Scholarly Paper
Design Copyright in Architecture, Engineering, and
Construction Industry: Review of History,
Pitfalls, and Lessons Learned
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Alireza Adibfar, S.M.ASCE 1; Aaron Costin, A.M.ASCE 2; and Raja R. A. Issa, F.ASCE 3
Abstract: Innovation and technological developments are integral parts of the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry.
While AEC practitioners strive to have unique projects, there is a concern about the unauthorized use or reproduction of their designs.
Architectural drawings have been recognized as intellectual property by US copyright law, and if an architect follows the proper procedures
for their registration, the designs would have protection against unauthorized use. Copyright infringement can happen either deliberately or
unintentionally and typically involves protracted motions by the plaintiff and the defendant. Having a more collaborative process in the design
holds the potential for more issues regarding ownership of the intellectual property of the design. Therefore, by moving into the new era of
digital-based design, namely, building information modeling (BIM) and cloud-based designs, as more people get involved in the design process, the ownership problem may get more complicated. The goal of this research is to investigate how digital-based design can be protected
from unauthorized uses, including what considerations practitioners could take to ensure their intellectual property is protected. Therefore, this
paper provides a review of history and the current US copyright law, copyright procedure, and copyright prevention strategies relevant to
digital-based design in the AEC industry. Additionally, various case studies are reviewed to scrutinize pitfalls and possible outcomes of conflict.
The results of the review found that copyright is a widely neglected issue in the AEC industry. Considerations include the following: contracts
need to be updated to identify the ownership of a design, clauses need to be added to specify any potential gray areas, and architects and owners
are encouraged to increase their knowledge about possible loopholes and conflicts. Also, new technologies such as blockchain and digital
fingerprinting can be added to digital designs to prevent unauthorized use. Because of the complexity of legal contracts and the gray areas of
digital-based design, AEC practitioners should perform due diligence and seek out knowledgeable legal counsel to review and approve the
contract to avoid conflicts in the future. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000421. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Intellectual property; Copyright; Infringement; Building information modeling (BIM); Architecture, engineering, and
construction (AEC) industry; Digital-based design.
Introduction
Innovation and novelty are integral elements of human nature and
the human mindset. Humans try to apply novelty in their approaches
to transcend the boundaries of their realm of expertise and become a
leader in their field. While they strive for novelty in their work, there
is the potential to be concerned about unauthorized duplication or
exploitation of their intellectual property. The emergence of new
technologies such as building information modeling (BIM) has increased the level of complexity of the problem, which intensifies
these concerns (Adibfar et al. 2020). Currently, there are plenty
of gray areas associated with the legal perspectives of digital-based
design technologies in which legal issues, such as data ownership,
contracts, and liability, are still being debated (Costin et al. 2018).
1
Ph.D. Candidate, M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Construction Management,
Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32603 (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6952-3091. Email: adib2016@ufl.edu
2
Assistant Professor, M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Construction Management, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32603. ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0003-4263-8101. Email: aaron.costin@ufl.edu
3
Professor, M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Construction Management, Univ.
of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32603. Email: raymond-issa@ufl.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 25, 2019; approved on
March 2, 2020; published online on June 12, 2020. Discussion period open
until November 12, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Legal Affairs and
Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN
1943-4162.
© ASCE
Protection of intellectual property could be categorized under
patents, trademarks, and copyright (Hobbs 2011). Usually, innovations in manufacturing, discoveries, and processes could be protected through a patent. Businesses and commercial groups that
started to produce a specific product or collection of products can
protect their properties through trademark. Any innovative and
artistic activity such as music, painting, sculpting, and architectural
drawings could be protected under copyright (Adibfar et al. 2020).
Currently, architects protect their artistic work and designs
through copyright. However, copyright is becoming a challenge in
the digital environment (Savelyev 2018), and more researchers are
working on devising new methods for copyright protection and investigation. Some researchers utilized different technologies, such
as different automated tracking systems, to help find copyright
infringements (Chen and Ou 2011; Dogan et al. 2018).
Proving the originality of an architectural work is a complex
process, and even courts have had difficulties finding the answer
on how to determine the originality of architectural drawings. The
narrow line between creativity and imitation sometimes adds to
the complexity of the ownership of intellectual property of the
architectural works. Some believe that adding more creativity and
uniqueness to the design can bring more security for architects.
Artists who created phenomenal art designs, such as poetry or
paintings, used the same existing vocabulary of art but in an ingenious and creative style to increase the uniqueness and subsequently
the protection of their design. In the architecture, engineering, and
construction (AEC) industry, there is a standard library of building
04520032-1
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
elements that are required for buildings (e.g., columns, beams), but
architects can ingeniously use them to be more creative in their design and reduce the possibility of simple infringement. Copyright and
patent experts strongly encourage architects to have a rich novel design to add another layer of legal protection (Kolson Hurley 2014).
Copyright infringements have also occurred outside of the AEC
industry, such as the automotive industry. In one recent case, the
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) Company filed suit against the Chinese
car manufacturing company Jiangling for directly copying the
body design and some unique features of the Range Rover model,
Evoque, into the model Landwind X7, which damaged JLR’s legitimate interest. After 3 years of investigation, the Beijing Chaoyang
District People’s Court referenced Article 6 of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) Law Against Unfair Competition (AUC) and
voted in favor of Jaguar Land Rover. The court ordered Jiangling to
cease all manufacturing and advertisement activities for Landwind
X7 and ordered Jiangling to compensate JLR for losses. Despite the
widespread copying of car design and features in China, it has been
reported that most global car companies do not take the required
actions against infringement because it is believed there are low
odds of winning a case against a local firm (Reuters 2019; Rowlands
and Li 2019).
The use of traditional two-dimensional (2D)–based drawings
made copyright simple and straightforward. Paper-based 2D designs
made modifications difficult, which reduced the chances of infringement or unauthorized reuse. With the rise of digital-based drawings
and design-build project delivery, more entities have access to copy,
add, or modify building elements and drawings with design software, which adds more complexity to copyright ownership. This
leads to the motivating research question: how can copyright ownership be secured in the era of BIM and digital-based design?
While copyright and protection of intellectual properties are
some of the most important topics in the AEC industry, the number
of research studies investigating issues about copyright of digitalbased design in construction are still limited. A recent literature
review in scientific and academic databases found a gap of comprehensive literature about copyright in AEC (Adibfar et al. 2020).
