Opinion ID: 781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Architectural Works

Text: The government asserts that it should escape liability because The Column is an architectural work. The AWCPA did not afford architectural works full copyright protection; rather, it exempted the making of pictorial representations of architectural works from copyright infringement. Leicester v. Warner Bros., 232 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th Cir.2000). The AWCPA provides: The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. 17 U.S.C. § 120(a). Thus, if The Column is an architectural work under § 120, then Mr. Gaylord's copyright does not extend to pictorial representations of his work. The Copyright Act defines an architectural work as the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The applicable regulation defines buildings as humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions. 37 C.F.R. § 202.11(b)(2). The definition excludes [s]tructures other than buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats. Id. § 202.11(d)(1). The Court of Federal Claims found that The Column is not a building, and therefore it is not an architectural work governed by the AWCPA. The court explained that the work is an artistic expression intended to convey a message rather than to be occupied by individuals.... Much like a walkway or a bridge, the memorial permits individuals to access through it, but is not intended for occupancy. Gaylord, 85 Fed.Cl. at 72. We see no clear error in the court's determination that The Column is not an architectural work under the AWCPA.