This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Architecture and society have interdependent relationship. Architects have viewed their craft as both expressing and driving culture. Architecture and society have a profoundly. Architecture expresses the values of its cultural context; at the same time it helps create the culture that it inhabits. Architecture plays an important role in society. For example, architecture performs invaluable utilitarian functions: Intelligent and creative architectural design makes everyday tasks infinitely easier. In addition to its direct economic importance, architecture also promotes scientific advancement: The needs of architecture provided the impetuses for such varied technical advancements as the flush toilet, the elevator, reinforced concrete, plate glass, and the air conditioner, to name only a few. Architecture not only have direct economic importance, but also promotes scientific advancement. The social importance of architecture led most European nations to extend some copyright protection to architectural works. The scope of the protection offered by these nations' ranges from quite limited to very broad protection. In many countries, including India as well as United States, works of architecture did not receive copyright protection because the law viewed architecture with regard to its utilitarian aspects, rather than considering for its beauty as a work of art. However, the Berne Convention of which India is a member protects works of architecture, and the Copyright law under it extends protection to certain works of original authorship which are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Article 2(1) of the Convention provides that the expression "literary and artistic works" shall include "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression."  Among the works protected by article 2(1) are works of architecture, illustrations and plans relative to architecture, and three-dimensional works relative to architecture. Architectural design represents a unique combination of innovation and imitation. The copyright law under the Convention adequately protects illustrations, plans and three-dimensional works relative to architecture
This work, tries to analyse the protection offered to Copyright in 'Works of Architecture' or 'Architectural Works' under the Berne Convention and implementation of the related provisions amongst various countries, that are members to the Berne Convention..
At the time of the first Berne treaty in 1886, no member country provided specific statutory protection for architectural structures. The original text of the Berne Convention reflected this gap, naming as protected subject matter only plans, sketches and plastic works relative toâ€¦ architecture. However, the question of appropriate copyright protection for architecture was far from settled. In 1887, the tenth Congress of the Association litteraire et artistique international (ALAI) discussed protection for works of architecture, and soon the rights of architects become an important matter for consideration. In 1890, the Belgian writer Jules de Borchgrave, published an influential article calling for formal recognition of copyright protection for architectural structures.  In his article, Borchgrave took the position that architects like painters, writers, and musicians create new and original artistic works of the human spirit. It is inequitable, he argued, to rob the architect of the fruit of his labors while guaranteeing the same to other artists. Borchgrave answered his critics by denying that copyright protection would extend to vulgar, banal, or servile imitations of public domain buildings, and by asserting that expanding an architect's rights would not limit the rights of a building's owner any more than an artist's copyright limits the owner of a painting.
Borchgrave's manifesto received immediate support at the three consecutive ALAI Conferences of Neuchatel (1891), Milan (1892), and Antwerp (1894), all of which adopted resolutions urging explicit protection of architectural structures. The International Office responded to the growing demand for equal treatment of architects by conducting a survey of the extent of copyright protection afforded architecture in Berne Union countries. The report recommended amending the list of enumerated protected works already contained in Art. 4 of the Convention to include architectural structures, and advocated uniform recognition among the participating nations of an architect's copyright in his structures. Many authors and architects organizations continued to call for complete copyright protection for architecture. In 1907, Germany ended its opposition and revised its copyright law to encompass architectural works of an artistic character. At the 1908 Berlin Revision Conference, it was the German representatives who introduced an amendment requiring this protection from all Union members. Altered in form but not in substance, the proposal succeeded, and the phrase "works of architecture" was formally added to the list of protected works. Interestingly, at this time not every Union member's laws complied with this new provision. However, the doubts of the countries whose laws did not comply seem to have been resolved during the Berlin Revision debates: with the exception of Norway, they all soon adopted amendments affording the broader protection to architectural works.
The delegates squarely addressed the issue at the 1896 Paris Conference of the Berne Convention.  Those in favor of revising Art. 4 condemned the existing loophole, which, in many member nations, afforded protection against two-dimensional reproductions of an architect's plans but did not prohibit construction of a building from those plans. They also pointed out that works of architecture created without blueprints received no protection at all. The hopes of those urging expanded protection ran aground on the firm opposition of the British, German, and Norwegian representatives, who feared that even the most mundane or common structures would be encompassed by the proposed amendment.
