Journal Menu
By: Arshi Suleman and Tanvi Singh.
1. Student, Department of Architecture and Planning, DIT University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
Architecture thrives on creativity and originality, yet rising cases of plagiarism and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) violations threaten professional integrity. The aim of this research is to understand legal and ethical frameworks that balance creativity, authorship, and inspiration. While existing literature on architectural ethics, the Copyright Act, and IPR focuses on broad legal principles, their practical application in architecture remains underexplored. Comparison with international frameworks reveals gaps in India’s legal and ethical systems, emphasizing the need for stronger alignment with global standards to protect creativity and authorship. Using thematic analysis, the study combines surveys, interviews, and secondary data from legal and policy documents, including Council of Architecture (CoA) guidelines and professional codes of conduct. This research explains the dynamics of ethical governance, authorship, and professional accountability in architecture, understanding how ethical and legal frameworks safeguard creativity and authenticity in design. Findings reveal poor IPR awareness, weak enforcement, and institutional gaps in ethical regulation.
Keywords: COA, code of conduct, copyright act, IPR, plagiarism
Citation:
Refrences:
- M. Copyright protection for the architectural designs in India: A comparative analysis of the Copyright Act, 1957 with international standards. J Novel Res Innov Dev. 2024;2(11):a176–a184. Available from: https://tijer.org/JNRID/papers/JNRID2411019.pdf.
- Wojtkun G. Originality versus plagiarism and similarity in architecture: Copyright aspects of architectural design. Space Form | Przestrz Forma. 2022;(52). Available from: https://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-53d6910b-8cfd-4b68-a3d1-5d6a31568e78/c/DOI10_21005_pif_2022_52_B-06_Wojtkun.pdf.
- Eweda NM. Intellectual property in architecture: Between legislations and ethical manifestations with special reference to the Egyptian case. Archnet-IJAR. 2011;5(3):96–107. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265582861_Intellectual_property_in_architecture_Between_legislations_and_ethical_manifestations_with_special_reference_to_the_Egyptian_case.
- Lin J, Long W, Zhang A, Chai Y. Blockchain and IoT-based architecture design for intellectual property protection. Int J Crowd Sci. 2020;4(3):283–293. doi: 1108/JCS-03-2020-0007.
- Lovrics C. Intellectual property and architecture: Copyright protection in focus. Intellect Prop J. 2020. Available from: https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102jvzj-intellectual-property-architecture-copyright-protection-in-focus/.
- Hancks GB. Copyright protection for architectural design: A conceptual and practical criticism. Wash Law Rev. 1996;71:403–434. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/
pdf. - Ruhtiani M, Prihatinah TL, Sulistyandari S, Park HK, Whindari Y. Legal protection of architectural works as copyright: An epistemological and Islamic law perspective. El-Mashlahah. 2024;14(1).
- Government of India. The Copyright Act, 1957. Available from: https://www.copyright.gov .in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf.
- Prakash D. Case comment on Raj Rewal v. Union of India & Ors. Indraprastha Law Rev. 2020. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345358895_CASE_COMMENT_
ON_RAJ_REWAL_V_UNION_OF_INDIA_ORS. - Supreme Court of India. Anil Agarwal v. Delhi Vidyut Board. (2000) 3 SCC 1.
- Council of Architecture (CoA). Manual of Architectural Practice (MAP) – Volume I: Guidelines for architectural practice. New Delhi: Council of Architecture; 2011. Available from: https://www.scribd.com/document/755633932/Volume-1-MAP.
- Supreme Court of India. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority. (2015) 3 SCC 49. Available from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31621011/.
- World Intellectual Property Organization. Works of architecture: WIPO/UNESCO report. Publication No. 120(E). Geneva: WIPO; 1986. Available from: https://www.wipo.int/edocs /pubdocs/en/copyright/120/wipo_pub_120_1986_12.pdf.
- European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs. Off J Eur Communities. 1998;L289:28–35. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1998/71/oj.
- Hixon T. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990: At odds with the traditional limitations of American copyright law. Ariz Law Rev. 1995;37:629. Available from: https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/arizlrev/article/8139/galley/7533/download/.
- Simatupang TH, Nugroho TWA, Lukito I, Ginting AR. Study on the application of the concept of substantial similarity for the protection of architectural works towards renewal of the copyright law in Indonesia. Adv Soc Sci Educ Humanit Res. 2021;592. Available from: https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/iclhr-21/125963838.
- Supreme Court of India. Eastern Book Company v. D. B. Modak. 36 PTC 1 (SC); 2008. Available from: https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/intellectual-property-rights/eastern-book-company-v-d-b-modak-2008-36-ptc-1-sc.
- Zhilskiy N, Shariapova E, Matveeva M. Protection of intellectual property of an architect. E3S Web Conf. 2019;91. Available from: https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/abs/2019 /17/e3sconf_tpacee2019_05029/e3sconf_tpacee2019_05029.html.
- Bradberry LJ. Putting the house back together again: the scope of copyright protection for architectural works. La Law Rev. 2015;75(3):1087–1114. Available from: https://digitalcommons .law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol75/iss3/10.