U.S. Code » Title 17 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT

17 U.S.C. § 120

Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 17 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Pictorial Representations Permitted.—The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.(b)Alterations to and Destruction of Buildings.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(2), the owners of a building embodying an architectural work may, without the consent of the author or copyright owner of the architectural work, make or authorize the making of alterations to such building, and destroy or authorize the destruction of such building.(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title VII, § 704(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5133.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990, and any architectural work, that, on Dec. 1, 1990, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under this title terminates on Dec. 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date, see section 706 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Cornice & Rose Int'l, LLC v. Four Keys, 76 F.4th 1116 (8th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cornice & Rose Int'l, LLC v. Four Keys, 76 F.4th 1116 (8th Cir. 2023). · cites it 4× “On September 20, 2021, the district court3 dismissed Counts I and II because (i) C&R failed to allege any copying, (ii) the Building owner’s right to finish the Building is protected from a claim of copyright infringement by 17 U.S.C. § 120 (b), and (iii) Counts I and II are…”
Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Ltd., 334 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “" 17 U.S.C. § 120 (a). &pizza is a restaurant chain, see Compl.”
T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2006). “For instance, the AWCPA excludes from the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works "the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is…”
Landrau v. Solis Betancourt, 554 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.P.R. 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 1125 (a), the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act(“AWCPA”), 17 U.S.C. § 120 , the Copyright Act, 17 U.”
Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Ltd., 965 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “” 17 U.S.C. § 120 (a). Nonetheless, IMAPizza complains that the taking of pictures in its U.”
Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia Hse of Brokers Realty, 9 F.4th 803 (8th Cir. 2021). “The district court held that it did. We disagree, but we do not rule out the possibility that some other defense might be available.”
Leicester v. Warner Bros., 232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 5× “17 U.S.C. § 120 (a). Leicester argues that the court erred by refusing to consider the Zanja Madre as a unitary sculptural work, and *1214 by construing the 1990 Act so as to eliminate separate protection for sculptural works attached to buildings.”
Guillot-Vogt Assocs., Inc. v. Holly & Smith, 848 F. Supp. 682 (E.D. La. 1994). · cites it 2× “The State’s Right to Alter its Buildings In a twist on its first argument, the' State next argues that 17 U.S.C. § 120 (b) prevents GVA from asserting any copyright rights because the Project involves an alteration to an existing structure.”
Gaylord v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 59 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “A limitation on such copyright protection was codified in 17 U.S.C. § 120 , which states that copyright protection in an architectural work “does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial…”
Builders Mut. Ins. v. Donald A. Gardner Architects, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 773 (D.S.C. 2012). · cites it 2× “In support of its motion, Builders alleges that the website photograph does not constitute copyright infringement because 17 U.S.C. § 120 (a) creates an exemption for photographs of architectural works.”
Tiffany Design, Inc. v. Reno-Tahoe Specialty, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Nev. 1999). · cites it 2× “Defendant first asserts that its scanning and manipulation of six well-known Las Vegas landmarks cannot be actionable, since the owners of copyrights to “architectural works” may not prevent the making or distribution of pictorial representations of such structures if they are…”
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Kipp Flores Architects, LLC, 602 F. App'x 985 (5th Cir. 2015). “Next, Mid-Continent argues that, under § 120(a) of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, 17 U.S.C. § 120 (a), Hallmark’s use of KFA’s designs did not actually constitute copyright infringement.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.