The Supreme Administrative Court held that pursuant to § 2, para. 9 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (LCRR), permanent objects that represent the synthesis between architecture and other arts should be regarded as works of architecture. Under Article 12, para. 2 of the LCRR, copyright in a work of architecture, created after realising the architectural design, belongs to the person who created the architectural design. With respect to works of architecture that are permanent objects that are the synthesis of architecture with other arts, it is not the author of the separate elements of applied art that owns the copyright in the whole work, but the author of the architectural design.

Further, the proprietor of a work of architecture is not obliged to use the work for the duration of its copyright protection. The author may not object to the intention of the proprietor to destroy the work of architecture, if it is in compliance with the effective legislation  (Article 15, para. 2 of the LCRR).

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Copyright Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *