IP: Serious threat to intellectual property

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: "Joel Orr" <joelnorr () hotmail com>
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Cc: eliattia () attglobal net, noaattia () hotmail com
>
>
> Dear Dave,
>
> My friend, architect Eli Attia, has been through some shocking litigation, 
> in which judges may have wiped out a major part of the basis for 
> intellectual property. He has asked the Supreme Court to hear the issue; 
> an answer is expected in a few weeks.
>
> Since this issue touches ALL intellectual property, I thought the IP list 
> might be interested. Here is the request for signatures that he sent to 
> fellow architects.
>
> Warmly,
> Joel Orr
>
> The U.S. Court of Appeals has deemed architectural design solutions ˆ the 
> concept design ˆ as unprotectable by U.S. Copyright Law.
>
> If this decision is permitted to stand unchallenged, it is reasonable to 
> believe it will eventually pollute the rights of all creative fields.
>
> On May 25th, 2000, I submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to 
> reverse this ominous decision.  In fact, the Supreme Court is going to 
> first decide whether the issue is even important enough to be reviewed at 
> all, a decision that statistically has only a one-in-200 chance of a 
> positive outcome.
>
> The creative community in general, and the architectural community in 
> particular, can dramatically improve these odds by expressing the 
> importance of clearly defined copyright protection of architectural design 
> solutions to the practice of architecture.
>
> In its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals fully acknowledged that my 
> design for the $1 billion New York Hospital project was copied, even 
> traced, by HOK - the largest architectural firm in the country - but 
> concluded that concept design drawings are "general" and "preliminary" and 
> therefore not protected by copyright law. (See note)
>
> In this decision the Court suggested that the copyright law might not even 
> protect Frank Lloyd Wright's "preliminary sketches" of the facade of the 
> Guggenheim Museum.
>
> The Court of Appeals distinguished my drawings from the drawings of other 
> architects who had succeeded in their copyright claims by pointing out 
> that the drawings of those other architects were more detailed 
> construction drawings.
>
> It is inconceivable that the architectural concept design, which 
> represents the core of creativity in architecture, is not copyrightable, 
> while the technical construction drawings are.
>
> This case, which is about the heart and soul of architecture, was decided 
> without a trial.  The Court of Appeals overhauled the architectural 
> practice without a jury, without the aid of direct testimony and 
> cross-examination, and without the aid of expert witnesses.
>
> Please add your voice to the following statement and help reverse the 
> decision that places architects‚ design solutions in the minefield of 
> abandoned and unprotected work.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eli Attia
>
>
>
> Note:  Design drawings and models such as those that I prepared for New 
> York Hospital include all that the copyright law describes as protectable 
> architectural work:
> "An architectural work‚ is the design of a building as embodied in any 
> tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, 
> or drawings.  The work includes the overall form as well as the 
> arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does 
> not include individual standard features."  17 U.S.C. § 101.
>
>
>
> STATEMENT
>
> An architect's design solution - concept design - is the core of 
> creativity in architecture and must qualify for copyright protection.
>
> An architect's concept design drawings and models comprise the essence of 
> the architect's creative work. They represent specific solutions to 
> specific design problems and cannot be defined as "general" and "preliminary".
>
> It is crucial that the Supreme Court clearly defines the protection that 
> the Copyright Act affords architectural work.  This will serve to prevent 
> a potentially devastating encroachment on the rights of creative and 
> innovative architects, thereby preserving inspiration, innovation, and 
> progress in architecture and urbanism.
>
>
> name    occupation      date    signature
>
>
> Please return this signed statement to my office as soon as possible
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com