The compromise reached at the Paris Conference was the addition of Para. 1A to the closing protocol, which extended protection under the Convention to architectural structures in only those member countries that already recognized these rights. No reciprocity was required, but the Conference encouraged Union members to move toward a uniform approach. 
II architecture provision under berne convention
The national laws of Berne member countries were never uniform with regard to architecture. That the 1908 revision was approved by the delegations, even though several countries did not yet provide explicit protection for architectural works, shows that Berne provides some flexibility to individual member nation
Although limited in scope, this work's survey indicates that the Convention neither demands nor provides a uniform code for architecture, and that each Berne member has retained and even now retains independence with regard to implementation and application. However, as one commentator has noted, collecting, cataloging, and analyzing each country's statutory provisions and case law referring to architectural works is a "herculean task." Faced with the obstacles of over eighty Union members, continuing revisions in statutory language and at least in some countries, an utter lack of reported judicial decisions, any compilation, like this one, is bound to be incomplete.  The following survey focuses on the approach of Berne member countries to architecture in four major areas:
(1) the range of protected subject matter and standards of copyrightability;
(2) the determination of authorship in architectural works;
(3) the rights enjoyed by architects and other copyright owners of architectural works, along with the corresponding limitations on those rights; and,
(4) the remedies available in infringement actions.
Categories of Works. 
Most Berne countries provide a list of protected works in their copyright laws, though these lists are not necessarily exhaustive naming 'works of architecture,' as well as 'plans, sketches, and three-dimensional works relative to architecture.'
For example, in the United Kingdom, an artistic work includes "a graphic work . . . (and) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building." Several countries use more general language, such as "works of architecture," "architectural plans and works," or even the very broad term "artistic works."
If uncertainty remains as to whether the statutory language consist both structures and works related to architecture, certain countries clarify the meaning of their statutory language in subsequent sections, most notably in those delimiting rights and remedies. In many cases, when a country's "protected works" provision is read with other statutory language, the statute as a whole can be understood to provide that copyright subsists in structures, as well as in plans, models, and other works relative to architecture. In some countries case law may add additional support for this view or, as in countries with very broadly written statutes, case law alone may provide this interpretation.
The statutes of Brazil and Spain make no clear reference to buildings or structures, and one can interpret their specific enumerations of works relative to architecture as intentionally excluding structures. Spain, while amending its copyright law, recognized that this language does not correspond with that of article 2(1) of Berne, but considered the difference 'minor.' A Brazilian commentator on architecture acknowledged the vagueness, gaps, and imperfections of his country's copyright law, and his analysis suggests that copyright protection does not extend to a building once constructed, but only to plans and their use.  These two statutes are significant for broad range of acceptable interpretations and means of implementation available to member countries under the Berne Convention.
Standards of Copyright ability.
Although the statutes may indicate whether a category of works is protected, they rarely provide much guidance in determining whether an individual work merits copyright protection. The parameters of copyright ability are difficult to codify. Nevertheless, the statutes of several Berne member countries provide general guideposts. For example, several countries define a building as 'any structure,' and their courts have given this term a wide application, finding both the interior of a factory and a garden with steps, walls, and ponds, to be structures.
Because architecture involves both art and technical processes, the question of which features of a building or plan embody copyrightable expression is especially difficult. Italy grants additional rights or advantages to authors of artistic architectural works. Australia specifically rejects this subjective standard and extends protection to all original architectural works whether "of artistic quality or not." Similarly, France and Bulgaria protect works of architecture without regard to their function, merit, or purpose. The statutes of most Berne countries are silent on the criteria for copyright ability of architectural works, but insofar as they make no additional demands on the level of originality required, they seem to follow a simple originality standard. However, perhaps in response to perceived dangers in applying an originality standard to a technical work of art, in India the Copyright Act additionally provides that copyright does not encompass any process or method. The case laws of Berne member countries is, of course, more useful in discovering the import of the bare statutory language. Early cases suggested that copyright protection hinged on the architectural work's artistic qualities and revealed the prejudices of the time by excluding works with a utilitarian purpose. While these principles have not lost all force in recent cases, they largely have been supplanted by the more general concept of 'originality.'
