On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Susan Aker wrote:
> Since I've heard it argued that with a car, I have only purchased a copy
> of the car, I'll use another analogy. I purchase a house from the
> builder. Even though he did all the hard work of building it, getting
> all the different materials put together, making the whole thing work,
> once I have closed on the purchase, it is mine and he has no rights to
> it whatsoever. If I want to build an identical house on the other side
> of my property, I don't have to go to the original builder, I don't even
> need the original blueprints. I can have an expert come in, take notes
> on all the pertinent information and draw up a set of blue prints.
I don't think this is accurate. Section 102(a)(8)[1] expressly protects architectural works, and has since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was enacted in 1990.
"Architectural work" is defined in section 101: "the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings."[2]
Section 120[3] includes some limitations in copyrights for architectural works, but they're limited to the right to make pictorial representations of buildings ordinarily visible to the public, and to the right of the building owner to alter or destroy the building. Unsurprisingly, there's no clause permitting making a copy of the building, which would, after all, eviscerate copyright in constructed architectural works.
[1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html [2] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html [3] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/120.html -- Terry Carroll | "To have this rare opportunity Santa Clara, CA | is a rare opportunity." carroll[_at_]tjc.com | - Houston Rockets' Yao Ming, on being namedModell delendus est | starting center for the 2003 NBA All-Star Game Received on Thu Feb 06 2003 - 19:41:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:48 GMT