Opinion ID: 771186
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-AWCPA Protection for Architecture

Text: 68 Before passage of the AWCPA, the 1976 Copyright Act contained no explicit protection for constructed architectural works. Architectural plans, however, were protected -first as scientific drawings, which were included in the definition of PGS works, see 1 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT S 2.08[D][2][a], at 2-117, and then, following passage of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, as explicitly within the definition of PGS works, see Pub. L. No. 100-568, S 4(a)(1)(A), 102 Stat. 2853 (1988) (codified at 17 U.S.C. S 101). A building as constructed generally was considered a useful article, and thus the design of a building as constructed could only becopyrighted to the extent that the  `design incorporate[d] pictorial, graphic or sculptural features that [could] be identified separately from, and [were] capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.'  1 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT S 2.08[D][2][b], at 2-127 (quoting 17 U.S.C. S 101). Accordingly, copyright [could ] be claimed in `artistic sculpture or decorative ornamentation or embellishment added to a structure,' but not in the structure per se. Id. at 2128 (footnote omitted) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 55). If there was a conceptually separable PGS work attached to a building, the author of that PGS work could seek PGS copyright protection for that work, but no copyright could be obtained for an entire building unless the building was a [p]urely nonfunctional or monumental structure[ ]. Id. at 2127. 69 Under this regime, people were free to take pictures of buildings, but if the building's exterior contained a conceptually separable (and therefore copyrightable) PGS work, the PGS copyright owner could sue for infringement -subject, of course, to the exception for fair use under 17 U.S.C. S 107. 5