This paper addresses this gap by first reviewing the history and the
most important aspects of the copyright of design in the AEC
industry. Then, case studies focusing on copyright infringements
of designs in construction are discussed. Finally, this paper provides discussions and recommendations to help educate researchers
and practitioners about the most important copyright issues in the
AEC industry.
Historic Copyright Challenges
Before the passing of Public Law 94-553 in 1978, owners of
intellectual property (IP) could get statutory copyright protection
by either depositing a copy of the design and registering the IP,
or just relying on protection granted under common law copyright.
Because protecting the property with the register of copyright required more time and effort, people were more interested in using
common law copyright, which was not complex and did not need
any registration. Recognition of the work as a published work was
one of the challenges of the common law that raised many disputes.
The term published did not refer to a physical book or publication
version of the work, but enough published evidence so the common
law could be extinguished. Construction and exposure of a novel
architectural design of a building could be assumed as a public publication. While this type of copyright could partially protect the
publication, some deficiencies existed. After public exposure of a
novel design, others could be inspired by the building composition
© ASCE
and build a similar building with minor changes. This could initiate
conflicts and disputes by the architect and/or owner of the original
designs and building (Walker 1979).
Unclear statements for defining public publication brought up
some issues and conflicts at that time. There have been cases where
a court verdict favored the plaintiff because the building was in
public gaze for more than 3 years, and the court recognized that as
the public publication. Conversely, there have been other cases that
the court decided to stop based on the existence of minor changes
in the construction of the new building. There were other challenges associated with common law copyright. Because copyright
protection used to be issued by courts under state law, minor differences in state laws in different states was a challenge. Furthermore,
the court’s standard for recognition of general publication was a big
challenge because it could vary among different states and judges.
Because of these differences, it was hard to prove copyright infringement from one state to another. Also, the defendant could
take advantage of minor differences from the original protected design or even claim for lack of enough evidence from the plaintiff.
In all of these scenarios, the court could decide on each individual
case. However, individual assessment could take a lot of time, while
not being completely fair because of differences in experience, education, and implications (Walker 1979). Through the evaluation of
different litigation cases, Walker (1979) concluded that the common
law could not fully protect architectural designs against their reproduction for construction of new buildings.
Public Law 94-553 was passed on January 1, 1978, as a general
revision of the traditional copyright law and clearly stated that both
common law and state statutes would not be in action anymore.
While the new law prohibited any future works from adhering to
the statutes of common law, it respected the works registered previously while avoiding obsoleting the common law. Public Law
94-553 is more specific about different situations. For example, it
states that an employee of a company that created a design can claim
copyright ownership of the design if no previous agreement to transfer the rights to the employer was established. Under this law, the
owner has the exclusive right for using the copyrighted property.
The owner can reproduce, distribute, display, or share the property
in the media for criticism, teaching, receiving feedback, and similar
utilization.
Along with the US, other countries have started updating and
tailoring their copyright law and policies to be more applicable to
their current needs and issues. As an example, China initiated the
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in the 1980s. While the whole
procedure follows the United States’ fair use doctrine of US copyright law, the discretionary power of courts over copyright case
laws has caused dissatisfaction (Zhang 2017). To eliminate this gap,
the PRC has been preparing the Copyright Law of the PRC (the
third amendment) to recognize and respect the copyright ownership
of different products.
International Agreements, Conventions, and Treaties
While most countries have their own copyright law, there are some
widely recognized international agreements and treaties to protect
intellectual properties on a global scale (Table 1). A treaty is an
international agreement that could be bilateral (made between two
countries, states, or parties) or multilateral (several countries, states,
or parties) and is designed to reach a common ground and help in
the prevention of confusion and conflicts. Treaties are usually ratified by governments and signed by the law-making authorities
of each party (Buergenthal and Murphy 2007; UNICEF 2017).
Treaties could be referred to by other names such as international
04520032-2
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
Table 1. International conventions and treaties for supporting copyright
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Agreement type
Publication
Agreements
• WTO Agreement
• Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994
• TRIPS Agreement, 1995 (WTO 1995)
Conventions
• Universal Copyright Convention, 1952 (UNESCO
1952)
• Geneva Phonograms Convention, 1973
• Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
• Buenos Aires Convention 1910 (International
Copyright Conventions 1910)
Treaties
• WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996
• WIPO Performance and Phonograms
Treaty (WPPT), 1996 (WIPO 1973)
Source: Reproduced from Adibfar et al. (2020), © ASCE.
conventions, final act, international agreements, or memorandums
of understanding (MOUs) (Buergenthal and Murphy 2007; Adibfar
et al. 2020).
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the
principal administrator for international treaties that protect intellectual property through patent, trademark, and copyright. Various
committees actively work within WIPO for each topic; the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) specifically focuses on copyright issues. The United States is a member
of WIPO and participates in the SCCR committee. The US also
actively participates in the Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright
Treaty (WCT), and WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty
(WPPT) (WIPO 1973, 1996b). The Berne Convention is an
international agreement that was established in 1886 to recognize
and protect literary and artistic works globally. Updated in 1979,
the agreement requires the signatory countries to recognize and respect each other’s ownership of artistic works and literature (WIPO
2011; Adibfar et al. 2020).
In 1996, the WCT was established to protect copyright infringement in the digital environment. Based on the Berne Convention,
WCT protects the intellectual rights of digital works for at least
50 years. This treaty was also written to require the participating
countries to strive to use security measures, such as encryption, to
restrict technological circumventions (e.g., hacking) that could be
used to infiltrate protected digital work (WIPO 1996a, 2011;
Adibfar et al. 2020).
Recently, other treaties have been adopted (e.g., the Beijing
Treaty on Audiovisual Performances of 2012 and the Marrakesh
Treaty), but are mostly focused on publications and publishers’
rights. WIPO’s SCCR has been studying and investigating the
potential for a new treaty that will address copyright requirements in broadcasting. The committee has also proposed two new
international agreements that will add additional limitations and exceptions to copyright protection (Adibfar et al. 2020; WIPO 2019).
Copyright Overview
Even with the passage of Public Law 94-553, architects had no significant protection against their intellectual properties being copied,
which resulted in others designing something similar to the original
work without the fear of infringement. To protect the intellectual
property rights of architects, Congress passed the Architectural
Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) in 1990 that significantly increased the level of protection for architects. This law protects the design, overall form, composition, and blueprints of a
building. However, this law does not protect individual standard
© ASCE
elements and specifications such as doors, common windows, or
ceiling height (Adelstein 2014).
