Newsletter
Distinguishing Between Artistic Works and Architectural Works: Does the Conversion of a Two-Dimensional Work to a Three-Dimensional Work Constitute Copyright Infringement?
I. Overview
Subparagraph 5, Paragraph 1, Article 3 of the Copyright Act stipulates the following: "Reproduce means to reproduce directly, indirectly, permanently, or temporarily a work by means of printing, reprography, sound recording, video recording, photography, handwritten notes, or otherwise. The construction of an architecture based on architectural drawings or architectural models also falls into such category.
It can be inferred that the construction of "three-dimensional architecture" based on "planar architectural drawings" falls into the category of "reproduction." However, when making a "three-dimensional" object based on a "planar" "pictorial and graphical works" or "artistic works," unless it is attached in planar form to the three-dimensional object, it is not considered a "reproduction" but an "implementation" that is not subject to copyright protection in practice of Taiwan (see Supreme Court's Criminal Judgment 93-Tai-Shang-Zi No. 5488 and Supreme Court's Criminal Judgment 86-Tai-Shang-Zi No. 5222). Thus, the determination of the type of work for the design drawing has a decisive impact on whether the use of the work for "the conversion of a two-dimensional work to a three-dimensional work" constitutes copyright infringement.
The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court's Civil Judgment 112- No. 56 dated September 5, 2024, determined the criteria for distinguishing between "architectural works" and "artistic works," and elaborated on its determination of copyright infringement thereof.
II. Facts of the case
The plaintiff won the design engineering bid project for installation art with a landscape imagery setting. Then its employee completed the "Pentagon Pavilion" design drawing (hereafter "the disputed design drawing"). The plaintiff then entered into an engineering contract with the defendant company, which shall create the three-dimensional "Pentagon Pavilion" installation art by following the contract and the plaintiff's instructions.
However, the defendant subsequently completed the installation art based on the disputed design drawing and the actual scene photos (hereafter "the disputed photos," taken by the plaintiff's employee) won an award at the exhibition. The defendant company then published the disputed photos on Facebook and the official exhibition website.
III. Judgement of the case
(i.) Distinguishing between artistic works and architectural works
The judgment indicated that "artistic work" refers to the expression of lines, brightness and darkness, or shapes by employing artistic techniques such as drawing, coloring, writing, sculpting or shaping. This is a work of aesthetic art by expressing thoughts and feelings. Thus, the requirement of the artistic work should include expression of artistic techniques. This will be performed by an artist who expresses thoughts or feelings through artistic techniques and the creation of artistic work.
As a result, the disputed design drawing is a combination of bamboo tubes, metal components and lighting in terms of appearance, features and manufacturing process and other drawings and text, etc., with the addition of size, location, construction instructions and other content for different graphics and texts. The artistic features such as color combinations, composition, scene and mood changes, etc., are the result of the creator's use of different expressive methods. The expressive methods are not unique or very few, and the aesthetic sense and thoughts expressed have a certain level of creativity, presenting the unique concept and artistic nature of the creator. This is neither a simple nor practical design. Thus, it falls into a category of "artistic works" rather than "architectural works."
(ii.) The disputed design drawing was an artistic work. The defendants' use of the plaintiff's work to convert it from two-dimensional to three-dimensional did not infringe the plaintiff's reproduction or adaptation rights.
The court determined that the "Pentagon Pavilion" installation art completed by the defendant's company based on the disputed design drawing. This is not the reproduction work via "converting from two-dimensional to three-dimensional." Even if the results of the work performed by the defendant company in accordance with the contract are different from the disputed design drawings, according to the contract, it should be resolved by mutual agreement, so it does not infringe on the reproduction rights or alteration rights of the disputed design drawings of the plaintiff.
(iii.) The defendants' reproduction and public transmission of the disputed photos constitute copyright infringement.
The court ruled that the defendants' acts of reproducing and publicly transmitting the disputed photos, by "fully" using such photos on Facebook, were intended to obtain profits for commercial purposes. That is to say, participating in the competition with the disputed photos aimed to promote or enhance the defendant's popularity, which is regarded as acts of commercial use, and such acts will certainly impact the plaintiff's potential market and current value. This does not a fair use of "quoting" others' work as prescribed in Article 52 of the Copyright Act. Thus, the defendants were found to have infringed the plaintiff's copyright and was ordered to pay the plaintiff NT$50,000 in damages.
(iv.) The plaintiff's claims that were not adopted by the court.
1. The court held that "the disputed design drawing" and "the disputed photos" were the creation of the plaintiff's employee at work. According to the Copyright Act, the copyright moral rights were owned by the plaintiff's employee instead of the plaintiff, and thus the defendants did not violate the plaintiff's moral rights.
2. The organizer of the exhibition confirmed that the defendant's company did not include the disputed design drawing in the exhibition submission materials after the court's inquiry by letter. Therefore, the court determined that the defendants had not infringed the copyright property rights of the disputed design drawings.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment clarifies the distinction between "artistic works" and "architectural works," which hinges on whether the work is an expression of artistic skills or no more than a functional design. Then, the determination of the type of the work shall be further elaborated to discuss whether the work falls under the category of an "artistic work," "architectural work" or another type of work. This plays a crucial role on whether the transformation of a two-dimensional design drawings into a three-dimensional object constitutes a copyright infringement.