Have you bought a house or an office building and are planning to convert it, add a storey or change the facade? Then you are dealing not only with a building permit, but perhaps also with something that is easily forgotten: the architect who designed the building holds copyright in it. A renovation can, from the perspective of the Copyright Act, be an interference with an architectural work. In some cases you may carry it out even without the author's consent; in others you must ask for consent in advance. And the difference between the two may decide whether the architect ends up suing you to have a finished conversion removed.
In this article we explain when an architectural building is protected as a copyrighted work, what the statutory licence under Section 38d of the Copyright Act allows, and when the architect's consent is required. At Preegal law firm we connect intellectual property law with real estate and construction practice, so this situation is part of our everyday agenda.
Is a building a copyrighted work, and why does the architect have a say in your renovation?
Not every building is a copyrighted work, but a building with architectural design usually is. The Czech Copyright Act (Act No. 121/2000 Coll.) protects an architectural work expressed through a building, drawing or plan. Exactly when a building is a copyrighted work and when it is not is something we examine in the article Which buildings are copyrighted works. The key is to separate two layers: ownership of the house and copyright in its architectural design. By buying a property you become its owner, but the architect's copyright does not cease to exist.
Copyright is divided into economic and moral rights. Moral rights, which include the right to the integrity of the work, are non-transferable and the author cannot waive them, not even in a contract. A clause by which an architect would waive in advance their consent to any future change would therefore be invalid. That is precisely why an architect can have a say in your renovation even many years after the building was completed, and even if you bought the house from someone else entirely.
When do you not need the architect's consent? The statutory licence under Section 38d
The law recognises that a building must serve a practical purpose and that time will require repairs and modernisation. Section 38d(b) of the Copyright Act therefore establishes a statutory licence: copyright is not infringed by a person who uses an architectural work for the purposes of maintenance work or of altering a completed building, to the extent strictly necessary and while preserving the value of the architectural work.
For an intervention to fall under this exception, so that the architect's consent is not required, two conditions must be met at the same time:
- The strictly necessary extent - the change follows from the actual condition of the building (necessary repairs, water leaks, technical or energy-efficiency modernisation) or from the duty to comply with regulations, in particular construction law. This term is interpreted rather restrictively: if the purpose can be achieved by a gentler intervention, you should choose that one.
- Preservation of the value of the architectural work - even a necessary change must not be carried out so carelessly that it devalues the work or disrupts its overall concept.
On top of that comes an information duty: where it is justified by the significance of the work and can fairly be required, you must notify the author of your intention in advance and, on request, provide them with the building documentation capturing the state before the change. The statutory licence is therefore not a blank cheque - it is a narrow exception for keeping the building functional, not for reshaping it at will.
When is the architect's consent necessary?
Once an intervention goes beyond the scope of the statutory licence, you need the author's consent. In practice this concerns above all situations where the renovation affects the appearance, expression or concept of the work without being technically necessary. Typically:
- interventions in a publicly accessible facade that change its expression (not mere insulation or replacement of a worn-out cladding in the same spirit),
- extensions and additions that change the mass and proportions of the building,
- changes to the spatial layout and floor plan that carry the architectural concept,
- alterations made out of aesthetic preference rather than technical necessity.
That the boundary between a permitted and an impermissible change is decided by detail is shown by case law too. The Supreme Court confirmed that even a change that appears purposeful must not be carried out in a way that reduces the value of the work. In one case the courts ordered the owner of a residential unit to remove an opening they had subsequently created in the glass balcony infill and to apologise to the architect, because the intervention did not arise from the purpose or necessity of the building. Elsewhere, by contrast, a court let an addition stand, because although it slightly reduced the value of the work, it allowed more comfortable use and its removal would have been disproportionate. It is always an assessment of the specific circumstances - and in the event of a dispute, the burden of proof lies on the owner.
Can the architect demand removal of a finished conversion?
This is not just a theoretical apology. If an owner interferes with an architectural work without the author's consent and outside the statutory licence, the architect may seek not only that the interference cease and an apology, but also the removal of the unlawful state, that is, restoring the building to its original form. In practice this means demolishing or rebuilding a conversion that is already finished and paid for. Consent cannot be forced on the architect - they may refuse it. On the other hand, the architect must not abuse their rights and make manifestly excessive demands either; such conduct does not enjoy legal protection. That is also why most disputes are resolved by agreement and a fee for granting consent, not by demolition.
Special caution applies to demolishing an entire building. The prevailing interpretation does not regard it as an interference with copyright (disposal of the work is separated from disposal of the physical medium), but for significant buildings this view is disputed. For an architecturally valuable building it is therefore prudent to obtain the author's prior consent even before demolishing it.
How can you address the risk of a dispute with the architect in advance?
The cheapest dispute is the one that never arises. The architect's copyright can be addressed long before the excavator arrives:
- For a bespoke build, have a broad licence agreed in the contract for work with the architect - not only to carry out the building, but also for its future changes, alterations and promotion. Formulate the architect's consent to the anticipated changes to the building directly in the contract; you can also make use of template contracts.
- When buying a property, verify as part of the legal due diligence whether the building is an architectural work and how the copyright is settled. Consent or a licence needs to be dealt with together with the property transfer - which we handle as part of real estate law and property transfers.
- Before a renovation, have it assessed whether the planned intervention falls under the statutory licence or requires consent. This is where our specialisation in intellectual property fully comes into play. If you need consent, communicate with the author in advance and put everything in writing.
Right at the intersection of copyright and real estate you will make use of our specialisation at Preegal law firm - from licensing arrangements in contracts for work, through due diligence before purchase, to negotiations with the architect on consent to changing the building.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need the architect's consent to renovate my house?
It depends on the extent of the intervention. If it involves maintenance work or a change to a completed building to the extent strictly necessary and while preserving the value of the architectural work, you do not need the architect's consent under Section 38d(b) of the Copyright Act (the statutory licence applies). But as soon as the intervention goes beyond this scope - for example changing the appearance of the facade, the mass of the building or its concept for aesthetic reasons - the author's consent is required.
I bought a house - do I also own the copyright in it?
No. By buying a property you acquire ownership of the building, but the architect's copyright in the design does not cease to exist. The author's moral rights, including the right to the integrity of the work, are non-transferable and the author cannot waive them. The architect can therefore have a say in changes to the building even when you bought the house from someone else and never dealt with the architect. In any case, it is necessary to verify to what extent the author's consent has already been given.
Can the architect demand removal of a finished conversion?
Yes, they can. If an owner interferes with an architectural work without the author's consent and outside the statutory licence, the architect may seek not only an apology and that the interference cease, but also the removal of the unlawful state - that is, restoring the building to its original form. Courts have already ruled this way in practice. So it is not merely a theoretical risk: in the worst case you will have to rebuild or remove a conversion that is already finished and paid for.
What if the architect refuses to give consent?
Consent to a change of the building cannot be forced on the architect, who may refuse it. On the other hand, the architect must not abuse their rights and make manifestly excessive demands either; such conduct does not enjoy legal protection. In practice, most situations are resolved by agreement and a fee for granting consent. That is why it pays to deal with the architect in advance and to address copyright already in the contract for work or when buying the property.
Planning a renovation and don't want to risk a dispute with the architect? Get in touch with us.
In intellectual property as well as real estate law and property transfers we will assess whether your plan falls under the statutory licence or requires the author's consent, address the licensing arrangements in the contract for work and when buying a property, and, if needed, negotiate the architect's consent to changing the building. Before you sign anything or start demolishing, contact Preegal law firm and discuss your plan with us.