Some Berne members statutorily limit protection to 'original' works, and their courts, either by applying the statutory language or by arriving at the principle independently, help to define this concept. For instance, one English court has emphasized that "original does not mean completely new and inventive, but only that the work is original with its author, not servility copied from another."  The statutes and case law of Berne member countries indicate that architectural structures are widely, but not universally, accepted as copyrightable subject matter. Additionally, these sources suggest that structures, like other works of art, are protectable if original.
Few countries make special provisions for determining the author of architectural works. Most, if they define authorship at all, provide only the general statement that the author is the 'creator' of the work. While this could refer to the builder or the individual who hired the architect, it generally has been interpreted to mean that the architect, as the creator of the plans, is the author of both the plans and the structure. This is the case because it was the architect's personal vision that produced the works.  In contrast, the builder is a mere "part of the machinery employed in the production of the structure which embodies the design and the ideas of the architect." 
The question of authorship of a commissioned work of architecture is less clear but tends to favor the architect.  Even where the architect must work under such strict directives from the commissioning body that he feels he is in a "straight-jacket," he nevertheless produces plans which are his own, "bearing in mind the imperatives imposed upon" him. In some countries, however, it is possible, although apparently not common, for an architect to be under a "contract of service," in which the employer is the author. Additionally, if an architect is working for the state, he may be considered a kind of "employee for hire." 
Joint authorship is possible if the contributions of the authors cannot be separated distinctly. However, when the author is not just one or more individuals, but all of the members of a modern architectural firm, the question of who retains rights in the work is not easily answered. In fact, this has become a very difficult problem in those countries in which the concept of copyright is founded on the personal, moral rights of the author.
Rights and Limitations
While the laws of Berne Convention countries are fairly uniform on the question of authorship, they vary substantially on the issue of which rights architects and other owners of copyrights in architectural works can exercise. Additionally, when compared with the rights of other authors, architects' rights are more severely restricted by limiting provisions. This stems largely from the conflicting interests inherent in architectural works. The desire of an architect to preserve the integrity of his design can conflict directly with the right of an owner to modify his property. Architects may want to control all reproduction of their work, but this control, in effect, might prohibit photographers and painters from practicing their own art. Furthermore, an architect's rights, if pushed to the limit, could interfere with the public's right of access to its own cultural heritage. Recognizing these problems, most countries have attempted to accommodate and balance the opposing interests through specific statutory provisions.
The rights enumerated in the laws of Berne member countries are far from uniform. Many countries specifically provide for both moral and economic rights, while others do not make this distinction. Although each country describes and delineates authors' rights in its own unique way, the rights most often associated with architectural works are those of reproduction, integrity, and paternity. Other rights, such as the right to correct or retract works which no longer represent the author's views, while potentially available to architects, have little practical application.
The Reproduction Right.
An architect can wield great economic clout by invoking his right to reproduce his works. Because of the complicated nature of the art of architecture, the reproduction right takes many forms. At the simplest level, it prohibits unauthorized duplication of the architect's plans and sketches, for example by photocopying or tracing. This right also restrains a second architect from redrawing the designs  or from transforming a simple sketch into a formal plan. Absent a transfer of the right, it remains with the architect, although a license to reproduce the designs in promotional material may be implied as part of the purchase agreement.  In the United States, the view is that the unauthorized construction of a building cannot infringe an architect's rights in his plans, because a three-dimensional structure is not considered to be a 'copy' of a two-dimensional drawing. Other Berne countries, however, hold the opposite view.  They recognize that the purpose of a plan lies in its use in constructing a building, not in its decorative potential as a drawing. An architectural plan finds its meaning and purpose in the use to which it is put. The point of the architect's activities is not the making of plans as such, but the embodiment in the building of artistic and other ideas which he has in mind and which are contained in his plan. The plan is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. To deny originality to the artistic design embodied in a building by attributing originality only to the plans which led to the building would be to give reality to the shadow and refuse it to the substance  The American position, that copyright in a plan can be infringed only by two-dimensional reproductions, is clear and simple. An English court, however, worried that it would lead to "very unsatisfactory results," since photocopying a plan could lead to an infringement action, while actually constructing the building depicted in a plan could not, even though the architect is more severely harmed by the latter act.  To avoid this result, many Berne countries have codified the architect's exclusive right to execute his designs.
Unethical clients and builders cannot side-step the architect's reproduction right by making minor changes in the plans prior to construction or by building just a part of the plan.  But if they borrow only insignificant or non-original details, then the construction will not infringe the architect's rights because it will not reproduce a substantial part of the work in a material form.  This general rule protects architects as well as building owners by encouraging original artistic quotation.
