July 14, 2025 • 24 mins
Skyscrapers aren't just engineering marvels, they're intellectual property battlegrounds where creativity meets the courtroom. Welcome to the fascinating world where distinctive buildings become trademarked brands, architectural blueprints trigger million-dollar lawsuits, and even tourist photographs might infringe copyright.
Our journey begins with trade dress protection for buildings so distinctive they function as logos. The Hard Rock Hotel's 450-foot guitar shape earned trademark protection for being "inherently distinctive." At the same time, the geometrically interesting Palacio del Rio learned the hard way that being architecturally notable isn't enough, you need instant brand recognition. When your building makes people stop and stare, it might just be eligible for trademark protection.
We then explore the often-overlooked protection for architectural plans. Blueprints aren't merely technical documents but creative works with automatic copyright protection. From the UK to Canada to Australia, courts have awarded substantial damages when developers use another's plans without permission. The message is clear: copying isn't just copying and pasting, using someone's creative layout without authorization is litigation waiting to happen.
The laws governing the photography of buildings create another layer of complexity. "Freedom of panorama" determines whether you can snap, share, or sell images of buildings in public spaces, with drastically different rules worldwide. The Eiffel Tower exemplifies this peculiar legal landscape, the structure itself is in the public domain. Still, its twinkling lights remain under copyright protection, meaning your nighttime Paris photo could technically require permission for commercial use.
Perhaps most fascinating is the tension between owning a building and owning its design. When a Brazilian paint company used a home's image on product labels with the owner's permission but without consulting the architect, the courts sided with the architect. Similarly, when a German museum planned renovations requiring the removal of an architectural art installation, the Federal Court had to weigh property rights against creative moral rights.
Whether you're an architect protecting your vision, a developer navigating permissions, or simply someone who appreciates beautiful spaces, understanding these intersecting legal frameworks helps you navigate the built environment more responsibly. Because great design deserves more than admiration, it deserves legal protection, proper credit, and sometimes, a really good lawyer.
Subscribe now to explore more intellectual property frontiers where creativity and commerce collide in unexpected ways.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ever looked at a building and thought, wow, this
belongs in a museum.
Well, honey, some of them do,and others they belong in court.
From guitar-shaped hotels toEiffel Tower, light shows
architecture doesn't just shapeskylines, it shapes legal
doctrines.
So buckle up.
We're about to enter the worldwhere bricks meet briefs and
blueprints have bite.
(00:20):
This is Intangiblia, where weput a roof over your
intellectual property knowledgeand make it fabulous.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Welcome back to Intangiblia, the podcast where
creativity, commerce and lawmeet in often unexpected places.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I'm Leticia Caminero, your host and I'm Artemisa,
your legally curious,occasionally sassy, definitely
non-human co-host.
Just a heads up, while I've gotfacts and flair, I'm still AI,
not a lawyer, so take my hottakes with a grain of machine
learning Still AI, not a lawyer.
So take my hot takes with agrain of machine learning.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
That's right.
This episode was co-createdwith the help of artificial
intelligence, and today we'rediving into the structures that
surround us and the rights thatprotect them.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Because architecture isn't just about good angles.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It's about ownership, design credit and, when needed,
a strongly worded lawsuitownership, design credit and,
when needed, a strongly wordedlawsuit From stadiums and
signature facades to bridges andbuilding plans.
Today we'll explore howarchitecture gets protected
under intellectual property lawand what happens when those
protections are challenged.
And let's begin with somethingbold.
(01:44):
Bold buildings that don't justserve a function but make a
statement.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
We're talking about architecture that acts like a
logo because, darling, when yourbuilding looks like a giant
guitar or a sculpture from thefuture, you're not just creating
real estate, you're buildingbrand realness exactly, and
that's where trade dress comesin.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Under, trade dress refers to the visual appearance
of a product or, in this case, abuilding.
That signifies its source.
For a structure to qualify, ithas to be distinctive and
non-functional.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Translation you can't protect a square beige office
building, but if your hotellooks like a Vegas magic trick,
we're talking.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Let's look at a case that quite literally struck a
chord.
The Hard Rock Hotel in Floridais shaped like a giant guitar
not inspired by a guitar, notguitar theme a literal, vertical
, 450-foot glass-clad guitar.
The Seminole tribe applied toregister that shape as a
trademark for hotel and casinoservices and the trademark trial
on a billboard said yes.
(02:52):
The design was so inherentlydistinctive that it didn't even
need to prove acquireddistinctiveness, it could stand
on its own.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Let me say it louder for the developers in the back
If your building is unmistakable, unforgettable and legally
non-functional, you might justtrademark it.
Now that's high stakesarchitecture.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
It's a powerful example of how architecture can
blur the lines between structureand branding.
