+
From: "Prem Chandavarkar" <prem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:30:58 +0530
Anand,
Does the issue of copyright law apply to the Bunker Roy episode?
Copyright is intended to protect the original creator against rip-off
artists who would thus deprive the creator from enjoying the fruit of his
creation. It is therefore intended to regulate competition between
architects - the concern is whether another architect will rip off 'my
design'. Since the bulk of architectural production is specific to site,
client and other physical context issues it is not as liable to copyright
violation as other forms of artistic production which are more mobile and
less context sensitive (such as music, software, and literature). Therefore
copyright has not been as burning an issue as it has been in these other
disciplines. One could make the case that ideas on architecture which are
not intended for building should receive some sort of copyright protection.
But the counter argument would be the open source software dictum of
'Publish the recipe, and open a restaurant' - arguing that the value lies in
specific implemented transactions. Therefore creativity of the profession
as a whole is enhanced if generic ideas are allowed to float freely without
overly restrictive copyright protection.
The Bunker Roy episode however is not a case of one architect trying to rip
off another. It is a case of a client refusing to give due credit to the
architect. Should this be governed by copyright law or is it a case for
contract law. I would argue that it is the latter. The case that clients
often put forward here (for incorporation into contracts) is "since I have
paid you, the resultant drawings, models etc. should become my property". I
do not think that architects have a problem per se with this claim since
they are generally not seeking to claim further payment beyond fees that are
due. However ownership of the drawings and credit for design are two
separate issues which should not be confused. Contract law and the
resultant framing of contracts should reflect this fact.
Prem