« A Federalist on the (State) Supreme Court | Main | More Briefing in Hamdan »
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Copyright for homes + buildings -- who needs it?
Since Dec. 1, 1990, the US Copyright Act has protected "architectural works" -- consistent with the requirements of the Berne Convention, which the U.S. joined in 1989. Prior to the amendment, it was very difficult to get a copyright for the design of a constructed home or building, because more often than not the allegedly artistic elements of the design were not separable from their useful functions.
The legislative history indicates that "[p]rotection for works of architecture should stimulate excellence in design." I really wonder about that assertion. In the market at least, I think excellence in design typically comes when the person hiring the architect can shell out a lot of money. Architects can be more "creative" when the hiring person has the financial wherewithal to allow the architect to get more "creative.
On other other hand, one might argue that copyright is needed to stop the complete copycat, who just copies the entire layout of another house or building that qualifies as an architectural work. I wonder, though, if copycats would dampen the incentive for architects to come up with creative or "excellent" designs. Even if there is a sizeable markets for copycat homes, I've got to think that most home purchasers seek a home that is somewhat unique and not a copy. If so, architects should have a huge market to sell their creative designs. In the case of buildings, I've got to think the market is even more one sided: firms seeking to build new buildings probably don't want a carbon copy of existing buildings, particularly if we are talking about a skyscraper or something of that sort. I think the case for copyrighting architectural works is somewhat tenuous, and I haven't even talked about the problem that architectural design may be working within a more limited range of features and styles. UPDATE: Slate has a nice article entitled When Architects Plagiarize.
Posted by edlee on February 15, 2006 at 03:55 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d83425550753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Copyright for homes + buildings -- who needs it?:
» Misunderstanding design from City Comforts, the blog
Lots of it here: Copyright for homes buildings -- who needs it?. [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 23, 2006 11:36:43 AM
» Misunderstanding design? from City Comforts, the blog
I think so: Copyright for homes buildings - who needs it?. [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 23, 2006 11:38:12 AM
Comments
I've got to think that most home purchasers seek a home that is somewhat unique and not a copy.
I agree, but this goes both ways: couldn't you argue home/business should be able to keep their castle unique through copyright protection? How disappointed would you be when you shell out millions for a unique design, and then it ceases to be unique?
I don't think the issue is whether some copyright protection is appropriate in a perfect world, but whether some protection is worth the cost in litigation and uncertainty.
Since this has been in place 15 years, is there any evidence of abuse?
Posted by: c&d | Feb 15, 2006 4:37:44 PM
I share Ed’s skepticism about the need for copyright protection for architectural designs. As for the empirical point about whether people seek unique homes, I think it depends on the particular market segment we’re talking about. I grew up in suburbia east of LA where swaths of almost indistinguishable tract homes were spreading through converted desert. These homes’ almost total lack of distinctiveness didn’t stop them from getting snapped up almost as fast as developers could build them.
I suspect there’s more of a premium on distinctive design, though, in the very highest echelons of the housing market, where people don’t just want a decent home, but want a showpiece that telegraphs their wealth and taste to the rest of their community (ditto urban high-rise office buildings). Here, copyright protection would be irrelevant for a different reason: no one would want a house that’s identical in design to another, so there’s no risk that builders would free-ride off one another’s plans.
Posted by: Dave | Feb 15, 2006 6:53:44 PM
I'll link to & comment on this post on my own blog in due course.
But I'd like to suggest (briefly) that there are a few mis-understandings here about design.
1. "Good design" costs a lot of money and the more money available, the better the design.
Not so. Just go look at a lot of the fashionable nonsense designed by starchitects.
2. "Creativity" is a sign of and means to good design.
Incorrect, especially when it comes to housing, though it applies to commercial buildings as well.
3. People want unique houses.
Also incorrect. People with a lot of money -- that's a very small group --who are trying to prove some point, gain social status etc etc use house design as a tool.
Posted by: David Sucher | Feb 18, 2006 11:56:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