The guitar shape isn't just anovelty, it's doing the work of
a logo.
It draws attention, createsassociation and brings people in
the door.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
That's the essence of trade dress and don't forget
the merch potential.
You're not just trademarking abuilding, You're protecting the
symbol that sells snow globes,postcards and branded flip-flops
.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
But what happens when the shape is bold, just not
quite bold enough?
This case involved the Palaciodel Rio Hotel in San Antonio,
Known for its modularconstruction back in the 1960s.
Each hotel room wasprefabricated and lowered into
place by grain.
It has a unique facade withrecessed balconies and geometric
(04:03):
symmetry.
The owners tried to registerthe building's facade as
straight dress, but the T-Tapsaid no.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Womp, womp.
It didn't scream sourceidentifier, it whispered
modernist efficiency.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Exactly.
De Boer found the design lackedinherent distinctiveness and,
while the hotel might bearchitecturally interesting, it
didn't rise to the level ofinstant brand recognition.
Without overwhelming publicassociation between the
building's appearance and aspecific commercial origin, it
(04:40):
didn't qualify for protection.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
So moral of the story it's not enough to be
interesting, You've got to beiconic.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Or at least very, very recognizable.
Trade dress in architecture isstill an involving area of law,
but these cases show that ifyour building's look has strong
branding power and it's notfunctional, it might earn
trademark protection.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
It's not just about blueprints anymore.
In the IP world, bold design isyour signature and your shield.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Now let's move from bold buildings to the documents
behind them, because long beforea structure touches the sky, it
lives on paper or on a CAD file.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
And those papers.
They're not just technical,they're protected.
Think of them as thearchitectural equivalent of a
song demo.
You don't need the final albumto have copyright.
The idea, the layout, thecreative expression, it's all
there from the start anddrawings are protected as
(05:45):
literary or artistic works.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Original designs, meaning they show creative
expression.
Get automatic protection, noregistration needed.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
So, but if someone copies them, oh, it's blueprint
drama.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
Let's start with a UK case that shows how seriously
courts take this kind ofinfringement.
In this case, Signature Realtyhired an architect to design
plans for a new residentialdevelopment.
Then things went sideways.
Signature lost the land to arival developer who decided to
use those same architecturalplans to push their version of
(06:21):
the project.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Messy real estate meets real violation.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
The UK High Court agree.
Even though the building wasnever completed under
Signature's plans, thoseblueprints were protected.
Fortis had no license, noagreement and no right to use
them.
The court ruled this wascopyright infringement plain and
simple.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Copying isn't just CTR plus C in the IP world,
using the creative layout of abuilding without permission,
that's litigation on arrival.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Let's cross the ocean to Canada, where another
developer learned that copingstructure isn't just unethical,
it's expensive.
Lenco, an engineering firm,designed an innovative soccer
stadium roof that designed itscurves, spacing and the whole
structural rhythm was copied bya local school board and their
(07:19):
collaborators.
They didn't just get inspired,they replicated key elements
almost exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Inspiration's cute Infrigement isn't, especially
when you get slapped with nearly$750,000 Canadian dollars in
damages.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
That's right.
And the court didn't just stopat the school board.
It held the architects andcontractors liable too.
Why?
Because they knew, or shouldhave known, that they were using
someone else's protected design.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
This was a group project and everyone failed
together, including the builderwho tried to claim it was
standard design.
Nope, not today.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
These cases send a strong message If you're part of
a project, you can't hidebehind your role, whether you're
the client, the builder or theengineer.
If you use a protectedarchitectural work without
authorization, you could be onthe hook.
Protected architectural workwithout authorization you could
be on the hook.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Ignorance isn't a defense.
If the blueprint came fromsomeone else's genius, you'd
better ask first, or?
Speaker 3 (08:26):
pay later.
And finally, let's head toAustralia, where minimal changes
didn't save a developer from acopyright storm.
Tamagot created a standard homedesign compact, functional, but
with a clever internal flow.
Habitare, a competing developer, made some minor changes, moved
(08:47):
the bathroom here, swapped thebedroom there, but the bones of
the layout identical.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
You can put lipstick on a blueprint, but if it walks
like a plan and talks like aplan, it's a copy.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
The Federal Court of Australia agreed.
The judges applied asubstantial part test, even if
not every detail was copied,enough of the creative core was
taken to trigger liability.
It wasn't about mathematicalprecision, it was about the
heart of the design.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
If your new version looks like it came out of the
original architect's computerwith a few mouse clicks, don't
expect the court to be fooled.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
And this case teaches an important point you can't
avoid liability just by tweakingsurface details.
If the layout, structure orcreative vision is the same,
you're still infringing.
