February 18, 2017
Time to clean out the ol' half-written blog post inbox!
What does it mean to call a building a “forgery”? Is it possible to forge a work of architecture in the same way that a painting can be forged?
In Japan, apparently architectural forgery means that you have forged the certificate stating how much your building cost, which is used to determine if your building meets earthquake codes. Unfortunately, this seems to have happened with some frequency, resulting in buildings that are not safe to inhabit, and are a danger for buildings next door.
In the US, buildings are now copyright (since changes to the copyright act in 1990), so it’s possible to “forge” a building by copying it. The professor of my Professional Practice course told us a story of desperate clients who copied a house. They first contacted the architect of the house that they had noticed while driving around their neighborhood, asking if the architect would build them an identical house. The architect said no, because the owners of the house did not want a copy of their house in their neighborhood. In architecture, the architect owns (has copyright over) their “instruments of service,” meaning their drawings, which means that the architect gets to decide if and when to re-use the drawings. Often, though, the architect will honor the wishes of the owners in making the decision on whether or not a design, like a house, gets used again.
The unhappy neighbors who could not get the architect to build a copy of the house for them went to a contractor instead, who secretly measured the house and built it from his measurements. Of course, the owners found out, since the house was built in their neighborhood! The architect (and the court) was able to determine that the house was indeed a forgery, copied from the built work, since it contained changes that were made in the field; if the architectural drawings themselves had been copied to build the second house, it would not have contained those changes. I can’t remember if the result was that the house was torn down, or that the neighbors paid a steep fine, but the point is that it is now possible to sue someone for copying your house, and not just stealing architectural drawings.
Intellectual property in architecture is a tricky thing. It seems obvious that we can draw a line at outright theft of drawings, or of clandestine reproduction of someone else’s house, but now that buildings themselves are copyright, what does this mean for influences from one architect to another? In practice, probably nothing, since I can’t imagine this law will be used to prosecute architects who merely borrow ideas from others rather than wholesale lifting of entire works. But I think it does raise the question of attribution and borrowing, and for me, underscores the importance of acknowledging our sources. Architects don’t always seem to do a good job of citing their sources.
In any case, next time you want to steal a house - by building your own copy - try not to build it too close to the original. Your neighbors won’t be pleased.