Does converting a two-dimensional interior design drawing into the planning and design of the internal structure for a building involve copyright infringement? This depends on whether the interior design drawings are classified as "graphic works" or "architectural works."

 

If an interior design drawing is original and creative, it is considered a "graphic work" protected by the Copyright Act. The act of transforming the concepts expressed in the work, such as dimensions, specifications, or structural diagrams of equipment, into three-dimensional objects through construction conducted based on the work is considered an act of "implementation." If the three-dimensional object does not display the copyrighted content (i.e., the graphics) of the structural diagram or design drawing, it does not fall under the protection of the Copyright Act, and the act of implementation does not constitute copyright infringement.

 

On the other hand, "architectural works" include "architectural design drawings, architectural models, buildings, and other related items." An item can be considered an "architectural work" protected under the Copyright Act if the following is true: (1) the interior design of a building is closely integrated with the structure of said building or integrated into the interior of the building in a manner that cannot be distinguished or cannot be separated from the residential use of the building; and (2) it expresses the author's personality and uniqueness through its overall design and is not a common interior layout or furniture and decorative items unrelated to the essence of the architectural work. According to Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Copyright Act, carrying out decoration based on an interior design drawing can potentially meet the requirements for reproduction under the Copyright Act and constitute infringement of architectural works.

 

In the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court 110(2021)-Min-Chuo-Shang-Yi-Zi No. 14 Judgment from April 20, 2023, disputed interior design drawings were recognized as possessing both the nature of a graphic work and an architectural work. Consequently, the Court compared the results of the final decorated space with the disputed interior design drawings to determine whether the reproduction of an architectural work had been constituted.

 

In this case, the Court ultimately determined that although the walls, stairs, doors, and windows in the resulting decorated space were generally similar to those in the interior design drawings, this was likely because the internal structure and partitions of the building could not have been changed to allow for differences. However, other elements, such as wall decorations, the styles of pendant lights, and interior arches, varied from those in the interior design drawings. As for the furniture, although there were similarities between the furniture in the decorated space and that in the design drawings, the furniture either constituted items that already existed on the market or that were commonly seen in the type of venue subject to design in this case. The likelihood of differences of expression between the decorated space and the design drawings regarding elements like furniture was thus low. Therefore, the existence of common furniture and dim lighting in the designed space could not be deemed as reproduction.

 

As a result, from the perspective of an architectural work, the Court concluded that there were significant differences between the decorated space and the interior design drawings. Therefore, reproduction was not constituted as defined under the Copyright Act. Regarding the portion on graphic works, the decorated space was indeed developed based on the content of the disputed design drawings, but this is only an act of implementation and is not an act of reproduction regulated under the Copyright Act. Consequently, this case does not constitute copyright infringement.