VOLUME 24   ISSUE 17   September 15, 2026

The Federal Copyright Act was amended twice in the 1990s to expand protection for works of architecture. Although pictorial and graphic depictions of structures had been protected under the Act, architectural works now became a distinct category, and architectural plans were also protected. But what does the term “plans” encompass?

A federal appeals court recently addressed this question. The court concluded that “plans” include not just graphic representations created for artistic purposes, but functional drawings as well. Floor plans and renderings are included.

The second case in this issue involved a project owner suing a contractor for noncompliant work outside the time limitations of a state statute. The owner argued that the time period had been extended by the contractor’s reasonable explanation of the cause of the problem and by the contractor’s continued work after the problem was first detected.

The third case interprets a contractual scope of work requiring an architect to “check contractor’s schedules.” Does that refer to hardware and finish schedules, or does it include review of the contractor’s monthly updates of its CPM performance schedule?

A federal statute governing the copyright of architectural works applied not only to pictorial depictions of buildings but also to functional drawings, such as floor plans and renderings. However, a separate statutory prohibition on removing copyright notices from works used in internet marketing did not apply to the failure to place the notice on newly created works.

Neither a contractor’s explanation of a problem nor the continuing performance of the work extended a project owner’s statutory period for filing suit against an architect for inadequate specification and inspection of the work.

The term “check contractor’s schedules” in the architectural services scope of work is ambiguous. Extrinsic evidence, including the procuring agency's prior practices, has to be examined.