Copyright protects the creation of original works when authorship is fixed in any tangible medium of expression. The term work
of authorship reflects anything that may require protection, and its
author should take action to get permanent protection for it. An
author can start acquiring the protection from the very primitive
expressions of the work. However, it should be considered that
ideas are excluded from the copyright because the works must be
in a tangible format (US Copyright Law 2016). Even expressions
without any significant attributes for distinguishing the underlying
idea are not protected with copyright. Other categories that cannot
be protected with copyright are architectural facts and standard
elements of design, such as level heights, doors with regular sizes
and shapes, and common window types (Adelstein 2014).
Copyright generally remains with the author, unless the statement of “work made for hire” was added to the contract as a clause
(Schlackman 2014). Sometimes an architecture firm may need to
abandon a contract, but it may be reluctant to hand over all its designs and relinquish the credits to the finishing architect without
having any right and ownership over the design. Submitting the
design to the copyright office is a common way to protect the efforts and designs from being freely transferred to new parties.
While this would be a good idea to initiate protection for architectural works, a firm should consider that it might not have full protection against all the elements and details. In this case, proving the
copyright infringement might be a tough burden for the firm. The
alternative solution for this problem is to add a specific, robust
clause to the contract to transfer all of the ownership rights to
the architectural firm. While this alternative is in favor to the architectural group, the owner might not accept these because the architectural services and fees are being paid for (Adelstein 2014).
Previously, posting the notice of copyright of the design was
required in all publicly distributed materials that could be visually
identified or could be detected through a machine or any device.
The notice had to be posted and the form of copyright notice
needed to have the following elements (Hobbs 2011):
• The copyright symbol, which could be the letter C in a circle
(i.e., ©), “copyright,” or “Copr.”
• The year of publication should be included. In cases where
alternatives or new versions updated the original work, mentioning the year of the first work would be enough.
• The name of the copyright owner.
Recently, it has not been mandatory to post the notice of copyright on drawings (Hobbs 2011). Therefore, architects need to check
for copyright before using any part of others’ designs, specifically
when working in a digital and collaborative environment. Any negligence at this step may initiate complex problems in the future
because in a cloud-based BIM environment, all the structural;
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP); interior; and other designs are based on the initial architectural design. Any copyright
conflict may interrupt the activity of the whole team and even initiate
secondary lawsuits by other companies who are working on the
project as team members.
Copyright Registration
Acquisition and registration of copyright is an easy and inexpensive
process (Adibfar et al. 2020). To claim copyright protection, there
should be a tangible expression of the work available. After preparing the original work, the author should submit an online application
form at the copyright office website, pay a fee, and deposit copies of
the work to the copyright office. It can take up to 10 months before
the author receives the copyright registration (Bodniowyc, n.d.).
04520032-3
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
After the submission and registration of the copyright, the protection
starts, and it will last for the author’s lifetime with an extension of
70 years after the author’s death. After this period, the copyright
ownership will be transferred to the government, and the property
will become the public domain and will be free from copyright protection. At this time, any other person can add additional elements or
modify the design to acquire a new copyright protection for themselves (US Copyright Law 2016).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Copyright Appeal Process
It is necessary to register intellectual property before the establishment of any legal action against copyright infringement. According
to the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the plaintiff (i.e., the
person or party who initiates the claim) needs to have certain documents to show copyright infringement has happened. The plaintiff
should present a proof for acquisition of a valid copyright, and also
present a satisfying amount of evidence to show that the defendant
(i.e., the person or party accused of violating the copyright law and
causing copyright infringement) had access to the drawing and
used it to create something substantially similar to the original
(Bowser 2017).
According to the AIA, the plaintiff needs to have certain documents to show copyright infringement, including (Adelstein 2014)
• Proof of acquisition of a valid copyright, and
• A satisfying amount of proof to demonstrate the defendant had
access to the drawing and used it to create something substantially similar to the plaintiff’s intellectual property.
The plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant created a drawing
that is both objectively (extrinsic test) and subjectively (intrinsic
test) similar to the original design. Courts may perform an intrinsic
test to subjectively compare the two architectural works and discover if two buildings have the same concept and feeling from a
lay observer’s view. Afterward, the court may perform the extrinsic
test by filtering out the unprotected elements and comparing the
protected elements for finding similarities to uncover the infringement (Adelstein 2014).
Benefits of Copyright Registration
Architects need to protect their novel designs with copyright because this registration will bring them significant benefits. Architects could be eligible to receive statutory damage if they register
their work with the copyright office within 3 months of publication
or before any infringement. By referring to the statutory damage,
authors can claim a loss of up to $30,000 per infringement, and
if proven that the infringement was willful, the authors can claim
up to $150,000 (Schlackman 2014). If the architect selects to
receive actual damage, then the architect can get a percentage
of the profit that was made through the infringed work, which
may be significantly higher than the claim for statutory damages
(Schlackman 2014). Sometimes copyright infringement can award
a large amount of compensation to the copyright owner. For example, in 2013, Kipp Flores Architects, L.L.C. v. Hallmark Design
Homes, LP received $3.2 million for proving infringement of a
copyrighted residential design in Austin, Texas (Massie 2013).
In another case in Texas, Hewlett Custom Home Design, Inc. v.
Frontier Custom Builders, Inc. received $1.3 million for proving
copyright infringement. The awarded damage was a percentage
of the profit that the defendant could make (Schlackman 2014).
While these numbers may look astonishingly high to AEC practitioners, it should be considered that these high-profile cases often
have significantly higher legal fees and take a substantially longer
time. Thus, proving copyright infringement for such cases is not an
easy process and may not result in favorable results for the plaintiff.
© ASCE
Copyright of Historical Buildings
There are many controversies about copyright protection, of which
the copying of the design and plans of historic buildings and monuments is one of the most common. While some argue that reproduction of any existing building is contrary to copyright, some
governments passed laws that allow reproduction of publicly situated buildings and monuments, as long as they are not exact copies
and have some changes within the new design (Hobbs 2011).
Copyright principals for the protection of historical buildings are
further discussed in the case study about the Luxor Hotel in
Las Vegas.
Copyright of Photography
While building designs can be copyrighted to prevent unauthorized
recreation, a photographer who takes a unique photo of a building
can also register the picture with the US Copyright Office as an
owner of unique artwork. Photographs can be either from the
interior or exterior of the building. If the interior is viewable from
the public domain and privacy concerns have not been violated, the
photographer can take a photograph of the interior of the building
(e.g., a glassed-in porch). However, if one of the following criteria
can be proven, this rule does not apply, and the photographer could
still be accused of infringement of the copyright:
• The interior has enough original elements that satisfy copyright
requirements;
• There is an element with a unique design or function; or
• The photograph reveals the plans and design.
