Architectural Copyright Lawsuits

Architects balance their concern for copyright law with their concern for other areas of the law, like zoning. While architects do keep their plans private unless the client requests it or other factors require them to release them, building blueprints often are public and thus not secret. Building codes require significant effort to make sure the plan is in compliance, and a violation of legal codes can be extremely costly for the architecture firm. We interviewed architect Scott Kalner, Senior Project Manager at CDM Smith, for his perspective on architectural legal issues.

How Architects Check For Copyright Infringement

Copyright infringement in the architecture world often comes from people or organizations that had some sort of relationship with the architect or had used one of their designs previously. Accordingly, architects seeking to detect possible infringement of their designs can focus their attention on buildings that are being built by their former clients or associates.

Trade Dress

Trade dress is the overall "look and feel of a product". Merriam Webster defines it as "the overall image of a product used in its marketing or sales that is composed of the nonfunctional elements of its design, packaging, or labeling (as colors, package shape, or symbols)". In the United States, Trade Dress is legally protected if it is not a functional part of the product, and it has acquired "secondary meaning", meaning that when people see the trade dress, they associate it with a specific brand. Trade dress applies to architecture as well. The classic example of trade dress in architecture is the Apple store, which has a distinct metal and glass aesthetic that Is legally protected by Apple. We examined how architects handle trade dress and how they protect their trade dress and avoid infringing on other architects' trade dress.

Lawsuits Over Architectural Copyright and Trade Dress

Lawsuits over architectural copyright, like all lawsuits, can be long and difficult affairs. What complicates them even more compared to lawsuits of other copyrighted works, such as books or movies, is the fact that architectural designs are often similar to each other by necessity. For example, every building needs a bathroom or stairs to traverse floors, so the fact that all buildings have those can't really be used as evidence that one building is a copy of another. As such, not only are large parts of the lawsuit spent determining if copying occurred, large parts are spent determining which parts are copyrightable, and different judges may disagree about that, and precedent may differ greatly depending on the time and place.

TWO PESOS, INC. v. TACO CABANA, INC.

Taco Cabana is a fast-casual restaurant chain located in Texas. The chain has registered trade dress described as "a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme." Two Pesos is another fast casual chain that was founded after Taco Cabana. They both sell Mexican style food and entered the same markets. Owing to the similarities between the two restaurants and the similar architectural style of the buildings, Taco Cabana sued Two Pesos, alleging that Two Pesos violated their trade dress. In the resulting trial, the supreme court found that Taco Cabana had a distinctive, nonfunctional trade dress, and awarded them damages.

SmithGroup Inc v. Pure Architecture and Development

This is a case in progress that demonstrates how copyright infringement can occur in the real world. Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital licensed designs from Smithgroup Inc, but decided not to go through with them. The hospital then hired another firm, Pure Architecture and Development, to create and design a building for them. Smith group sued both Pure Architecture and Development and Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation, claiming that they had infringed on their design with their planned design for the hospital building. This demonstrates a classic example of how copyright infringement and copyright disputes often happen with regards to architectural design. Architectural copyright infringement often occurs when one party had a license for a design, but continues to use it without the license.

Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev.

This case serves as an example of how tricky copyright law can be when architecture is involved. James Zalewski, an architect, licensed some of his designs to Cicero Builder Developments for construction. After the license expired, Cicero built a number of housing developments that Zalewski believed violated the copyright he had on the houses he had previously licensed to Cicero. In a 29 page ruling, the judge ruled that the similarities between Zelwski's design and the new houses were the result of "consumer preferences, stylistic conventions, and code requirements, not because of Zalewski’s “original expression as a designer". In effect, this means that the basic features of an architectural design, such as the basic floor plan, the existence of rooms like a kitchen or bathroom, and other basic features are not protected by copyright. If the architect wants copyright protection for their design, they need to add unique and/or obviously artistic features and even then, only those parts of the design are copyright protected. This ruling challenges the argument heard in a similar case in 2008, which claimed that Architectural designs were "collections or arrangements" of unprotected design elements, and therefore only protected by the "thin" copyright protection collages or collections get. Either way, Copyright for architectural design is very complex, and architects have less legal protection than they might think.

Park v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is an architecture firm that was hired to design the One World Trade center, the main building for the rebuilt world trade center complex. Jeehoon Park sued the firm, alleging that the firm copied a design he made while he was in college. Park stated that his former advisor worked for the company and thus the company had access to his design. However, the judge ruled that even though the two buildings shared similarities, the basic design, which Park alleged was copied, was not unique enough to be a distinctive design and thus not protected by copyright.  As such, we can see from this case that proving infringement is very difficult for architects.

 Check for Understanding

  • nonfunctional. in addition, it needs to have secondary meaning.

  • It can be unclear which parts of a design are copyrightable, and many architectural designs are similar by necessity, so it becomes necessary to first figure out which parts of a design are covered by copyright.

  • only the parts of the design that are a result of “original expression”

References

15 U.S. Code § 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

Park v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP et al, 1:2017cv04473 (2017)

SmithGroup, Inc. v. Pure Architecture and Development, PLLC et al, 1:2024cv00249 (2024)

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992)

Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., No. 12-3448 (2d Cir. 2014)