Although an architect can prohibit unauthorized construction from his plans, he generally cannot insist that he be hired to carry out the work.  Additionally, the transfer of the designs to the client usually carries with it a one-time right to build.  This permission may be express, but, where it is not, foreign courts freely imply authorization to execute  and make changes to the plans necessary for construction. While a one-time use right protects an architect's future interests in his designs, courts also recognize the client's interests in the work he has commissioned. Consequently, the client may be able to object if the architect attempts to reuse those plans for another project. 
Once an original building is erected, the copyright in the structure can be infringed if its design is reproduced in other buildings. For instance, the West German statute makes clear that reproduction of a work of architecture by building constitutes copying. Infringement can occur even though the infringer did not have access to the working plans, models, or sketches. Construction based on visual inspection alone can constitute an unauthorized reproduction of the copyrightable design of the building. In some countries, even continuing the original architect's design in a later extension of the building has been held to be an infringing reproduction of the main work. There must be more than a mere resemblance, achieved either by copying the entire work or by reproducing a significant percentage of its parts. Where an architect learns from the architectural work of others but produces his own independent works, he does no harm to the rights of the prior architects, for only their expression is protected, not their ideas. As long as a new structure is original, the mere fact that it was inspired by other buildings is not sufficient for a determination of infringement. 
While the copyright in plans can be infringed either by other plans or by three-dimensional reproductions, not all Berne countries provide that a two-dimensional non-plan copy, such as a photograph or a painting, can infringe the copyright in a structure.
In other countries, however, copyright in buildings can be infringed by these types of images. Indeed, in attempting to protect the rights of architects, French law has reached startling results. While these are not typical cases, French law is extraordinarily protective of authors. Several countries, however, permit even commercial two-dimensional reproductions of buildings located in public spaces.
The Integrity Right.
A second right, which is variously considered either economic or moral, is the right of the author to control alterations or modifications of his work. Often known as the integrity right, it frequently becomes a contentious issue between architects and owners when the latter wish to modify their works. The conflict between the property interests of the owner, who may need to enlarge or modernize his building, and the copyright interests of the architect, who desires to maintain the integrity of his design, is difficult to resolve. 
The Paternity Right.
A right that often comes into play when an architect objects to the result of an owner's modifications is the right to claim or deny authorship. This moral right is often known as the 'paternity right', 'identification right' or 'attribution right'. It is the right of the author to have his name on the work, or to choose to have the work published anonymously or pseudonymously. It ensures both that the author will receive credit for his efforts and that he will be protected from damage to his reputation.
In sum, the laws of Berne members vary greatly in defining and limiting an architect's rights in his works. While most countries at least recognize, either explicitly by statute or in case law, that the special nature of architecture requires certain constraints on the ways in which an architect may exercise his rights, Union members reach different solutions to this problem. In the area of remedies, however, there is a broad consensus.
Just as an architect's rights are limited by specific statutory provisions, so are his remedies. Many Berne countries, including India, prohibit injunctions to halt unauthorized alteration of a building or its construction once substantially begun.  However, when changes are still at a planning stage, a court may grant an injunction to protect the architect's moral integrity right.  A court might also grant an injunction against the use of, or reliance on, an architect's plans in order to protect the author's economic interests in his designs.
The great cost and labor involved in constructing an architectural work underlie the policy reasons against permitting an architect to demand the destruction of an infringing building. Many Berne countries have recognized that remedies appropriate for most types of art must be modified when applied to architectural works and have refused to allow the destruction of infringing buildings. However, these limitations on the destruction remedy may not apply to plans, blueprints, and other two-dimensional materials because, where these works are concerned, policies against expense and waste of labor are not so compelling as to override policies against copyright infringement.
In general then, an architect's remedy is limited to damages, calculated in several countries as the fee he would have charged for his services. 
III Works of architecture: The Indian position
Under the former Indian copyright statute, architectural plans were protected as 'literary works.' But, after the enactment of the new Act, copyright subsists in original architectural drawings or plans, which come within the definition of an artistic work.
