Citation
Waterson, G. and Lee, R. (2001), "Copyright", Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2001.11319bab.001
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2001, MCB UP Limited
Copyright
Copyright
Jones v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council & another, The Times, 14 November 2000 Ch.D
In this case the issue was the extent to which the law of copyright protects an original design produced by an architect. The claimant had produced a unique design for a wrap around partition for the bath in drawings that he made for a housing development. The original developer for whom the designs were made, went into liquidation and the development was taken over by Tower Hamlets LBC and the Samuel Lewis Housing Association, which did not take part in the action. Mr Jones alleged that Tower Hamlets had copied his design for the wrap around partition and brought action for infringement of his copyright.
It is well known that the law of copyright does not protect architectural ideas or concepts because this would restrict their development (Designers Guild Ltd v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] FBR 212). However, the form in which such ideas and concepts is expressed is subject to protection by the law. The question is, therefore, what amounts to an infringement of copyright in a design? The court's view was that:
An architect might legitimately inspect an original plan or house and then having absorbed the architectural concept he might apply that concept in an original plan prepared by him.
The court acknowledged that there is a fine dividing line between this legitimate process and that where the architect inspected and then simply copied the plan or building. Much will depend on the degree of similarity and the way in which the alleged copier went about preparing his drawing or building (Murray & Woolley Pty & Others v. Hooker Homes Pty Ltd (1971) 2 NSWLR 278).
In this case, Mr Jones' design for the bath partition was a unique solution to the problem of a confined interior and was a visually significant part of the design of the houses. The court was therefore satisfied that it was protected by copyright and that this had been infringed by Tower Hamlets. Mr Jones was awarded damages equivalent to a reasonable fee for the drawing.