Summary

Architecture as a specific form of art differs from other arts by its functional purpose. While dealing with the protection of the rights of architects as authors, the special features of architecture should also be taken into account. Problems are primarily caused in connection with the originality requirement prescribed by the law, as, considering the nature of the creative process carried out by architects, it is not sufficient to regard all works created by an architect as works and the concept of originality should be accompanied by an additional criterion of creativity. However, such concept of originality of an architectural work does not easily lend itself to definition. In theory, it is difficult to draw a line between the protected and unprotected results of an architect's creative work. The author analyses what kind of results of the author's creativity in the field of architecture qualify as works. Comparisons are drawn from the Finnish Copyright Act and case law and from the respective Anglo-American regulation.