Some owners restrict the use of their building design and any
photography of that through copyright. As an example, the owners
of the Spanish building Auditorio de Tenerife have registered the
picture of this building and clearly stated the terms for commercial
use of the building’s pictures (WIPO 2011). While exclusions may
apply to the copyright law, the owner can sue the photographer
from the aspect of privacy. Therefore, to avoid any conflicts, photographers are encouraged to get written consent from the owner
prior to any photography that may initiate any legal issues.
There are certain cases where even the photograph, in accordance with the mentioned circumstances, may lead to the establishment of a lawsuit and prosecution of the photographer for the
infringement of the building copyright (Stim, n.d.):
• The building has a unique appearance,
• The building is offering a specific type of goods or services to
the public,
• The photography is intended for commercial use rather than editorial use, or
• The photography of a building is used for commercial use for
other companies and services.
As an example, Swiss artist Adrian Falkner filed a lawsuit
against General Motors (GM) Company for unauthorized use of
one of his murals that was painted on the Z Garage in Detroit
for the advertisement of the Cadillac XT5 (Jibrell 2018). Falkner
stated that his mural is used as a focal point, while the angle of the
camera intentionally concealed his signature, and only a car has
been added to the portrait. This picture has been widely used on the
company’s social media and advertisements, and the author stated
that the whole process was performed without his knowledge or
consent. Falkner then asked for the whole profit gained through
this advertising campaign in return for his tarnished reputation and
future earnings from this artwork. The court awarded the artist all
damages, including future damages and the defendant’s profit made
through this campaign, plus all the court costs (Jibrell 2018).
04520032-4
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conflict Prevention Strategies
Professional agreements usually contain a stipulation that specifically defines the ownership of the design drawings, in which all of
the drawings and specifications are assumed to be an instrument of
service and will be sustained as the property of the professional.
The owner of the copyright has the authority to sue for any infringement from the copyright, or any exceedance from a total defined
number of uses from the copyrighted materials. This could prevent
duplicate constructions from one particular set of design drawings.
If the owner intends to use a set of drawings for multiple usages, a
work-for-hire agreement can be signed to transfer the ownership
from the architect to the owner. Under this agreement, the architect
agrees to be contracted like a normal employee of the owner but
would relinquish the rights to the ownership of the designs and
drawings. If the architect is reluctant to transfer all of the ownership, then both parties can negotiate to purchase additional licenses
for multiple uses of design sets (Schlackman 2014). In the absence
of a work-for-hire statement, the owner of the project has the right
to the ownership of all documents by fulfilling the final payment
(Schlackman 2014).
Furthermore, the owner and architect usually sign an indemnification agreement where the architect agrees to indemnify the
owner from any infringement claims in the future that may arise
by other architects based on the architect’s blueprints. This means
that if another architect claims the ownership of the copyright of
the design, then the owner has no responsibility and the architect
should respond to the claim.
Warranty of ownership of copyright is another important term in
construction. The project owner hands the blueprints to a construction company and the company starts to build the project without
any information that these blueprints have copyright infringement issues. General contracting companies and subcontractors
are encouraged to obtain warranty of ownership or sign an indemnification agreement that states that the project owner is the sole
responsible entity for the originality of the blueprints and the builders are not aware of any potential infringement, and any such
infringement is within the owner’s responsibility. General contractors usually add the indemnification agreement clause to the agreement so that the project owner indemnifies the builder from any
possible copyright infringements (Hobbs 2011).
Technology-Assisted Strategies for
Copyright Protection
The AEC industry is dynamic (Olatunji and Sher 2010), and the
emergence of technological innovations pushes companies to the
rapid adoption of new technologies such as BIM (Hosseini et al.
2017). This shift has raised concerns about the legal and copyright
issues and requires the AEC industry to update its legal instruments
and guidelines (Adibfar et al. 2020; Costin et al. 2018). A modeling
architect may be able to acquire copyright protection for a BIM
model, depending on the originality of the model (McDaniel 2013).
The model authorship and development of e-documents for recognition of authorship are just some of the issues that require attention
in this process (Olatunji and Sher 2010). As a solution to this gap,
Adibfar et al. (2020) explained different international agreements
and treaties about copyright and suggested updates to the WCT for
enhancing international BIM-based collaborations.
There are a few solutions that digital asset owners in other fields
have used to protect their intellectual property that could be implemented in the AEC industry to help protect digital designs and BIM
models. Blockchain technology has recently gained popularity and
has been widely used for encryption and secure logging of digital
© ASCE
transactions. Turk and Klinc (2017) recommended the use of blockchain for protecting BIM content. They found that blockchain
could be a part of information technology (IT) infrastructure for
producing construction software and BIM content, and it is less
likely possible to be directly applied to individual models. Blockchain can help identify infringement by documenting user activities
and modification of the model and server data. Any unusual activity
found in the ledger could be susceptible to copyright infringement.
The fingerprinting capabilities of blockchain can significantly restrict unauthorized access and identify each particular activity on
the server and model data.
Because copyright protects a wide variety of artistic works,
studying the preventive experiments and strategies in other relevant
fields can be adopted for the digital platforms in the AEC industry.
Digital content, such as online media and e-books, are easier and
faster to duplicate, and their protection is an urgent issue (Chen
and Horng 2007). New mechanisms and copyright protocols have
gradually attracted owners and buyers for their protection in digital
media (Chen and Horng 2007). These mechanisms help buyers to be
aware of the copyrighted content, and sellers to find illegal copies
and infringement through third-party service providers. Media use
different encryption, decryption, and secret key cryptosystems and
methods to protect their content from unauthorized access (Chen
and Horng 2007).
Copyright watermarking is one of the methods for protecting
digital media. In this method, the author embeds an identical copyright message, which is also known as a watermark, in the digital
asset to recognize the identity and ownership of the digital asset.
While this method can help warn against unauthorized copying, it
cannot trace the people involved in the illegal copying and distribution of the asset (Chen and Horng 2007). Mir (2014) also utilized
the watermarking technique with the HTML web programming language to develop copyright protocols for invisible watermarking of
web content to prevent modification and deletion attacks.
