United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Case no.: 23-50750
Date filed: August 21, 2026

A federal appeals court has ruled that the statutory copyright for architectural works applies not only to pictorial or graphic works but also to functional drawings, such as floor plans and digital renderings.

Kip Flores Architects LLC (KFA) registered copyrights in three building plans, as well as technical drawings for one of the three. The registration was under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA), 17 U.S.C. section 120(a).

KFA entered into a licensing agreement with American Housing Ventures, LLC (AHV). The license allowed AHV to use KFA’s architectural works and technical drawings for construction and marketing purposes within a 50-mile radius of Austin, Texas. The agreement required AHV to include KFA’s copyright management information and copyright symbol on each architectural work. Failure to do so would be deemed a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. section 1202(b).

AHV hired another company, AGS Graphics, to produce floor plans and renderings based on KFA’s architectural works. The completed drawings and renderings did not include KFA’s copyright notice or otherwise mention KFA. Within a couple of years, AHV constructed buildings embodying each of KFAs' copyrighted works in subdivisions in the Austin area.

AHV informed KFA that it wanted to use the licensed works in a new development being constructed by an affiliated company, AMH Creekside Development LLC. With KFA’s consent, AHV partially assigned the licensing agreement to AMH. The latter used the floor plans and renderings that did not bear KFA’s copyright notice for internet marketing. When the architect discovered this, they sued AHV and AMH for copyright infringement under the AWCPA and for violation of the DMCA.

A federal district court dismissed both those claims. The AWCPA imposes a time limitation on copyright protection for architectural works which have already been constructed “if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.” The works in question had already been constructed in public places, so they were not protected by copyright.

With regard to the DMCA claim, the district court said that the statute prohibits removing a copyright notice from an architectural work, but does not mandate placing the notice on newly created documents, such as floor plans.

KFA appealed. The architect argued that the AWCPA applies only to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural depictions, not to utilitarian documents such as floor plans and renderings. KFA had a copyright to those plans under a separate statute, and that copyright had not been extinguished by the construction of the buildings. In addition, the architect’s licensing agreement expressly required inclusion of its copyright notice on every architectural work, including newly created documents.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said this was the first time it had been called upon to interpret these architectural copyright statutes, both of which were 1990s amendments to the Copyright Act of 1976. The court reasoned that there was nothing in the AWCPA indicating an intention to limit the statute to artistic depictions and to exclude utilitarian drawings.

“KFA argues first that the floorplans and digital renderings fall outside section 120(a) because they are not ‘pictorial representations.’ I disagree. . . . While some pictures and photographs are produced for artistic purposes, others (like the floorplans and renderings here) are chiefly utilitarian. . . . In short, section 120(a) covers all pictorial representations—whether created for artistic, functional, or mixed purposes.”

The court also said that the temporal limitation of the AWCPA does not depend on when the pictorial representation was created, but on when the distribution or display (the copyright infringement) occurred. Here, it was undetermined whether AMH had used the floor plan and rendering in internet marketing prior to the completion of construction of a building embodying those documents. On remand, the federal district court would have to make this factual finding.

With regard to the alleged violation of the DMCA, the court acknowledged that KFA’s licensing agreement expressly required the licensee to include the copyright notice on every architectural work. But KFA was seeking a remedy under the statute. The DMCA prohibits removing copyright notices from works. It does not address the failure to place the notice on newly created works. Private parties cannot alter the scope of statutory protection via contract. The federal district court properly dismissed this claim.

This ruling conflicts with a 2021 ruling from the Eighth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which held that the AWCPA, 17 U.S.C. section 120(a), does not apply to floor plans because they are not “pictorial representations” of a building. (Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., 9 F.4th 803 [8th Cir. 2021]).

The law on this issue is unsettled. There is no harm and only modest expense in registering a copyright on floor plans. That copyright may or may not be enforceable under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act.

Participants:
For Kip Flores Architects: Louis Karl Bonham; Houston, Texas
For AMH Creekside Development: Adam G. Unikowsky; Washington, D.C.
For American Housing Ventures: James G. Ruiz; Austin, Texas
Before: Judges Haynes, Willett, and Oldham
Opinion by: Judge Willett
Outcome: Dismissal of AWCPA claim vacated, matter remanded, and dismissal of DMCA claim affirmed

Source: Please click here to read the complete opinion.