{"id":7503,"date":"2025-12-22T09:21:43","date_gmt":"2025-12-22T07:21:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/?page_id=7503"},"modified":"2026-02-04T11:02:42","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T09:02:42","slug":"2025-4-3","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/2025-4-3\/","title":{"rendered":"2025-4-3"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u0422\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0456\u044f \u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456
\u2116 4 \/ 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\" PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/42025.346582<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Submitted     2025-11-05
Accepted      2025-11-18
Published      2025-12-15<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Some peculiarities of creation and use of architectural objects: distinction between a piece of architecture and a utilitarian structure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Vadym Khytruk<\/strong>
PhD student of the Intellectual Property Scientific Research Institute of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine
Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0007-2578-2036<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Abstract
<\/strong>A comprehensive examination of the criteria for differentiating an architectural work from an architectural object as a utilitarian structure, with particular emphasis on Ukrainian legislation in comparison with international legal standards, is provided in this article. Using a doctrinal and comparative method, it analyses Ukrainian copyright law alongside international and foreign frameworks (EU, United Kingdom, United States, Canada) and relevant case law. The study argues that copyright safeguards only those features that embody the author\u2019s free and creative choices, while elements dictated by building norms, functional necessity, market standards, or technical constraints fall outside protection. Methodologically, the study traces the creation process across stages \u2014 sketches, drawings, models, project documentation, and construction \u2014 showing how copyright becomes effective from the moment a design is fixed in an objective form, and clarifies the coexistence of copyright in the design and property rights in the built structure, including the tension between the owner\u2019s needs (use, alteration, demolition) and the author\u2019s moral right of integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article compares the criterion of the author\u2019s own intellectual creation, the United Kingdom\u2019s inclusion of buildings as artistic works subject to originality, and the US AWCPA\u2019s recognition of architectural works while excluding standard components, alongside the treatment of scenes a faire and merger in plan-based disputes. It also proposes an operational two-step process for practice: identify original design elements and filter those that are functionally required. On that basis, it formulates practical guidance for licensing and re-use (including repeated construction), reconstruction and modifications, and digital exploitation (e.g., photorealistic models in games), translating abstract originality criteria into actionable contract clauses and risk screens for architects, developers, and rights holders. The contribution lies in a clear, practitioner-ready framework that protects expressive architectural form without monopolising functional solutions, thereby aligning incentives for creative design with the public interest in buildable, repeatable, and safe structures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords: <\/strong>copyright, piece of architecture, originality, case law<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0411\u0435\u0440\u043d\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0456\u044f \u043f\u0440\u043e \u043e\u0445\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u0443 \u043b\u0456\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0456 \u0445\u0443\u0434\u043e\u0436\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0442\u0432\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0432. \u041f\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0437\u044c\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0410\u043a\u0442 \u0432\u0456\u0434 24 \u043b\u0438\u043f\u043d\u044f 1971 \u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443, \u0437\u043c\u0456\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0439 2 \u0436\u043e\u0432\u0442\u043d\u044f 1979 \u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443.
https:\/\/zakon.rada.gov.ua\/laws\/show\/995_051#Text<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u041f\u0440\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0456 \u0441\u0443\u043c\u0456\u0436\u043d\u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 : \u0417\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0432\u0456\u0434 01 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u0434\u043d\u044f 2022 \u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443 \u2116 2811-\u0406\u0425. \u041e\u0444\u0456\u0446\u0456\u0439\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0432\u0456\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438. 2023. \u2116 3. \u0421\u0442. 196.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgment of the court in Case C-145\/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH.
https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/PDF\/?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0145<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgment of the court in Case C-683\/17 Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestu\u00e1rio SA.
eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/PDF\/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0683<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/1988\/48\/contents<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerr-Wilson G., Boyd K., Architectural Designs: Are They Copyrightable?, 29 November 2023.
https:\/\/www.mondaq.com\/canada\/copyright\/1395522\/architectural-designs-are-they-copyrightable<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990.
https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/101st-congress\/house-bill\/3990\/text<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

17 U.S. Code \u00a7 102.
https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/17\/102<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Report on Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990.
https:\/\/www.copyright.gov\/reports\/copyright-amendments-act-of-1990.pdf <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0414\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0440 \u0412\u0441\u0435\u0441\u0432\u0456\u0442\u043d\u044c\u043e\u0457 \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u043f\u0440\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0432\u0456\u0434 20 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u0434\u043d\u044f 1996 \u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443.
https:\/\/zakon.rada.gov.ua\/laws\/show\/995_770#Text<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feeley \u0415. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act: Concerning the Originality of \u00abCookie-Cutter\u00bb Homes.
https:\/\/ucipclj.org\/2021\/04\/28\/the-architectural-works-copyright-protection-act-concerning-the-originality-of-cookie-cutter-homes\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., No. 12-3448 (2d Cir. 2014).
https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca2\/12-3448\/12-3448-2014-06-05.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intervest Construction v. Canterbury Estate Homes (11th Cir. 2008).
https:\/\/opencasebook.org\/documents\/513\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u0422\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0456\u044f \u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456\u2116 4 \/ 2025 ISSN (Print) 2308-0361ISSN (Online) 2519-2744 DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/42025.346582 Submitted     2025-11-05Accepted      2025-11-18Published      2025-12-15 Some peculiarities of creation and use of architectural objects: distinction between a piece of architecture and a utilitarian structure Vadym KhytrukPhD student of the Intellectual Property Scientific Research Institute of the National Academy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-7503","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7503","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7503"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7503\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8138,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7503\/revisions\/8138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}