Using digital fingerprinting is one of the other technological solutions for preventing copyright infringement. This technology has
been widely used on audio and video media, and processes different pieces of media to identify similar songs or videos, determine
originality, and catch copyright infringement. YouTube is one of the
websites that use this technology for copyright protection (Fenlon
2011). Using serial keys is another way to protect a digital asset,
where the seller can identify and find the buyer information. Copyright protection for these types of digital media can be divided into
three categories:
• Symmetry: Fingerprint or serial number is associated with a
unique buyer, and both parties are aware of the acquisition
and utilization of a copyrighted asset;
• Asymmetry: Only the buyer knows that he or she owns a copyrighted content, and it is the buyer’s responsibility to prevent
any unauthorized access or copy; and
• Anonymous asymmetry: Buyers’ privacy will be protected
and unrevealed to the seller, but could be obtained in case of
infringement.
In addition to using specific contracts for BIM-based designs
and models, the mentioned guidelines can be further developed
for digital assets such as BIM models to help in the identification
of the owner and buyer of the copyrighted BIM model.
Case Studies
This section reviews copyright case studies to illustrate the thin line
between creativity and plagiarism. The purpose of this section is to
extract lessons and considerations needed for AEC practitioners,
specifically in the era of digital-based design and construction.
04520032-5
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Luxor Hotel, Las Vegas
As noted previously, the reproduction of historical buildings can
cause conflicts. Also, the magnitude of similarities in the duplicate
design can lead to the conviction or accreditation of a defendant. As
one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Great Pyramid of Giza
has inspired many great works. Many buildings around the world
may look like the pyramid, but the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas was
designed so similar that it created controversy about copying heritage. This led to a lawsuit where some commentators started to
encourage the Luxor Hotel complex to share a portion of its profits
with the Egyptian city of Luxor (WIPO 2011). Eventually, the argument did not lead to favorable results for critics, and the case was
closed because the court authorities confirmed that while the buildings are similar in shape, they have significant differences in their
interiors. The struggle resulted in the passage of a copyright law by
Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) in 2008 that let
prosecution of authors who copy ancient monuments, including the
Pyramids and Sphinx. This law prohibits the reproduction of an
exact copy of the monument, but it is still vulnerable to copying
with modifications (WIPO 2011).
The lesson learned from this case is that inspiration from and
duplication of ancient monuments can cause problems in the absence of required permissions. Also, to prove copyright infringement, the plaintiff needs to prove a high number of similarities in
both the exterior and interior of the building. This example illustrates the case where the original design can be modified in a creative way to avoid infringement.
Opera House, Sydney, Australia
Adhering to the moral rights of the architect and artist at any stage
is important. In 1959, Australia held a competition for the design of
the Opera House in Sydney, and Danish architect Jorn Utzon won
the competition (WIPO 2011). There were some delays in proceeding with the development of the project, and eventually a team of
Australian architects modified the original design and prepared layouts of the building. They tried to considerably change the utilization of the building and limit its initial multipurpose design. The
Danish architect could not successfully challenge the new design in
court even after many attempts. In 2000, after the amendment of the
Moral Rights Act, the architect could only gain the right to be identified as the author and the right to being the consultant for any
possible changes in the future (Rosenblatt 1998; WIPO 2011).
This case shows how an architect can lose ownership of a design
in the absence of proper copyright protection. Therefore, it encourages consideration of the copyright acquisition for novel works
from the initial steps. Moreover, while in this case the owners were
successful in court, some can argue that their work was not ethical,
and they should adhere to the author’s rights and have clear communication with authors before performing any change in their design and construction.
Habitare and Tamawood, Australia
As previously described, obtaining a warranty of ownership from
owners is an important step for architectural and construction companies in the contracting process. The Habitare Company planned
to develop and construct two low-cost housing complexes in
Queensland, Australia. They hired Tamawood Company to design
the buildings and prepare the plans so they could receive approval
from the City Council of Brisbane. After receiving approval,
Habitare decided not to continue with Tamawood for the construction phase of the project and made an agreement with another company named Mondo. Mondo prepared the plans for obtaining the
© ASCE
building certificates, and Habitare continued using these sets of
drawings and hired Bloomer for the construction of the project.
This led Tamawood to open a claim against Mondo for infringement of copyrighted drawings. Tamawood also sued Habitare
and Bloomer for copyright infringement. The first court refuted
Habitrare’s excuse for having an authorized contractual license for
reuse of the designs. The court sentenced Mondo for noncontractual copyright infringement. The court refused to take further action
against the directors of Habitare for charging additional damages.
Because Bloomer did not have any role in this infringement, the
court found them as the innocent infringer. The court also voted in
favor of Mondo against Habitare for their misleading and fraudulent act (Hardingham 2015; Hannebery and Spountsis 2015).
Evaluation of this case shows that a lack of clear communication
and adhering to the owner’s rights can lead to complex lawsuits.
Additionally, the lack of a warranty of ownership can bring secondary lawsuits by other parties against the infringer and impose heavy
financial damages.
Freedom Tower, New York
As previously discussed, defining the originality of a work is difficult for federal courts because they need to evaluate the design
from various aspects carefully. In 1999, a master’s student at Yale
University challenged one of the reviewing faculties for unauthorized use of his class project in the design of the Freedom Tower.
As a course project, Thomas Shine needed to design a skyscraper.
Shine called his design Olympic Tower and sent his project for review, which received high praise from his classmates. David Childs
was an architect who was one of the juries for assessing this project
and was working at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill as a consulting
partner (Brown 2007). In late 2003 and after the September 11,
2001, disaster, Childs designed a tower to be a replacement for the
destroyed towers and called it the Freedom Tower. After revealing
the primitive designs through the media, Shine found similarities
between the Freedom Tower and Olympic Tower.
Early in 2004, Shine registered his design with the US Copyright Office as a protected design against copyright infringement
and sued Childs for infringing the copyrighted design. To prevail,
Shine had to prove ownership of the copyright and also prove
that the elements in his original work had been copied into the
new drawing. The US District Court for the Southern District of
New York found the copyright information not convincing. Thus,
Shine had to prove the use of his elements in the new design. Evaluation of designs for comparing the total concept and feel is a common way that courts decide whether the drawings are similar or not.
This means that the claimed work should have substantial similarities to the copyright-protected design. When they broke down the
architectural design, they found that the diagonal grids established
a Lego-style facade, which makes it unique. Shine stated that each
of these blocks had been copied and used on the Freedom Tower.
The Skidmore company and Childs defended that these elements
are industry standards that have been used for decades, and if their
use could break copyright law, then their initial use on the Olympic
Tower was illegal as well. Shine defended that the whole assembly
including the twisting form and the assembly of the exterior diagonals that created the exterior texture had been copied and illegally
used. After this statement, the court applied a holistic approach and
looked at the two designs from the judgment level of an average
person to find suspicious similarities between the two designs.