So what do these cases have incommon?
They remind us thatarchitectural plans are not just
building instructions.
(09:44):
They're protect expressions ofcreativity no different from a
painting, a screenplay or a songand when someone copies them
without permission.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
it's not just a design issue, it's a legal one.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Let's talk about something we've all done.
Snap a photo of a beautifulbuilding.
Maybe it was a selfie in frontof a museum or a panoramic shot
of a skyline.
But here's the question Can youactually use that photo without
violating?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
someone's intellectual property rights.
And by use we mean post it,print it, sell it, slap it on a
tote bag, turn it into an NFT ohwait, that's a whole other
episode.
But yes, this is wherearchitecture meets copyright in
public spaces.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
The legal concept at play here is called freedom of
panorama.
It's the idea that if a work ofarchitecture is permanently
located in a public space,people should be free to
photograph or film it, and insome countries even use those
images commercially.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Sounds simple, right Wrong.
This legal freedom exists insome jurisdictions and is very
limited or totally absent inothers.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Let's start with the big picture.
In countries like the UnitedKingdom, Canada and Spain, the
law explicitly allows people tophotograph buildings that are
visible from public places andeven use those images
commercially.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
So yes, your rooftop coffee table book of Barcelona
balconies is legal, as long asyou're not breaking any drone
laws.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Meanwhile, in France and Italy, things are a lot
stricter.
Freedom of panorama is limited.
You can take personal photos,yes, but if you want to publish
them in a book, use them in avideo game or print them on
t-shirts to sell at a market,you may need to get permission,
sometimes from the architect,sometimes from the city,
(11:52):
sometimes both, and sometimesyou'll get sued just for
catching a little too muchsparkle sometimes you'll get
sued just for catching a littletoo much sparkle.
Which brings us to our next case, an iconic one.
The Eiffel Tower by day is inthe public domain.
It was completed in 1889 andGustav Eiffel's copyright has
long expired.
(12:12):
But here's the twist Itslighting installation, added in
1985, is a separate copyrightedwork.
A photographer took a pictureof the tower at night with the
lights twinkling, and foundhimself in legal hot water.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Can you imagine You're just trying to capture
romance in Paris and suddenlyyou're in a court case over
lumens and lighting design?
Speaker 3 (12:44):
The European Court of Human Rights eventually found
no breach of the photographer'sfreedom of expression, but
confirmed the core legalprinciple Even if a structure
itself is in the public domain,features added later can still
be protected.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
And that means nighttime.
Photos of the Eiffel Towertechnically require permission
if they're used commercially.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
So what about the rest of the Eiffel Tower?
Technically require permissionif they're used commercially.
So what about the rest of theworld?
Nigeria recently passed a newcopyright act with a limited
freedom of panorama.
It allows you to use images ofbuildings in public places for
non-commercial purposeseducation, personal use,
research, but if you want to usethose images in a billboard or
(13:19):
ad campaign, still off limitsunless you get permission.
The bottom line, whether or notyou can use that photo of a
stunning modern building dependsentirely on where you took it
and what you want to do with it,because architecture may be
public, but rights can still beprivate.
(13:40):
And it's a delicate balancebetween the rights of the
architect, the rights of thepublic and the role of a
building as part of the sharedvisual landscape.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
So next time you take a gorgeous pic of a skyline,
just remember the view may befree, but the law might say
otherwise.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
We've talked about blueprints and photographs.
Now it's time to talk aboutsomething that often creates
tension in architectureOwnership versus authorship,
because even when a buildingchanges hands, the architect may
still have something to sayabout what happens next.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Cue the legal side eye, because welcome to the
world of moral rights, where thearchitect's ego gets a little
legal backup.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Moral rights are personal rights of the author.
They include the right to becredited for your work and the
right to object to modificationsthat distort or mutilate your
original creation.
And when it comes toarchitecture, that gets
complicated, because buildingsaren't paintings.
They get lived in, altered,renovated or even demolished.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
And that's when the lawsuits pour in like natural
light through a floor-to-ceilingwindow.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Let's head to Brazil for a case that shines a light
on facade rights.
Literally, a paint company useda photo of a stylish private
home on its product label.
They had permission from thehomeowner and the photographer,
but not from the architect.
The Brazilian Superior Court ofJustice sided with the
architect.
(15:18):
The use was commercial, thefacade was distinctive and the
architect still held copyrightin the visual expression of that
design.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
So yes, you can live in the house, decorate the house
, even paint the house, but slapthat house on a product label
without the architect's greenlight.
That's infringement.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
And the court made it clear just because you own the
building doesn't mean you ownthe design.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Ownership ends at the deep Creative rights.
