Judge Rules Architectural Renderings Have Copyright Protections
Does not have to serve as a blueprint in order to be protected from distribution.
Architectural renderings enjoy the same copyright protection as Edward Hopper or Claude Monet's paintings of houses, the 2nd Circuit ruled, reviving a case that could hold major realtors accountable for infringement.
Scholz Design says it produced drawings of three luxurious, tree-shaded houses, "Springvalley A," "Wethersfield B," and "Breckinridge A," which it registered in the Copyright Office in 1988 and 1989.
Although they were not detailed enough to serve as construction blueprints, the Connecticut-based company Sard Custom Homes used these renderings as a guide to build the homes, according to the court's summary.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?