Similar, but not the same
Series: Building ; 266(8167) 2 February 2001, 64-65(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the copyright issues surrounding the use of architects' drawings when the architects in question have ceased to be involved with the project. Until "Jones v Tower Hamlets LBC" it had been presumed that the project could not proceed without infringing copyright but the case reinforced the principal that copyright protects artistic works rather than the ideas they convey and the notion that similarities between schemes are often due to constraints imposed by the brief and the site and not plagiarism. Considers the use of collateral warranties and copyright licences.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63385 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110818-1001 |
Discusses the copyright issues surrounding the use of architects' drawings when the architects in question have ceased to be involved with the project. Until "Jones v Tower Hamlets LBC" it had been presumed that the project could not proceed without infringing copyright but the case reinforced the principal that copyright protects artistic works rather than the ideas they convey and the notion that similarities between schemes are often due to constraints imposed by the brief and the site and not plagiarism. Considers the use of collateral warranties and copyright licences.