Those are personal andsometimes perpetual.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Now let's go to Germany, where the debate
between moral rights andproperty rights reach a whole
new level.
An art collective had installeda permanent architectural
artwork, a kind of sculpturalbuilding extension, on a museum
in Mannheim.
Years later, the museum plannedrenovations that required
(16:11):
tearing it down.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
And the artist said excuse you, that's not just
concrete, that's our vision.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
The case went all the way to Germany's Federal Court
of Justice.
The court acknowledged thatdemolishing a building or a work
integrated into a building canbe the harshest form of
modifying it, but it also saidthat property owners have
legitimate interests.
(16:38):
In this case, the need torepurpose the museum outweighed
the moral rights of the artist.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
In other words, the court saw both sides but handed
the bulldozer the final word.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
As ruling reinforced a trend in German law while
moral rights are protected,they're not absolute.
They're not absolute,especially in architecture.
The public's needs, safetyconsiderations and the owner's
control over the propertyusually tip the scale.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
It's a reminder that, even if your name is on the
original design, you don't geteternal veto power over future
changes.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Exactly, exactly.
Architects can often removetheir name from altered works if
they feel it represents theirvision, but they can't always
stop the changes themselves.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
So if you're a property owner, read your
contracts, and if you're anarchitect, remember.
Permanence is a negotiation,not a right.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
So what have we learned from all this?
Speaker 1 (17:37):
That, in architecture , creativity is personal
property, is practical and thelaw sits squarely in between,
and while you may own thebuilding, the story it tells
might still belong to someoneelse.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
All right, we've walked through shapes, sketches,
photos and feelings.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Now let's lay the foundation for what actually can
be protected in architecture,because the legal toolkit is
bigger than you might think.
We're talking copyright, designrights, trade dress, moral
rights basically an IP buffet,but only if you know what you're
looking for.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Let's break it down.
The first and most obviousprotection is copyright.
Copyright applies to two mainthings.
One, architectural plans anddrawings, the blueprints,
sketches and digital models.
Two, the actual constructedbuilding.
If it's original and showscreative expression, the built
structure itself can be acopyrighted work.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
But let's be clear your standard concrete box with
symmetrical windows probablywon't pass the originality test.
Copyright protects design, notdefault.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Exactly, and that protection kicks in
automatically the moment thework is created.
No registration needed in mostcountries, but registering can
help enforce your rights,especially if you want to sue
Next up design patents orindustrial designs, depending on
the country.
These are more technical andapply to ornamental features
(19:08):
like a unique staircase, facadeelement or even a modular unit
used in multiple buildings.
They have to be new,non-functional and filed before
public disclosure in mostjurisdictions.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
So if you're a prefab genius designing chic geometric
walls, file early, protectglobally.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Now let's talk trade dress.
It's part of trademark law andapplies when a building's
appearance acts like a brandidentifier.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Remember our guitar hotel.
That's trade dress magic, butonly if the look is
non-functional and instantlyrecognizable.
It's rare but powerful.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Think flagship stores , theme parks or hotels that
have an unmistakable shape.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Next on the list, moral rights.
These are all about authorshipand integrity.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
In many countries, architects have the right to be
credited as the author.
Object to distortions ormodifications of their work.
Refuse association with alteredversions, even if they've sold
the copyright.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
In civil law.
Countries like France, braziland Germany, these rights are
strong and in some cases theylast forever.
In others, like the US and UK,they're more limited and
sometimes waivable.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
And finally, freedom of Panama.
No protection, but an exception.
This allows people to useimages of buildings that are
permanently located in publicspace without needing permission
.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
But the fine print varies wildly.
You're free to post yourvacation photo in Toronto, but
don't try selling postcards of alit up Eiffel Tower without
checking the law.
So to recap, what can beprotected?
The design itself, copyright,the look and feel, design right
or trade dress, and in someplaces, your ability to share or
(21:04):
reproduce that design islimited by panorama laws.
In other words, architectureisn't just building stuff, it's
building rights and defendingthem Exactly.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
And knowing which tool to use can mean the
difference between owning yourmasterpiece or watching someone
else profit from it.
We've traveled from hotelsshaped like guitars to soccer
stadiums under scrutiny, andalong the way we've seen just
how layered architecture can be.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
And now, as promised, here are five takeaways to lock
in those legal blueprints.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Takeaway one shape cells.
If your building design is bold, recognizable and
non-functional, it may qualifyfor trademark protection as a
trade dress.
But generic won't cut it.
You need visual impact andlegal distinctiveness.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Takeaway two sketch stealing is still stealing.
Architectural plans arecreative works.
Copying them, even with smalltweaks, is a copyright violation
in most jurisdictions.
Respect the lines or risk thefine.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
Takeaway three ownership authorship Buying a
building doesn't mean you ownits design.
The architect still holdsrights over how that design is
used, altered or commercialized.
That includes image rights andmoral rights in many countries.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Takeaway four creativity has a light switch.
Design elements like lightingschemes or decorative features
can have their own copyright.
Even if the structure is in thepublic domain, added creative
components may still beprotected.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Takeaway five location changes the rules.
Freedom of panorama is notuniversal.
What's fair use in London mightbe infringement in Paris.
Always check local laws beforeusing photos of architecture in
commercial projects.
Whether you're an architect,developer, photographer or just
someone who appreciatesbeautiful spaces, understanding
(23:15):
these layers of protection canhelp you navigate the built
world more responsibly andcreatively.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Because, let's face it, great design deserves more
than admiration.
It deserves legal protection,credit and sometimes a good
lawyer.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
That's all for today's episode of Intangiblia.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
And I'm Artemisa and, just like a good foundation,
we're always here to supportyour ideas.
See you next time.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(24:06):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Ever looked at a building and thought, wow, this
belongs in a museum.
Well, honey, some of them do,and others they belong in court.
From guitar-shaped hotels toEiffel Tower, light shows
architecture doesn't just shapeskylines, it shapes legal
doctrines.
So buckle up.
We're about to enter the worldwhere bricks meet briefs and
blueprints have bite.
(00:20):
This is Intangiblia, where weput a roof over your
intellectual property knowledgeand make it fabulous.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Welcome back to Intangiblia, the podcast where
creativity, commerce and lawmeet in often unexpected places.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I'm Leticia Caminero, your host and I'm Artemisa,
your legally curious,occasionally sassy, definitely
non-human co-host.
Just a heads up, while I've gotfacts and flair, I'm still AI,
not a lawyer, so take my hottakes with a grain of machine
learning Still AI, not a lawyer.
So take my hot takes with agrain of machine learning.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
That's right.
This episode was co-createdwith the help of artificial
intelligence, and today we'rediving into the structures that
surround us and the rights thatprotect them.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Because architecture isn't just about good angles.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It's about ownership, design credit and, when needed,
a strongly worded lawsuitownership, design credit and,
when needed, a strongly wordedlawsuit From stadiums and
signature facades to bridges andbuilding plans.
Today we'll explore howarchitecture gets protected
under intellectual property lawand what happens when those
protections are challenged.
And let's begin with somethingbold.
(01:44):
Bold buildings that don't justserve a function but make a
statement.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
We're talking about architecture that acts like a
logo because, darling, when yourbuilding looks like a giant
guitar or a sculpture from thefuture, you're not just creating
real estate, you're buildingbrand realness exactly, and
that's where trade dress comesin.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Under, trade dress refers to the visual appearance
of a product or, in this case, abuilding.
That signifies its source.
For a structure to qualify, ithas to be distinctive and
non-functional.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Translation you can't protect a square beige office
building, but if your hotellooks like a Vegas magic trick,
we're talking.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Let's look at a case that quite literally struck a
chord.
The Hard Rock Hotel in Floridais shaped like a giant guitar
not inspired by a guitar, notguitar theme a literal, vertical
, 450-foot glass-clad guitar.
The Seminole tribe applied toregister that shape as a
trademark for hotel and casinoservices and the trademark trial
on a billboard said yes.
(02:52):
The design was so inherentlydistinctive that it didn't even
need to prove acquireddistinctiveness, it could stand
on its own.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Let me say it louder for the developers in the back
If your building is unmistakable, unforgettable and legally
non-functional, you might justtrademark it.
Now that's high stakesarchitecture.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
It's a powerful example of how architecture can
blur the lines between structureand branding.
The guitar shape isn't just anovelty, it's doing the work of
a logo.
It draws attention, createsassociation and brings people in
the door.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
That's the essence of trade dress and don't forget
the merch potential.
You're not just trademarking abuilding, You're protecting the
symbol that sells snow globes,postcards and branded flip-flops
.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
But what happens when the shape is bold, just not
quite bold enough?
This case involved the Palaciodel Rio Hotel in San Antonio,
Known for its modularconstruction back in the 1960s.
Each hotel room wasprefabricated and lowered into
place by grain.
It has a unique facade withrecessed balconies and geometric
(04:03):
symmetry.
The owners tried to registerthe building's facade as
straight dress, but the T-Tapsaid no.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Womp, womp.
It didn't scream sourceidentifier, it whispered
modernist efficiency.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Exactly.
De Boer found the design lackedinherent distinctiveness and,
while the hotel might bearchitecturally interesting, it
didn't rise to the level ofinstant brand recognition.