This copyright is infringed not only by reproduction of the drawings or plan itself, but by the construction of a building or structure in accordance with such drawings or plans without the consent of the owner of the copyright. But S. 52 (1)(x) provides an exception to it. According to this provision, it is not an infringement of the copyright in the architectural drawings or plans to reconstruct a building or plans by reference to which the building or structure was originally constructed if the original construction was made with the consent or license of the owner of the copyright in such drawing or plan. This can be done even by engaging another architect to supervise the construction.
The exclusive rights conferred on the copyright owner of a work of architecture are the same as those for other artistic works.  Under Sec. 2 (a)(ii) the adaptation of an artistic work includes the convention of a work into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise. This does not appear to be applicable to a work of architecture which is also an artistic work under the definition. However, the making of a work of architecture involving rearrangement or alteration by use of the original is an adaptation of the original work and would therefore, constitute infringement of the work if done without authority from the original copyright owner. 
Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, a work of architecture means any building or structure having an artistic character or design or any model of such building or structure.  Publication of an architectural work can mean only publication of its model. The making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture is not an infringement of the copyright in the work, under Indian law. 
When an architect prepares a plan at the request of a client, the copyright remains in the architect.  The client is barred from reproducing those plans or any substantive part of those plans either in the form of another form or in the form of a building itself, unless he has express or implied license of the architect. But, when the architect charges the full fee for the work, that fee should be taken to include permission to use the plans for the building of that very house.  The client is however, the owner of that plan. 
In a case, where the architects were paid full fee for preparing plans for erecting two houses on a plot of land, the owners of the plot later sold the land to the defendants to whom they handed over the plan as well. It was held that the plaintiffs had impliedly licensed the owners to use the plans for the buildings on the site and the implied license extended to another architect employed by the owners and also to a purchaser of the plot, but for no other purpose. Copyright protection has to be given to an artistic work such as a drawing or plan and not to the ideas or concepts embodied in it. An infringing version has to be derived from the copyrighted work.  While considering whether a substantial part of an architectural drawing had been taken, it is important and relevant to take into account whether there was a common stock of architectural ideas which everyone was free to use and which no one was allowed to monopoly
IV analysis the gap in indian law dealing with architecture work
In India Copyright law should protect the architect from substantial reproduction of his or her designs without authorization, whether copied from plans or the building itself. Limitations in copyright protection result in disparity of treatment between architectural works and other artistic works. There is little incentive for architects to develop new designs if, once they construct a building, others may freely copy its design. But, when the architect charges the full fee for the work, that fee should be taken to include permission to use the plans for the building of that very house.  The client is however, the owner of that plan. 
. This contravenes one of the well-respected principles of intellectual property law that the law should not allow one to reap where he has not sown. Because buildings which are aesthetically pleasing as well as functional benefit the public, architects should have the exclusive right, for a limited time, to reproduce the structures they have designed. Like sculptors and dramatists, architects are creators, and therefore their works should not receive any less protection under copyright law than sculptures or movies. Once protected, it will act as a reward to the architects for their ingenuity and effort. The protection to architectural structures, it has been argued, would encourage architectural advances. Copyright does not protect technical processes or methods. If they are protected at all, it is through patent. As long as the definition of 'works of architecture' contains limiting language to this effect, there is no reason to fear that copyright protection will halt technical advances.The exclusive rights conferred on the copyright owner of a work of architecture are the same as those for other artistic works.  Under Sec. 2 (a)(ii) the adaptation of an artistic work includes the convention of a work into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise. This does not appear to be applicable to a work of architecture which is also an artistic work under the definition.
There are three common ways to pirate an architect's design:
(1) directly copying copyrighted plans;
(2) using copyrighted plans without copying them; and
(3) observing a structure built from copyrighted plans to create another set of plans. 
This pirating of copyrighted architectural designs diminishes the value of architects' copyrights and may harm their reputation and livelihood
According to the as long as a new structure is original, the mere fact that it was inspired by other buildings is not sufficient for a determination of infringement.  While the copyright in plans can be infringed either by other plans or by three-dimensional reproductions, not all Berne countries provide that a two-dimensional non-plan copy, such as a photograph or a painting, can infringe the copyright in a structure that is not clear in Indian law.
