To what extent do intellectual property rights apply to architectural designs in the context of finished buildings? The case which I'm writing about today ultimately went to the Cour de Cassation and involved the construction of a commercial building in Quimper. The architect, Mr X, designed the building, which was to be built in two stages. The first stage was built in 1995, but the project stopped there for financial reasons and the second phase wasn’t built, except for foundations.
Then in 2005, another company, SCI Mafi, bought the site and hired a new architect, Mr Y, to design a new office building to be built on the foundations that were to have been for phase two of Mr X’s building. Mr X sought an interdict against this new project and took the case to the Tribunal de Grande Instance at Quimper in October 2007. He argued that his moral rights as an architect in his work had been infringed by the new construction. The Tribunal refused to order the demolition of the new building, but did order SCI Mafi to pay damages. At this stage Mr Y was not involved in the litigation.
Mr X then appealed to the Cour d’Appel, in Rennes, which heard the case in January 2011. Mr Y joined in in opposing his appeal. The court affirmed that an architect has copyright and moral rights in their work. This is independent of the ownership of the physical property in which the work is manifested. Both these rights, both these owners, have to be balanced, neither is absolute. The builder can therefore make modifications, but only if necessary. Mr X had argued that building a new building onto his infringed his copyright. However, the court held that in accepting to take on this two stage project, with the possibility that only one phase might be completed, Mr X had given up on the completion of the project and thus lost his right as author over the original project. The fault was with the original builder, SCI le Colisée, for not building the second phase and for only applying for conditional planning permission for the second part. This required accepting the possibility of ending the project there. Mafi bought the adjacent plot to Mr X’s finished building. Mr Y designed the new building, but didn’t alter the existing work. The new building was in a variety of styles, but the area was one of variety in building styles. Furthermore, Mr Y’s changes were in part derived from the need to conserve energy. The Cour d’Appel therefore found against Mr X.
Mr X appealed further to the Cour de Cassation, in October 2012. Mr X argued that he had a moral right, that it wasn’t explicitly renounced and was therefore still valid, and that the owner must respect that right unless constrained to by reasons beyond their control. However, the Cour de Cassation said that the moral right wasn’t renounced, merely had to be balanced against the physical owner’s right, which it had been, and that the new building did not infringe. The court therefore rejected the appeal.
References