Without overwhelming publicassociation between the
building's appearance and aspecific commercial origin, it
(04:40):
didn't qualify for protection.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
So moral of the story it's not enough to be
interesting, You've got to beiconic.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Or at least very, very recognizable.
Trade dress in architecture isstill an involving area of law,
but these cases show that ifyour building's look has strong
branding power and it's notfunctional, it might earn
trademark protection.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
It's not just about blueprints anymore.
In the IP world, bold design isyour signature and your shield.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Now let's move from bold buildings to the documents
behind them, because long beforea structure touches the sky, it
lives on paper or on a CAD file.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
And those papers.
They're not just technical,they're protected.
Think of them as thearchitectural equivalent of a
song demo.
You don't need the final albumto have copyright.
The idea, the layout, thecreative expression, it's all
there from the start anddrawings are protected as
(05:45):
literary or artistic works.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Original designs, meaning they show creative
expression.
Get automatic protection, noregistration needed.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
So, but if someone copies them, oh, it's blueprint
drama.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
Let's start with a UK case that shows how seriously
courts take this kind ofinfringement.
In this case, Signature Realtyhired an architect to design
plans for a new residentialdevelopment.
Then things went sideways.
Signature lost the land to arival developer who decided to
use those same architecturalplans to push their version of
(06:21):
the project.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Messy real estate meets real violation.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
The UK High Court agree.
Even though the building wasnever completed under
Signature's plans, thoseblueprints were protected.
Fortis had no license, noagreement and no right to use
them.
The court ruled this wascopyright infringement plain and
simple.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Copying isn't just CTR plus C in the IP world,
using the creative layout of abuilding without permission,
that's litigation on arrival.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Let's cross the ocean to Canada, where another
developer learned that copingstructure isn't just unethical,
it's expensive.
Lenco, an engineering firm,designed an innovative soccer
stadium roof that designed itscurves, spacing and the whole
structural rhythm was copied bya local school board and their
(07:19):
collaborators.
They didn't just get inspired,they replicated key elements
almost exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Inspiration's cute Infrigement isn't, especially
when you get slapped with nearly$750,000 Canadian dollars in
damages.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
That's right.
And the court didn't just stopat the school board.
It held the architects andcontractors liable too.
Why?
Because they knew, or shouldhave known, that they were using
someone else's protected design.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
This was a group project and everyone failed
together, including the builderwho tried to claim it was
standard design.
Nope, not today.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
These cases send a strong message If you're part of
a project, you can't hidebehind your role, whether you're
the client, the builder or theengineer.
If you use a protectedarchitectural work without
authorization, you could be onthe hook.
Protected architectural workwithout authorization you could
be on the hook.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Ignorance isn't a defense.
If the blueprint came fromsomeone else's genius, you'd
better ask first, or?
Speaker 3 (08:26):
pay later.
And finally, let's head toAustralia, where minimal changes
didn't save a developer from acopyright storm.
Tamagot created a standard homedesign compact, functional, but
with a clever internal flow.
Habitare, a competing developer, made some minor changes, moved
(08:47):
the bathroom here, swapped thebedroom there, but the bones of
the layout identical.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
You can put lipstick on a blueprint, but if it walks
like a plan and talks like aplan, it's a copy.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
The Federal Court of Australia agreed.
The judges applied asubstantial part test, even if
not every detail was copied,enough of the creative core was
taken to trigger liability.
It wasn't about mathematicalprecision, it was about the
heart of the design.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
If your new version looks like it came out of the
original architect's computerwith a few mouse clicks, don't
expect the court to be fooled.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
And this case teaches an important point you can't
avoid liability just by tweakingsurface details.
If the layout, structure orcreative vision is the same,
you're still infringing.
So what do these cases have incommon?
They remind us thatarchitectural plans are not just
building instructions.
(09:44):
They're protect expressions ofcreativity no different from a
painting, a screenplay or a songand when someone copies them
without permission.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
it's not just a design issue, it's a legal one.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Let's talk about something we've all done.
Snap a photo of a beautifulbuilding.
Maybe it was a selfie in frontof a museum or a panoramic shot
of a skyline.
But here's the question Can youactually use that photo without
violating?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
someone's intellectual property rights.
And by use we mean post it,print it, sell it, slap it on a
tote bag, turn it into an NFT ohwait, that's a whole other
episode.
But yes, this is wherearchitecture meets copyright in
public spaces.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
The legal concept at play here is called freedom of
panorama.
It's the idea that if a work ofarchitecture is permanently
located in a public space,people should be free to
photograph or film it, and insome countries even use those
images commercially.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Sounds simple, right Wrong.
This legal freedom exists insome jurisdictions and is very
limited or totally absent inothers.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Let's start with the big picture.
