Copyrights for architectural images in the AI era
Architecture is a referential discipline. From ziggurats, machines for life, to contemporary biophilic high-rise designs, it’s impossible to know if ideas are truly new or if they’ve been conceptualized before. Artificial intelligence has fueled the conversation intellectual property (IP) even more. As millions generate unique graphic work by typing keywords, controversies have arisen, particularly over the protection of creative work and the royalty of architects in their creations. Therefore, understanding the scope of what is being protected helps determine whether licenses are sufficient, or trademark the long road of registration is worth it; or maybe a graphic piece cannot be protected and belongs to the public domain.
Images can have multiple forms of rights protection. royalty for photographs and creative work is common, but trademark protection may be required if the image is used to identify the source of a specific product or service. Images can also be licensed, including the Ai produced. On the other hand, footage may have aspects that cannot be protected and belong to the public domain, such as architectural and technical representations, or standard elements, such as doors, materials or structures.
The following section serves as a guide for creators on their copyright journey; however, cases differ, so it may be helpful to consult a lawyer or legal service for advice.
Copyright and Trademark
Copyright protects the rights of “authors” to their original creative works, including architectural and design drawings. The author of a copyrighted work has the exclusive right to reproduce (print or copy) the creative content. Registration is optional, but highly recommended. It provides the author with legal benefits, including the ability to use the royalty against offenders in court. While royalty protects original work, a trademark protects items that distinguish or identify one particular company from another. A trademark is a symbol, word, logo or color that identifies the source of a product or service.
Trademark Laws vary from country to country. For example, Colombia allows architects “not to associate their name with modified work, including plans and images”, while in Europe the right to the integrity of a work also includes protecting it from unauthorized material alteration or damage to the author’s reputation . There are no restrictions for tourists to photograph through the Auditorio de Tenerife in Spain Santiago Calatravathe Auditorio’s image was registered as a trademark. Since 2003 Tenerife, SAU has charged commercial operators for the use of its external space for film and photography and requires the final product to be approved by the media department before publication. A deposit is also requested to guarantee the correct use of the images.
In any case of legal license, protect economic or moral rights requires lawyer services, which implies red tape and money. In the case of a reproduction of a piece, a license gives a person or entity (“licensee”) permission to use a work belonging to the copyright owner, usually in exchange for payment. Several organizations act as a third party, e.g. GNU General Public License, Creative Commons (CC)or help determine whether a piece is in the public domain.
Third Party License
Creative Commons (CC) is an international network that provides attribution tools based on aggregated data from publicly available content sources for anyone to use. An image (blueprints, artwork, photos, or renders) can be modified under six copyright licenses. e.g. CC BY-NC enables re-users to distribute, remix, adapt and build on the material in any medium or format for non-commercial purposes only; CC DOOR will allow use of the material in any medium or format, so long as the creator is credited. However, CC is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice and is not a substitute for a law firm.
DALL-E and Mid trip, the two main AI-powered image generators, use an artificial intelligence system trained on public datasets to produce their assets. Such assets may be inadvertently similar to copyrighted material or trademarks; however, both have different approaches to IP protection.
Midjourney grants a license under the “Asset License” Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 for non-paying members. That allows one to use the images as long as it doesn’t make a profit and as long as one gives Midjourney credit (“attribution”). For paid services, the image belongs to the creator, even if the piece is a remix of someone else’s work, meaning someone else can also use your image as the basis for their experiments. However, even if you have generated a graphic piece and have all rights to use the images the service creates, Midjourney also retains its license to use your works, including sublicenses.
In DALL-E, users are given full usage rights for all media they create on DALL-E 2, including rights to reprints, sales and merchandise. However, it is unclear whether the images the platform uses to train its algorithms have been properly released and legally authorized for that use.
What is not protected?
An image containing the “idea” of a skyscraper cannot be copyrighted. If it were, only one architect would be able to draw high-rises and some words would be banned on Ai platforms for legal reasons. As such, unprotected elements of a copyrighted image can be: (1) Scenès à faire, eg a claim of graphic infringement on a skyline or distinctive scene; (2) ideas instead of expression, eg a roof drawing; (3) facts and other public information; and (4) expressions indistinguishable from the underlying ideas, e.g. geometry and representation of classical or modern architecture are all recognized styles from which architects draw. Style elements are not protected.
More than ever, technology is performing creative tasks that encourage designers to explore AI, and in the case of architecture, referencing and remembering are part of the discipline. For that reason, copyright in many jurisdictions remains open to interpretation, taking into account whether architecture, including imagery, should be protected in its own category. Perhaps separating architecture from “artistic works” and “graphic works” could develop another special branch in the discipline that could contribute to copyright laws in an era of Artificial intelligenceinspiration and plagiarism.
