Archinect - News

Design Law & Charity

2013-02-15T18:53:00-05:00

A few weeks ago we reported that the USPTO granted trademark protection to Apple for aspects of its retail store designs (Reg. No. 4277914 & 4277913).

Image above, Reg. No. 4277913 (claiming color)
Image below, Reg. No. 4277914 (not claiming color)

While most architectural works don’t have the notoriety and consumer association necessary to obtain federal trademark protection, architects have long relied on copyright and design patents to protect their creations. Since 1990 when “architectural works” were first incorporated into our federal copyright regime, much has been written about its use and impact. Yet few architects have stopped to consider the role of design patents.

But design patents aren’t new. Architects in the US have relied on them for over a century to protect new, original, and ornamental designs for any article of manufacture. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright was granted numerous design patents on everything from chairs to desk and home designs.

Design ...

Wright Masterwork Is Seen in a New Light: A Fight for Its Life

2012-10-03T11:34:00-04:00

It’s hard to say which is more startling. That a developer in Phoenix could threaten...to knock down a 1952 house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Or that the house has until now slipped under the radar, escaping the attention of most architectural historians...a spiral home for his son David.

Lack of Detail No Reason to Deny Copyright Protection to Architectural Works

2012-08-22T14:40:00-04:00

There is no requirement that architectural drawings contain sufficient detail to support actual construction in order to warrant copyright protection under Section 102(a)(5) of the Copyright Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held Aug. 15 (Scholz Design v. Sard Custom Homes LLC, 2d Cir., No. 11-3298, 8/15/12).

In a recent legal case issued by architecture firm Scholz Design Co., against builder Sard Custom Homes, it was confirmed that “Copyright protection of a pictorial work, whether depicting a house, or a flower, or a donkey, or an abstract design, does not depend on any degree of detail.”

Initially, however, in a lower court, the judge decided in favor of Sard Custom Homes, the defendant, claiming the stolen designs were taken from drawings with insufficient detail. When Scholz Design appealed, a higher court dismissed the initial decision, in favor of the plaintiff.

Good news for architects!