In countries like the UnitedKingdom, Canada and Spain, the
law explicitly allows people tophotograph buildings that are
visible from public places andeven use those images
commercially.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
So yes, your rooftop coffee table book of Barcelona
balconies is legal, as long asyou're not breaking any drone
laws.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Meanwhile, in France and Italy, things are a lot
stricter.
Freedom of panorama is limited.
You can take personal photos,yes, but if you want to publish
them in a book, use them in avideo game or print them on
t-shirts to sell at a market,you may need to get permission,
sometimes from the architect,sometimes from the city,
(11:52):
sometimes both, and sometimesyou'll get sued just for
catching a little too muchsparkle sometimes you'll get
sued just for catching a littletoo much sparkle.
Which brings us to our next case, an iconic one.
The Eiffel Tower by day is inthe public domain.
It was completed in 1889 andGustav Eiffel's copyright has
long expired.
(12:12):
But here's the twist Itslighting installation, added in
1985, is a separate copyrightedwork.
A photographer took a pictureof the tower at night with the
lights twinkling, and foundhimself in legal hot water.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Can you imagine You're just trying to capture
romance in Paris and suddenlyyou're in a court case over
lumens and lighting design?
Speaker 3 (12:44):
The European Court of Human Rights eventually found
no breach of the photographer'sfreedom of expression, but
confirmed the core legalprinciple Even if a structure
itself is in the public domain,features added later can still
be protected.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
And that means nighttime.
Photos of the Eiffel Towertechnically require permission
if they're used commercially.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
So what about the rest of the Eiffel Tower?
Technically require permissionif they're used commercially.
So what about the rest of theworld?
Nigeria recently passed a newcopyright act with a limited
freedom of panorama.
It allows you to use images ofbuildings in public places for
non-commercial purposeseducation, personal use,
research, but if you want to usethose images in a billboard or
(13:19):
ad campaign, still off limitsunless you get permission.
The bottom line, whether or notyou can use that photo of a
stunning modern building dependsentirely on where you took it
and what you want to do with it,because architecture may be
public, but rights can still beprivate.
(13:40):
And it's a delicate balancebetween the rights of the
architect, the rights of thepublic and the role of a
building as part of the sharedvisual landscape.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
So next time you take a gorgeous pic of a skyline,
just remember the view may befree, but the law might say
otherwise.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
We've talked about blueprints and photographs.
Now it's time to talk aboutsomething that often creates
tension in architectureOwnership versus authorship,
because even when a buildingchanges hands, the architect may
still have something to sayabout what happens next.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Cue the legal side eye, because welcome to the
world of moral rights, where thearchitect's ego gets a little
legal backup.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Moral rights are personal rights of the author.
They include the right to becredited for your work and the
right to object to modificationsthat distort or mutilate your
original creation.
And when it comes toarchitecture, that gets
complicated, because buildingsaren't paintings.
They get lived in, altered,renovated or even demolished.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
And that's when the lawsuits pour in like natural
light through a floor-to-ceilingwindow.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Let's head to Brazil for a case that shines a light
on facade rights.
Literally, a paint company useda photo of a stylish private
home on its product label.
They had permission from thehomeowner and the photographer,
but not from the architect.
The Brazilian Superior Court ofJustice sided with the
architect.
(15:18):
The use was commercial, thefacade was distinctive and the
architect still held copyrightin the visual expression of that
design.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
So yes, you can live in the house, decorate the house
, even paint the house, but slapthat house on a product label
without the architect's greenlight.
That's infringement.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
And the court made it clear just because you own the
building doesn't mean you ownthe design.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Ownership ends at the deep Creative rights.
Those are personal andsometimes perpetual.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Now let's go to Germany, where the debate
between moral rights andproperty rights reach a whole
new level.
An art collective had installeda permanent architectural
artwork, a kind of sculpturalbuilding extension, on a museum
in Mannheim.
Years later, the museum plannedrenovations that required
(16:11):
tearing it down.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
And the artist said excuse you, that's not just
concrete, that's our vision.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
The case went all the way to Germany's Federal Court
of Justice.
The court acknowledged thatdemolishing a building or a work
integrated into a building canbe the harshest form of
modifying it, but it also saidthat property owners have
legitimate interests.
(16:38):
In this case, the need torepurpose the museum outweighed
the moral rights of the artist.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
In other words, the court saw both sides but handed
the bulldozer the final word.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
As ruling reinforced a trend in German law while
moral rights are protected,they're not absolute.
They're not absolute,especially in architecture.
The public's needs, safetyconsiderations and the owner's
control over the propertyusually tip the scale.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
It's a reminder that, even if your name is on the
original design, you don't geteternal veto power over future
changes.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Exactly, exactly.
