimCity 3000.
I recall reading of a legal case that might be relevant. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sued a photographer who sold a poster showing a photograph of the building. The building owners claimed the appearance of the building was copyrighted and the photographer illegally violated their copyright by publishing the poster without authorization.
I don’t recall hearing how the lawsuit turned out, but I think it was one of the stupidest things I’d ever heard.
You can’t renew a copyright. You can renew a trademark. Copyrights expire a set term after the author’s death (it varies from country to country, and there are a few wrinkles in the law), unless of course Cher and Walt Disney get their way, at least with US copyright law.
Otherwise, all copyright protected works ultimately end up in the public domain, even architectural works.
You can’t renew a copyright. You can renew a trademark. Copyrights expire a set term after the author’s death (it varies from country to country, and there are a few wrinkles in the law), unless of course Cher and Walt Disney get their way, at least with US copyright law.
Otherwise, all copyright protected works ultimately end up in the public domain, even architectural works.
Which is why you see “XYC Inc. is the author of this work for purposes of copyright” in the end credits of motion pictures. The corporation never dies so the copyright never expires.
As far as I know, the FLW Foundation has trademarked all of his designs and vigorously defends at least the marketable ones.
More on point, the architect retains copyright of a building design unless a specific provision is added in the owner/architect contract to transfer it to the owner. Building designs are lumped into the category of intellectual property by U.S. laws.
On a practical note, you’d have a hard time building straight off Frankie’s plans as building technology and the availability of materials and products have changed significantly since his time. You’d at least want to delete any references to asbestos insulation and lead paint.
Yes it does. In fact, if it’s a corporate author, instead of a human(s), the term of copyright runs the very real risk of being SHORTER, since their is no natural life to expire first before the copyright clock starts ticking.
Chas.E, thanks for posting you anecdote, because you’ve made the followinf cite relevant.
Title 17 United States Code, Section 120
So, it appears you have a good basis to think its absurd.
labradorian, once upon a time it was necessary to renew copyrights in the US. This changed, in 1978 I beleive. So, you are correct that copyrights cannot now be renewed, but you are wrong to say it was never renewable. Wright created in the time period when it was necessary to renew copyrights.
Otto, this is absurd:
Copyrights owned by corporations expire.
If you care to explain how copyrights owned by corporations never expire, please refer to the sections relating to duration of copyrights and ownership. Though, I see on preview labradorian is handling this one.
There is no design protection in U.S. law. Architechtural plans are copyrightable, which can essentially lock up building design, but design of many other things indeed are not protectable. For instance, if I find a designer teakettle with an interesting shape to it at William-Sonoma, I can copy the exact same damn thing and sell it at Target for 1/10th the price. And that’s perfectly legal in the U.S. The ONLY things in the U.S. that have desgin protection are – wait for it – boat hulls! Yes, the design of boat hulls are protectable due to the Boat Hull Protection Act, which was passed (I believe) as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Act was passed in such a way that if Congress chooses in the future to protect additional categories of products – like teakettles – it can do so easily just by amending the definitions section of the Act. One would expect that once there’s some design protection in U.S. law, that’s the hump, and more will come in the future, but AFAIK nothing else has been added.
–Cliffy,
law-school graduate
Design patents specifically cover the appearance of an item (in contrast to the more familiar utility patents). I don’t know if this applies to architecture, but it certainly applies to teapots.
the Pebble Beach Company has a Trademark on a living tree.
I know it sounds crazy but they sue artists who draw pictures of the tree & try to sell the pictures. No one has the funds to pay for a lawyer to go against their decisions so it wouldn’t surprise me if someone got sued for using a bldg design.
From my experience working in a PTDL (Patent Trademark Depository Library), I never saw any design patent for a building. Since a building isn’t “manufactured”, I don’t think it would qualify.
And since a design patent only lasts for a relatively brief time (12 years? 15 years?), it wouldn’t be particularly effective especially since you would have to file your design patent before the building was constructed and you would lose a lot of the period of exclusivity during the construction phase.
Note, when I worked at the PTDL I told people who came in not to take any legal advice from me. That applies here as well.
I didn’t use the past tense.
Even when copyright could be renewed, it could never be renewed indefinitely. Copyrights have always had a stale date, and hopefully, UP YOUR CHOICE OF ORIFICE CHER, they always will.
