Copyright on building renovations
<p>Prompted by David Siegel's <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/64967/can-photographs-of-landmark-properties-be-used-commercially">answer</a>,
specifically his final sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>if a building is old enough that it is not protected by copyright, there is no protection.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would this apply when the building has recently been altered in some way?</p>
<p>I assume that a substantial alteration, such as a new wing, might have its own copyright but what about a fresh lick of paint on the front door or having wooden window frames replaced with uPVC ones?</p>
<p>I appreciate that it is highly likely to be fact-specific and although I've added the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a> tag for consistency, I'm interested in people's thoughts from any jurisdiction.</p>

<p>The key to limits on protection of architectural works in the US is the definition of the term in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17 USC 101</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any
tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural
plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the
arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but
does not include individual standard features.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The US Copyright office explains what this means in <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Circular 41</a>, saying</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The authorship in an architectural work includes the overall form of
the building — the exterior elevations of the building when viewed
from the front, rear, and sides — as well as any arrangement and
composition of walls or other permanent structures that divide the
interior into separate rooms and spaces. Copyright does not protect
the following elements:</p>
<p>Individual standard features of the architectural work, such as
windows, doors, or other staple building components.</p>
<p>Standard configurations of spaces, such as a square bathroom or
one-room cabin.</p>
<p>Purely functional features of an architectural work, such as
innovations in architectural engineering or construction techniques.</p>
<p>Interior design, such as the selection and placement of furniture,
lighting, paint, or similar items.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This explicitly excludes paint. <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 300</a> of the <em>Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices</em> and especially <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ch. 900</a> goes into further detail of things excluded, such as &quot;Common architecture moldings, such as the volute used to decorate Ionic and Corinthian columns&quot;, &quot;Common patterns, such as standard chevron, polka dot, checkerboard, or houndstooth designs&quot;.</p>

<p>The copyright, at least in the US, is on the <strong>architectural design</strong> as <strong>implemented</strong> in the building. I think it is obvious that simply repairing damaged paint would not affect this, any more than fixing a typo in a text long out of copyright grants a new copyright to a new edition.</p>
<p>A new wing would clearly have its own copyright, just as an added chapter would in an old book. But as with the book, only the new elements would be protected. Whether a change such as redoing windows in a different  material would make the building a derivative work with a new copyright I am less sure of, but I am inclined to think not.</p>
<p><strong>Edit</strong> Based on the provisions of 17 USC 101 quoted in another answer, things such as window replacements would <strong>not</strong> have a copyright effect.</p>

united-states copyright