Architects can often removetheir name from altered works if
they feel it represents theirvision, but they can't always
stop the changes themselves.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
So if you're a property owner, read your
contracts, and if you're anarchitect, remember.
Permanence is a negotiation,not a right.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
So what have we learned from all this?
Speaker 1 (17:37):
That, in architecture , creativity is personal
property, is practical and thelaw sits squarely in between,
and while you may own thebuilding, the story it tells
might still belong to someoneelse.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
All right, we've walked through shapes, sketches,
photos and feelings.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Now let's lay the foundation for what actually can
be protected in architecture,because the legal toolkit is
bigger than you might think.
We're talking copyright, designrights, trade dress, moral
rights basically an IP buffet,but only if you know what you're
looking for.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Let's break it down.
The first and most obviousprotection is copyright.
Copyright applies to two mainthings.
One, architectural plans anddrawings, the blueprints,
sketches and digital models.
Two, the actual constructedbuilding.
If it's original and showscreative expression, the built
structure itself can be acopyrighted work.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
But let's be clear your standard concrete box with
symmetrical windows probablywon't pass the originality test.
Copyright protects design, notdefault.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Exactly, and that protection kicks in
automatically the moment thework is created.
No registration needed in mostcountries, but registering can
help enforce your rights,especially if you want to sue
Next up design patents orindustrial designs, depending on
the country.
These are more technical andapply to ornamental features
(19:08):
like a unique staircase, facadeelement or even a modular unit
used in multiple buildings.
They have to be new,non-functional and filed before
public disclosure in mostjurisdictions.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
So if you're a prefab genius designing chic geometric
walls, file early, protectglobally.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Now let's talk trade dress.
It's part of trademark law andapplies when a building's
appearance acts like a brandidentifier.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Remember our guitar hotel.
That's trade dress magic, butonly if the look is
non-functional and instantlyrecognizable.
It's rare but powerful.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Think flagship stores , theme parks or hotels that
have an unmistakable shape.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Next on the list, moral rights.
These are all about authorshipand integrity.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
In many countries, architects have the right to be
credited as the author.
Object to distortions ormodifications of their work.
Refuse association with alteredversions, even if they've sold
the copyright.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
In civil law.
Countries like France, braziland Germany, these rights are
strong and in some cases theylast forever.
In others, like the US and UK,they're more limited and
sometimes waivable.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
And finally, freedom of Panama.
No protection, but an exception.
This allows people to useimages of buildings that are
permanently located in publicspace without needing permission
.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
But the fine print varies wildly.
You're free to post yourvacation photo in Toronto, but
don't try selling postcards of alit up Eiffel Tower without
checking the law.
So to recap, what can beprotected?
The design itself, copyright,the look and feel, design right
or trade dress, and in someplaces, your ability to share or
(21:04):
reproduce that design islimited by panorama laws.
In other words, architectureisn't just building stuff, it's
building rights and defendingthem Exactly.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
And knowing which tool to use can mean the
difference between owning yourmasterpiece or watching someone
else profit from it.
We've traveled from hotelsshaped like guitars to soccer
stadiums under scrutiny, andalong the way we've seen just
how layered architecture can be.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
And now, as promised, here are five takeaways to lock
in those legal blueprints.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Takeaway one shape cells.
If your building design is bold, recognizable and
non-functional, it may qualifyfor trademark protection as a
trade dress.
But generic won't cut it.
You need visual impact andlegal distinctiveness.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Takeaway two sketch stealing is still stealing.
Architectural plans arecreative works.
Copying them, even with smalltweaks, is a copyright violation
in most jurisdictions.
Respect the lines or risk thefine.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
Takeaway three ownership authorship Buying a
building doesn't mean you ownits design.
The architect still holdsrights over how that design is
used, altered or commercialized.
That includes image rights andmoral rights in many countries.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Takeaway four creativity has a light switch.
Design elements like lightingschemes or decorative features
can have their own copyright.
Even if the structure is in thepublic domain, added creative
components may still beprotected.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Takeaway five location changes the rules.
Freedom of panorama is notuniversal.
What's fair use in London mightbe infringement in Paris.
Always check local laws beforeusing photos of architecture in
commercial projects.
Whether you're an architect,developer, photographer or just
someone who appreciatesbeautiful spaces, understanding
(23:15):
these layers of protection canhelp you navigate the built
world more responsibly andcreatively.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Because, let's face it, great design deserves more
than admiration.
It deserves legal protection,credit and sometimes a good
lawyer.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
That's all for today's episode of Intangiblia.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
And I'm Artemisa and, just like a good foundation,
we're always here to supportyour ideas.
See you next time.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(24:06):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!