The American position, that copyright in a plan can be infringed only by two-dimensional reproductions, is clear and simple. An English court, however, worried that it would lead to "very unsatisfactory results," since photocopying a plan could lead to an infringement action, while actually constructing the building depicted in a plan could not, even though the architect is more severely harmed by the latter act.  To avoid this result, many Berne countries have codified the architect's exclusive right to execute his designs which is not clear in our Indian law
v Arguments against recognition of copyright in architectural works
Some who oppose copyright protection for structures argue that in the litigious environment like India, the architecture community would be buried under an avalanche of frivolous infringement suits.  However, the experiences of major Berne member countries such as France and the United Kingdom suggest that comparatively little of the copyright case load comes from disputes over architecture. In some situations, architects seem inclined to accept the flattery of imitation, or, as in the other arts, there may be just too little at stake to bring the issue to court.
The second argument against protection of structures is that it will stifle creativity and slow progress to a snail's pace.  Why this should be true in architecture but not true in music, dance, and painting is unclear. Copyright does not protect technical processes or methods. If they are protected at all, it is through patent. As long as the definition of 'works of architecture' contains limiting language to this effect, there is no reason to fear that copyright protection will halt technical advances. Architects need not rush to be the first to use a Corinthian column or a glass curtain wall, for the general concept of these elements is free for all to use. Moreover, insofar as Corinthian columns and glass curtain walls combine 'decorative' or 'ornamental' aspects with technical features, only those original latter-day design features would be protected. For example, this might mean that copyright protection would extend only to the equivalent of a particular floral motif on a capital design, or to the original arrangement of window mullions and I-beams. 
At some point each of us has marveled at an architectural structure's beauty. Architecture surrounds us, and becomes the landscape of our cities. Architecture is history, "reflecting the philosophical, intellectual currents, hopes, and aspirations of its time." Although we are moved by an architectural structure's beauty, we rarely considered its value as an intellectual property.
As the statutes and case law of Berne member countries indicate, the Convention does not mandate a single scheme for the protection of architecture. Instead, within its stated parameters, it permits each member to develop its own theory and practice. The result has been a general uniformity of approach in the areas of protected works, authorship, and remedies. The same is largely true with regard to standards of copyright ability for architecture. While some countries continue to struggle with the artistic character criteria, most have moved toward an originality standard.
On the other hand, although many countries agree that the useful and technical nature of architecture requires special treatment, fewer consensuses exists in defining the scope of an architect's rights. In an attempt to move nations toward a more uniform approach to architecture, the administrative bodies of WIPO and UNESCO submitted guidelines for countries considering future copyright revisions. These guidelines, based on the long experience of Berne members in applying copyright principles to architecture, are useful points of reference for participants in any future revision of the copyright law.
While the Berne Convention is the strongest of the international copyright treaties and provides a high level of protection, the implementation and interpretation of its standards is left largely to the discretion of the individual member countries. Professor Paul Goldstein has described Berne as a group of ships, of all sizes and shapes, moored to the same dock. The details of each are different, but they all rise and fall with the same tide. In the case of architecture, the laws of Berne countries are diverse in structure as well as interpretation.
While, for some, accepting the true spirit of the Convention was an unappealing or even an unfortunate alternative, acceptance has produced significant benefits for the architecture community. First, acknowledging architects' interests in controlling the use of their plans undoubtedly has expanded the financial expectations they have in their designs, for it has given them the power to demand a licensing fee when their plans are used to construct the work depicted. This approach has recognized that, after all, the most valuable aspect of a plan is its use. To ignore this, and to limit copyright protection to the two-dimensional reproduction of the plans, is to "give reality to the shadow and refuse it to the substance" of the architect's work.
Third, this has enhanced the prestige of the profession of architecture. Works of architecture, though utilitarian, are also works of creative, personal expression and, as such, should enjoy a level of protection on a par with the other fine arts. It is inequitable to provide strong copyright protection for every group of artists except architects.
Furthermore, this protection has given architects greater certainty in their working relations. Rather than relying on elaborate contracts and indemnity clauses, architects now vindicate their reproduction rights, even as against third parties, through copyright. This to some extent, has lessened the burdens of preparatory legal work in the typical architecture commission and has given architects the assurance, granted to other artists, that they are protected against unknown future infringers.
Society as a whole has benefitted from the changes that increased copyright protection to architectural works brought. As architects began to vindicate their rights against slavish imitators, their colleagues have been encouraged to proceed with more originality and innovation. This in turn has increased variety in the built environment and enhanced progress in the field.