While Childs made a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the court denied his request. The court found that the diamond-style facade
with a twisting shape of the tower is highly similar to Shine’s
04520032-6
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
design of the Olympic Tower, resulting in Shine winning the case in
June 2006 (Brown 2007; Ng 2008).
This case shows that the court will search for the same feeling
from two designs from an average person’s view to judge infringement of designs. While changing the building details can prevent
copyright infringement, if the secondary design still conveys a
strong feeling of the first design, it still could be determined to be
an infringement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Sieger Suarez Architectural Partnership v.
Arquitectonica International Corp., Miami
While copyright helps prevent duplicate designs, there are certain
types of structures that are limited in the ways they can be designed and are hard to protect under copyright law (e.g., multifamily housings, condominiums, churches). In 2000, Sieger Suarez
Architectural Partnership was hired by Arquitectonica International
Corporation to design condominiums. The architect, Sieger Suarez,
completed the project and obtained a copyright for its protection in
2006. Shortly after finishing the design, the owner, Arquitectonica,
decided to hire another architect to prepare the plans. After the construction of the condominiums was started, the original architect,
Sieger Suarez, found that the designs were very similar to the original copyrighted design. Thus, Sieger Suarez moved as plaintiff
against the secondary architect claiming infringement of its copyright. The court stated that to prove the infringement, the plaintiff
needed to (1) provide the copyright registration, (2) demonstrate
that the defendant had access to the drawings, and (3) show that
a substantial amount of design from the drawings was used that
led to the similarities. The court also had to consider that the copyright protects the exact drawings that have been submitted to the
US Copyright Office, but any standard element (e.g., stairs, level
heights) that has no specific expression does not have protection.
For some basic building types, such as condominiums and typical
homes, there are finite design and arrangement methods that will
not be protected. The copyright cannot control and protect arrangements that are not original, and the architect cannot control everything with its copyright unless the architect has something specific
that shows distinct work.
To prove infringement, the plaintiff needs to prove that there are
similar or identical ideas in two designs. Also, there need to be similarities in structural and architectural details. Furthermore, there
should be significant similarities in the utilization of building elements and also their interaction with space. For example, the placement of corridors, stairways, doors, and elevators can alter the
interaction. Finally, the general arrangement of rooms in an apartment
is an important factor. The location of different rooms with different
applications could change the purpose of the building and could not
be considered as an infringement. Based on the criteria, The United
States District Court—Southern District of Florida, Miami division—
stated that the design and plans of the defendant architect were not
substantially similar to the primary designs the plaintiff prepared. The
court continued that while from the conceptual aspect the designs
were similar, some certain features of the building, including the
height of the floors and ceiling heights as well as the number of units
on each floor could not be protected under copyright (Leagle 2014).
This case demonstrates that some structures with limited ways
of design can hardly be protected with the copyright. Additionally,
the change of internal elements and their arrangement can prevent
copyright infringement.
Wangjing SOHO, Beijing
Lawsuits and litigation can take a long time, and the cost of delay to
the project may exceed or even cancel out the monetary value that
© ASCE
may be received from the infringer. Zaha Hadid designed the
Wangjing SOHO project in Beijing. The design was a set of three
towers, the highest of which was 43 stories tall, and the building
was mixed use. While the project was under construction, another
Chinese developer constructed a similar building in Chongqing.
Both projects had smooth, curvilinear designs and were located on
a parklike ground with connecting paths. The main difference was
that the SOHO had three towers, but Meiquan 22nd Century had
only two towers.
Hadid’s office in London made a motion to sue the infringing
developer. Porsche Company in Germany was the owner of the
copyright for this building, and they started the lawsuit to sue
the Chinese developer. The Beijing Municipal High People’s Court
found that the case fell under the context of the copyright law in
China because this case is an infringement of copyright-protected
property. However, because the demolition of the building was not
possible, the court ordered reconstruction and renovation of the
building. In May 2012, SOHO China, who was the constructor
of Hadid’s project, held a press conference and described their
intention for alleging the infringement and filing a lawsuit. Zaha
Hadid’s lawyer asked Meiquan to cease construction to change the
facade and pay for the damages that they made. For several reasons,
among which the tight deadlines for finishing the project was primary, no litigation was started on this case. Because Zaha Hadid’s
team was short of time and starting a lawsuit could impose another
delay to the project, they decided to focus on finishing their project.
Finally, the Wangjing SOHO was finished in 2014, earlier than the
Meiquan 22nd Century (Kashem 2015).
This case shows that in some instances, the project value might
be so high that any loss from delay in the project cost outweighs
any financial gain from a lawsuit. The project manager should be
responsible for the evaluation and preparation of a detailed report
about the costs associated with the project and its delays before
starting any legal action. While the protection of this project was
important for Zaha Hadid’s team and Porsche Company, they found
that renunciation of the copyright infringement case was more beneficial for them than starting a protracted lawsuit.
Discussion
The AEC industry is becoming more competitive, with architects
trying to be creative with their designs to distinguish themselves
from their competitors. Novel designs are being considered as intellectual properties of the author, which need to be respected or
otherwise officially appealed to the author. The AEC industry has
recently leveraged digital-based design tools to create more aesthetic and sophisticated designs. Similarities between designs may
result in copyright infringements, whether because of inspiration,
similarities of the design criteria, or deliberate action of an author.
Sometimes having a creative essence and using the conventional
architectural vocabulary in an ingenious and novel way can help
add layers of protection to the design.
It should be considered that unauthorized copying, even of a
small part of a set of plans, may lead to copyright infringement
(Bowser 2017). Appealing a copyright infringement case may have
a drastic impact on the defendant’s reputation. Thus, increasing
awareness through education and adding certain legal clauses to
contracts to provide more transparency to the copyright status is recommended and may prevent potential conflicts. Most of the time,
knowing and adding clauses to the contract may increase the robustness of the contract and help avoid contentions and conflicts. While
adding these clauses may help, it is highly recommended to ask an
attorney or legal counsel to review and approve the content of the
04520032-7
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
contract and ask them to explain any parts that have ambiguities
or would be hard to understand for regular people. In addition to
preparing an exhaustive contract, it is recommended that architects
conduct a comprehensive study and acquire required permissions
before accepting an ongoing project or creating a design that would
have some similarities to a current design or building.
