ДЕЯКІ ОСОБЛИВОСТІ СТВОРЕННЯ І ВИКОРИСТАННЯ ОБ’ЄКТІВ АРХІТЕКТУРИ: РОЗМЕЖУВАННЯ ТВОРУ АРХІТЕКТУРИ ТА УТИЛІТАРНОЇ КОНСТРУКЦІЇ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive examination of the criteria for differentiating an architectural work from an architectural object as a utilitarian structure, with particular emphasis on Ukrainian legislation in comparison with international legal standards, is provided in this article. Using a doctrinal and comparative method, it analyses Ukrainian copyright law alongside international and foreign frameworks (EU, United Kingdom, United States, Canada) and relevant case law. The study argues that copyright safeguards only those features that embody the author’s free and creative choices, while elements dictated by building norms, functional necessity, market standards, or technical constraints fall outside protection. Methodologically, the study traces the creation process across stages — sketches, drawings, models, project documentation, and construction — showing how copyright becomes effective from the moment a design is fixed in an objective form, and clarifies the coexistence of copyright in the design and property rights in the built structure, including the tension between the owner’s needs (use, alteration, demolition) and the author’s moral right of integrity.The article compares the criterion of the author’s own intellectual creation, the United Kingdom’s inclusion of buildings as artistic works subject to originality, and the US AWCPA’s recognition of architectural works while excluding standard components, alongside the treatment of scenes a faire and merger in plan-based disputes. It also proposes an operational two-step process for practice: identify original design elements and filter those that are functionally required. On that basis, it formulates practical guidance for licensing and re-use (including repeated construction), reconstruction and modifications, and digital exploitation (e.g., photorealistic models in games), translating abstract originality criteria into actionable contractclauses and risk screens for architects, developers, and rights holders. The contribution lies in a clear, practitioner-ready framework that protects expressive architectural form without monopolising functional solutions, thereby aligning incentives for creative design with the public interest in buildable, repeatable, and safe structures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".