Newsletter
Do Interior Designs and Photographs of Such Designs Constitute Works Protected by Copyright? — Intellectual Property and Commercial Court Civil Judgment 2024 Min-Zhu-Su No. 73
I. Facts of the Case
(1) The plaintiff asserted that the legal representative of the defendant was formerly employed by the plaintiff as a project manager. During his tenure, he independently photographed and kept for himself photos of the finished works of the disputed interior design project. After leaving the plaintiff’s employment, this legal representative displayed the aforementioned photos of the interior design works on the “Jung Design Facebook Fan Page” to solicit clients for the defendant. By posting these photos on the disputed webpage, the legal representative attempted to mislead consumers into believing that all the works of the disputed interior design project were created by him. This constitutes the exploitation of the plaintiff’s completed interior design achievements, and the defendant is leveraging the plaintiff’s goodwill, which should be deemed as using manifestly unfair means to affect trading order.
(2) Accordingly, the plaintiff, pursuant to Article 84 and Article 88-1 of the Copyright Act, requested the deletion of the infringing materials. Additionally, based on the latter part of Paragraph 1, Article 195 of the Civil Code and Article 89 of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff requested the defendant to publish the judgment in a newspaper. The plaintiff also invoked Article 25 and Article 29 of the Fair Trade Act to request the defendant to eliminate and prevent the infringement.
II. Main Issue of the Case: Are the finished works of the disputed interior design project works protected under the Copyright Act? If so, what type of work do they constitute?
III. Court’s Opinion
(1) The photos of the disputed interior design project are not architectural works protected under the Copyright Act
When interior design is closely integrated with the structure of a building or is attached to the interior of a building, becoming an inseparable part of the building’s internal space or a part that is difficult to separate in terms of residential use, and expresses the author’s personality and uniqueness through its overall design—rather than merely being a common interior arrangement or the placement of furniture and decorations unrelated to the essence of architectural works—it may be considered an “architectural work” and thus be protected under the Copyright Act. However, the plaintiff did not specify facts regarding the arrangement, combination, and design of the internal space of the building, nor did he provide evidence to prove elements such as close integration with the building’s structure. Therefore, the claim that these photos constitute architectural works is clearly untenable.
(2) The photos of the disputed interior design project are not photographic works
If a photographer demonstrates independent creativity in aspects such as scene selection, lighting, focal adjustment, control of speed, or use of the shutter, and achieves a certain level of creative height, the resulting photos may be considered photographic works protected under the Copyright Act. The plaintiff’s photos show that the defendant’s legal representative merely documented the plaintiff company’s completed interior design results for the client, without expressing any original ideas during the shooting process. Furthermore, the photos do not demonstrate choices or adjustments regarding the subject, object, angle, or composition, nor do they reflect the creator’s thoughts or emotions. From the shooting angles, composition, and lighting, it is evident that these photos simply mechanically present the completed works and do not meet the originality requirement for photographic works under the Copyright Act. In summary, the court determined that the disputed design and its photos are neither architectural works nor photographic works under the Copyright Act.
IV. Determination of Whether Interior Design is Subject to Copyright Protection in the Cloud Gate v. Queitian Xiyue Case
In the copyright dispute over hotel room design between Cloud Gate (operator of Palais de Chine Hotel) and Queitian Xiyue (Queitian Hotel), both the first and second instance judgments of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court affirmed that interior design can constitute “other architectural works” protected by copyright. The retrial judgment further analyzed that although interior design may be a protectable subject matter, its scope of protection should exclude the placement of furniture, decorations, or other customary arrangements unrelated to the essence of architectural works.
V. Lessons Learned from Relevant Judgments
(1) The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court generally recognizes that interior design is a subject matter protected by copyright as a type of “other architectural works.” In addition to meeting the general requirements of originality and creativity under the Copyright Act, it must also demonstrate a close integration with the building’s structure and be related to the essence of architectural works. The placement of furniture, decorations, or other customary arrangements unrelated to the essence of architectural works is not protected by the Copyright Act.
(2) Therefore, for interior design to be protected under the Copyright Act, it is recommended that designers express their personality and uniqueness through both hard furnishings and soft decoration, and avoid merely using common arrangements of furniture and decorations. In addition, relevant evidence should be provided to specify the originality and creativity of the arrangement, combination, and design of the building’s internal space, as well as facts demonstrating close integration with the building’s structure, in order to maximize protection for interior design.