Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: house plans
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Copyright Forum ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by M Arthur Auslander on November 21, 2001 at 04:41:29:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: house plans posted by Stephen L. Anderson on November 20, 2001 at 12:23:45:
: Auslander -- you've goofed it up again.
: Moreover, any attorney who claims to know copyright should already know the answer.
: According to the Copyright Office "an original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression including a building or architectural plans or drawings is subject to copyright protection as an "architectural work."
: The work includes the OVERALL form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design BUT DOES NOT include individual standard features or design elements that are functionally required (e.g., doors, windows, walls and a roof) for ultiltarian purposes.
: That is, the architect only owns the EXPRESSIVE aspects of his design that are NON-FUNCTIONAL in nature. (e.g., gargoyles, flying buttresses, etc.)
: A recent case (brought by the architect of the DWP in Los Angeles) against Wanrer Bros. Studios (for depicting a registered building as the centerpiece of one of the "Batman" film sequels, made clear that the architect's rights are quite limited in scope.
: For more info about copyrights, go with the pros at www.copyrightpros.com
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Things like that will happen when you don't use an advertising consultant for your legal work.
M. Arthur Auslander
Auslander & Thomas-Intellectual Property Law Since 1909
The Intellectual Property Law Server
Old Copyright Forum