In addition to the copyright law of the United States, there are
other resources available that could help in increasing AEC practitioners’ awareness and the usefulness of contracts. The Engineers
Joint Documents Committee Design and Construction (EJCDC)
suggests a clear statement of the retainage of design ownership in
the contract. It also reminds architects to clarify the copyright and
ownership status after any clause that addresses the termination of
the contract (EJCDC 2018). For BIM-based designs, AIA Document E203-2013 (AIA 2013) could be used as a reference because
it has been designed for BIM-based design and construction and
has more specific content about BIM (Adibfar et al. 2020).
When copyright issues enter litigation, they have large financial risks that are usually hard to quantify. Sometimes dealing with
copyright infringements could result in project delays, which may
impose a higher loss to the project; thus, priorities should be evaluated to decide whether the plaintiff should continue the case or give
up to prevent a bigger loss. The indemnity provision will only be
valuable to pursue when the claim can cover certain financial risks.
This study reviewed the available academic and commercial
contents related to copyright infringement in the AEC industry
and found some gaps in this area that could be followed by other
researchers:
• There have been a considerable number of studies for improving
the protection of digital media, art, poetry, literature, and digital
media, but there is a significant gap in the amount of literature
about AEC copyright infringement. More research should be
conducted on copyright protection in the AEC industry to
improve and satisfy the current shortcomings and needs.
• US copyright law is currently the only reference for copyright
protection of intellectual properties. While this law has provided
a resolution to conflicts, it could still be improved upon and
updated by the review of new infringement cases. Furthermore,
this law is still too general and requires more content specifically tailored for AEC problems.
• Researchers in other areas of art have deployed technology
to improve the protection of their intellectual properties. It
is recommended that researchers study and apply these new
technologies, such as blockchain and digital fingerprinting, to
help copyright protection in BIM and the cloud-based design
atmosphere.
As reviewed, copyright infringement lawsuits are lengthy processes and may not always lead to a verdict that is favorable for
the plaintiff. Sometimes an author may lose a copyright infringement lawsuit. In other cases, the plaintiff may win the case and the
defendant has to pay a considerable amount of money in compensation. Regardless of the result, copyright infringement is an unethical act and ultimately can harm the reputation of both involved
parties. Respecting any author’s effort, intellectual properties, and
ownership may be the most important fact to be recognized and
trained by every practitioner in the AEC industry.
Conclusion
Data Availability Statement
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study.
Disclaimer
The authors of this paper are not legal counsel and are not providing
legal advice. The content of this paper is solely prepared for educational purposes and is not to be intended as a substitute for competent, professional legal advice.
References
List of Cases
Adrian Falkner v. General Motors (GM) Company.
Hewlett Custom Home Design, Inc. v. Frontier Custom Builders, Inc.
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) Company v. Jiangling.
Kipp Flores Architects LLC, of Austin, TX, v. Hallmark Design Homes of
Sugar Land, TX
Sieger Suarez Architectural Partnership v. Arquitectonica International Corp.
List of Statutes
Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA).
Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988—Pub. L. 100-568, Oct. 31,
1988, 102 Stat. 2853.
China’s Law Against Unfair Competition.
Copyright Law of the PRC.
Copyright Law of the United States.
International Bureau of WIPO, China’s Law Against Unfair Competition of
the People’s Republic of China (1993), https://www.wipo.int/edocs
/lexdocs/laws/en/cn/cn011en.pdf.
International Bureau of WIPO, Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of
China”, State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C. (2010), https://
www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/cn/cn031en.pdf.
Moral Rights Act.
Public Law 94-553.
US Copyright Office, Public Law 94-553 (1976).
Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, S.2467, 103rd Congress (1993–
1994), https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/2467.
Works Cited
Copyright and protection of intellectual properties is one of the
most important concerns in the AEC industry. Improvement of BIM
collaboration technology and cloud-based designs has added to the
complexity of copyright protection concerns. This paper initially
© ASCE
reviewed the history of copyright, then scrutinized the most important topics about copyright, reviewed some case studies, and finally
presented the findings as a detailed discussion. This study could be
used as a brief guideline for AEC students and practitioners who
would like to increase their knowledge and avoid any copyright problems in the future. However, it was limited to the currently available
resources about copyright and it was found that there is a lack of
adequate academic research conducted about copyright in construction, which could be an interesting topic to be furtherly developed.
Because of the advancement of technologies and their increasing
application in the AEC industry, further research is recommended
to address issues associated with digital modeling and BIM-based
design of buildings and to investigate how new technologies, such
as blockchain and digital fingerprinting, can help increase security
and prevention of copyright infringement in the AEC industry.
Adelstein, D. 2014 “The uphill burden of a design professional’s copyright
infringement claim.” Florida Construction Legal Updates. Accessed
May 8, 2020. https://www.floridaconstructionlegalupdates.com/the
-uphill-burden-of-a-design-professionals-copyright-infringement-claim/.
04520032-8
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Adibfar, A., A. Costin, and R. R. Issa. 2020. “Review of copyright challenges in AECO industry and prospective developments for building
information modeling (BIM).” In Proc., ASCE Construction Research
Congress (CRC). Reston, VA: ASCE.
AIA (American Institute of Architects). 2013. “E203-2013 building
information modeling and digital data exhibit.” Accessed May 8,
2020. https://www.aiacontracts.org/contract-documents/19026-building
-information-modeling-and-digital-data-exhibit.
Bodniowycz, L. n.d. “How long does it take for your work to get copyrighted?” Accessed August 20, 2019. https://info.legalzoom.com/long
-work-copyrighted-23878.html.
Bowser, D. H. 2017. “Architectural works copyright protection act
(AWCPA).” Accessed May 8, 2020. https://www.aia.org/articles/26591
-understanding-the-scope-of-architectural-cop.
Brown, J. 2007. “Too close for comfort.” Accessed August 21, 2019.
https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/too-close-for-comfort_o.
Buergenthal, T., and S. Murphy. 2007. Public international law in a
nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.
Chen, R., and Y. Ou. 2011. “Examining design features of copyrights using
hot area and track.” Displays 49 (Sep): 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.displa.2017.07.005.
Chen, T., and G. Horng. 2007. “A lightweight and anonymous copyright
protection protocol.” Comput. Stand. Interfaces 29 (2): 229–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2006.03.010.
Costin, A., A. Adibfar, H. Hu, and S. Chen. 2018. “Building information modeling (BIM) for transportation infrastructure—Literature review, applications, challenges, and recommendations.” Autom. Constr.
94 (Oct): 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.07.001.
Dogan, K. M., H. Suzuki, and E. Gunpinar. 2018. “Eye-tracking for screening design parameters in the adjective-based design of yacht hull.”
