Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Steve Unsworth writes: > Just in Paris, Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, many > people visit these places because of the > architectural statement they make. Sure, but neither structure was intended primarily as a pretty image. In other words, the Eiffel Tower was built to be the highest structure in the world, and Notre-Dame was built to serve as a place of worship. Their interest as pure images, if any, is very accessory to their primary purpose. > Would people queue to go up the Eiffel tower > if it were a 10 metre high plain brick building? Turn this around: If the Eiffel Tower were just a picture, would anyone be able to go up inside of it at all? In other words, the Eiffel Tower is primarily a structure that people enter and use, not an image. There comes a point when something passes from the domain of a creative work (protected by copyright) into the domain of a useful product (protected by a patent), or still again into the domain of an important symbol (protected by a trademark). There is a lot of overlap, but it seems extreme to me that an architect--who is paid primarily to build useful structures--should assert copyright protection over the mere _image_ of what he has constructed. And this can be tested simply: Replace the appearance of the structure with some other appearance and see if it fulfills the same function--the answer is yes. Now replace the structure with something else, leaving only a similar appearance, and see if it fulfills the same function--the answer is no. Therefore appearance is not of the essence of the architect's work, no matter how much he might like to believe otherwise. Apparently U.S. legislators agree, because they removed copyright protection of the mere _image_ of an architectural work explicitly in statute. > If you believe that the answer is no, then surely > you accept that the building's appearance has > an effect on its revenue generating potential. Both of the buildings you name would be just as famous, and just as capable of generating revenue, even if their appearances were quite different. People go to the Eiffel Tower because it is famous and tall and provides a good view; this would still be true even if it looked like a giant soup can. Similarly, people visit Notre-Dame because of its historical importance as a religious edifice; and this would still be true even if it looked like a giant breadbox. Indeed, Notre-Dame and the Pompidou Center (the one with all the pipes on the outside) get many visitors, and for reasons that are more similar than different, even though they look nothing at all like each other.