CHANDIGARH, April 16: Did the Chandigarh College of Architecture infringe on the copyright of the Government College of Art in that the former is just a replica of the latter in its exactness? Or does the City Museum infringe upon the copyright of the Exhibition Pavillion in Zurich on which it is based? The city architects were faced with such thought-provoking aspects of their profession when Jagdish Sagar, the UT Advisor, delivered a lecture on "Copyright: What an Architect Should Know" at the Chandigarh College of Architecture, this evening.Sagar's enlightening lecture proved to be his farewell gift to the assemblage of architects as they confronted many things that never before were featured in their career. "Architects are generally complacent. They do not come to know when their designs are lifted or some structures are recreated with inspiration drawn from them." More than the copyright, Sagar stressed on the moral rights of a work that rested with the creator."The Fondation Le Corbusier can seek an injunction against some of the alterations made to Corbusier's buildings like the secretariat in Chandigarh. This amounts to infringement upon his moral rights." But, unfortunately, the terms and conditions of the Act make an architect's venture in the public sector or for the government the property of the state. "So the Chandigarh project remains with the government, not with Corbusier. Where does the architect stand?"Sagar said, "By intellectual property, one means that physical possession of an artistic or architectural product does not make you the owner of its content or its idea or its concept. But idea is not protected in the Copyright Act. Interestingly all plagiarism is not infringement of copyright." Sagar highlighted the loopholes which befitted the case of the CCA. Noting the grey areas in this, he said,`` While deciding on such issue, the court has to see whether any similarities between two works have to do with reproduction which may be direct, that is of the work, or indirect, that is the reproduction of a reproduction."Regarding architecture, the main loophole lies in Section 13 [2][iii] of the Copyright Act as it says, "A work of architecture is protected only if it is located in India." Sagar added, "This provision may possibly be in violation of our international obligations." The Act does not define the work of architecture clearly as it says, "Any building or structure having an artistic character or design or any model for such building or structure." But, Sagar noted, courts in India never adjudicated on this. Nor is there any Indian case law to decide on the real meaning of the architectural work of art.