Ocean Eng. 166 (Oct): 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng
.2018.08.026.
EJCDC (Engineers Joint Documents Committee Design and Construction).
2018. “Contract corner: Copyrights.” Accessed November 24, 2019.
https://www.ejcdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DP_Article_CC
_Copyrights_US_CA.pdf.
Fenlon, W. 2011. “How digital fingerprinting works.” Accessed December
5, 2019. https://computer.howstuffworks.com/digital-fingerprinting.htm.
Hannebery, J., and J. Spountsis. 2015. “Full federal court finds infringement of Tamawood’s copyright in building plans.” Accessed August
21, 2019. https://dcc.com/news-articles/ip-article/full-federal-court-finds
-infringement-of-tamawoods-copyright-in-building-pl/.
Hardingham, S. 2015. “Tamawood v Habitare: A recent Australian decision
on copyright infringement in building designs.” Accessed August 21,
2019. http://www.klgates.com/tamawood-v-habitare-a-recent-australian
-decision-on-copyright-infringement-in-building-designs-05-28-2015/.
Hobbs, M. 2011. “Builder beware: How to avoid blueprint and building
design lawsuits.” Accessed August 21, 2019. https://www.construction
businessowner.com/law/law/builder-beware-how-avoid-blueprint-and
-building-design-lawsuits.
Hosseini, M., S. Banihashemi, F. Zaeri, and A. Adibfar. 2017. “Advanced
ICT methodologies (AIM) in the construction industry.” In Encyclopedia of information science and technology. 4th ed., 539–550.
Pennsylvania: IGI-Global.
International Copyright Conventions. 1910. “Copyright convention between the United States and other American republics, Buenos Aires—
1910.” Accessed February 1, 2010. https://www.copyright.gov/comp3
/chap2100/doc/appendixD-circ38c.pdf.
Jibrell, A. 2018. “GM sued by artist over copyright infringement.” Accessed
November 24, 2019. https://www.autonews.com/article/20180125
/RETAIL03/180129841/gm-sued-by-artist-over-copyright-infringement.
Kashem, N. 2015. “A tale of two buildings: A case of architectural
copyright infringement in China.” Accessed August 18, 2019. https://
fordhamartlawsociety.com/2015/10/30/a-tale-of-two-buildings-a-case-of
-architectural-copyright-infringement-in-china/.
Kolson Hurley, A. 2014. “New York architect loses copyright infringement
lawsuit.” Accessed August 18, 2019. https://www.architectmagazine.com
/practice/new-york-architect-loses-copyright-infringement-lawsuit_o.
Leagle. 2014. “Sieger Suarez Architectural v. Arquitectonica.” Accessed
August 21, 2019. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20140218a50.
© ASCE
Massie, C. 2013. “Kipp Flores architects wins copyright case.” Accessed
December 20, 2019. https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/kipp
-flores-architects-wins-copyright-case_o.
McDaniel, J. B. 2013. Legal issues surrounding the use of digital
intellectual property on design and construction projects. Washington,
DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22626.
Mir, N. 2014. “Copyright for web content using invisible text watermarking.” Comput. Hum. Behav. 30 (Jan): 648–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.chb.2013.07.040.
Ng, J. 2008. “Who owns architecture? Copyright and the freedom tower
controversy.” Accessed August 20, 2019. https://morningsidereview
.org/essay/who-owns-architecture-copyright-and-the-freedom-tower
-controversy/#taxonomy.
Olatunji, O. A., and W. Sher. 2010. “Legal implications of BIM: Model
ownership and other matters arising.” In Proc., 18th CIB World Building Congress, 453–463. Salford, UK: School of the Built Environment,
Univ. of Salford.
Reuters. 2019. “Corrected-(Official)-Jaguar Land Rover wins case against
Jiangling holdings in China.” Accessed November 24, 2019. https://
www.reuters.com/article/jaguar-land-rover-lawsuit-jiangling-moto/jaguar
-land-rover-wins-case-against-jiangling-motors-in-china-idUSL3N2192NE.
Rosenblatt, B. 1998. “Moral Rights Act.” Harvard Intellectual Property
Cyberspace. Accessed May 8, 2020. https://cyber.harvard.edu/property
/library/moralprimer.html.
Rowlands, J., and A. Li. 2019. “Jaguar Land Rover landwind: Acts of unfair competition and copyright infringement.” Accessed December 2,
2019. https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2019/jaguar
-land-rover-v-landwind-unfair-competition/.
Savelyev, A. 2018. “Copyright in the blockchain era: Promises and
challenges.” Comput. Law Secur. Rev. Int. J. Technol. Law Pract.
34 (3): 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.11.008.
Schlackman, S. 2014. “Copyright for architectural designs.” Accessed August
18, 2019. https://alj.artrepreneur.com/copyright-architectural-designs.
Stim, R. n.d. “How copyright law applies to photos of buildings and
architecture.” Accessed April 15, 2019. https://www.nolo.com/legal
-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html.
Turk, Z., and R. Klinc. 2017. “Potentials of blockchain technology for construction management.” Procedia Eng. 196: 638–645. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.052.
UNESCO. 1952. “Universal copyright convention.” Accessed February 1,
2020. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/creativity/creative
-industries/copyright/universal-copyright-convention/.
UNICEF. 2017. Introduction to the convention on the right of the child—
Definition of key terms. New York: UNICEF.
Walker, N. 1979. Legal pitfalls in architecture, engineering, and building
construction (with special forms). New York: McGraw-Hill.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 1973. “Convention
for the protection of producers of phonograms against unauthorized
duplication of their phonograms.” Accessed February 1, 2010. https://
www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/phonograms.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 1996a. “WIPO copyright
treaty.” Accessed February 1, 2020. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 1996b. “WIPO performances and phonograms treaty.” Accessed February 1, 2010. https://
www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 2011. “Architecture &
copyright controversies.” Accessed August 21, 2019. https://www
.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2011/05/article_0004.html.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 2019 “Standing committee on copyright and related rights (SCCR).” Accessed May 8, 2020.
https://www.wipo.int/policy/en/sccr/.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1995. “Overview: The TRIPS agreement.” Accessed February 1, 2020. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop
_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm.
Zhang, C. 2017. “Introducing the open clause to improve copyright flexibility in cyberspace? Analysis and commentary on the proposed ‘twostep test’ in the Third Amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC, in
comparison with the EU and the US.” Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 33 (1):
73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2016.11.008.
04520032-9
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(3): 04520032
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.