A Study on the Extents of Controversial ‘Architectural Plans’ within Architectural Works in Korean Copyright Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition and extents of architectural works vary from country to country. For instance, Korea, Japan and the US regard architectural works as an independent category of copyright while the UK, Australia, Canada and most European countries do as sub-category of artistic Besides, architectural works include building and its plans in the US; building and building model in the UK; building only in Japan; and building, plans and model in Korea. Moreover, not single country clearly codifies the definition and extents of architectural works in its copyright legislation. Therefore legal disputes concerning architectural copyright are proceeded without norms and their results are volatile depending upon judges to great extent. This specific problem is more severe in Korea, where the definition of architectural works is overly brief and vague as it is stated as a building, models, plans and similar architectural works. In this study, the definition and extents of architectural plans in terms of copyright are analyzed to set their copyrightable norms. In doing so, prevailing design process was examined and worldwide legal cases concerning architectural copyright were scrutinized. Finally, it is proposed to limit architectural works only to architectural plans (including design sketches) which show the overall form and internal layout. By contrast, construction documents including technical drawings, plans and specifications, with their functional and illustrative nature, should be treated as graphic or literary works rather than architectural
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".