interest in tangible copies of the work in question. Such, of course, would not be the case merely by virtue of the building of an architectural structure. 5. Copyright protection for architectural structures should limit the reproduction of either another structure or of plans for another structure. To the extent that there is economic value in either creating another structure or in creating plans therefor, the copyright proprietor should be entitled to control such value. 6. I see no more reason for modifying the injunction and destruction provisions of the copyright act with respect to architectural productions than with respect to other forms of copyrighted works involving considerable financial expenditure, e.g., motion picture productions. MELVILLE B. NIMMER. Samuel W. Tannenbaum OCTOBER 20, 1959. I have carefully examined Mr. William Strauss' fine study of the problems of "Copyright In Architectural Works." As there appears to be unanimity in the protection of architectural plans under the U.S. Copyright Act, in my opinion, there is, therefore little need for a discussion of that question. However, without attempting to discuss the constitutional question of whether a structural work of architecture might be considered the "writing" of an "author," I believe some comment on the protection of such structural works is warranted. Assuming that structural works are entitled to protection, we are immediately faced with the problem of whether such protection should be limited to artistic, as opposed to utilitarian structures. If such a limitation is deemed wise, the courts will be presented with an almost insurmountable task of interpretation. Is a structure, designed, for example, by Frank Lloyd Wright purely as a dwelling, any less a work of art than, for example, the Lincoln Memorial, almost totally void of utilitarian purpose? It is evident that structural works of architecture cannot properly fit into the ordinary concepts of copyright. Is a building in a public place a published work, even though not an object reproduced in copies generally distributed to the public? If the structure be deemed a published work, what would be the date of publication? Would the owner of the structure require the permission of the architect to make a structural alteration years after the completion of the building? Then too, if the structure warrants statutory copyright protection should the period be the 28-year plus a renewal of 28 years? As architectural structures and designs become obsolete in a comparatively short period, a shorter term of protection would be advisable. This is an added reason for having it the subject of special legislation. It might be included in the pending Willis bill in the 85th Congress, H.R. 8873 (1957) and the O'Mahoney bill in the 86th Congress, S. 2075 (1959). These, and countless other problems, indicate that this is an area, like the field of industrial design, which requires special consideration, and should be the subject of special legislation outside of the Copyright Act. SAMUEL W. TANNENBAUM. |