Are Interior Design Graphics Protected by the Copyright Act?
Date: 2 September 2025
【Volume 156】
In a recent case involving interior design (the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court 2024 Ming Zhu Su Zi Civil Judgment No. 7), the court provided a detailed discussion on whether “graphics of an interior design” constitute the works protected by the Copyright Act. The court analyzed the matter from both the standpoints of architectural works and photographic works, and in both respects, concluded that such graphics do not constitute copyrightable works under the Copyright Act.
Case Synopsis
The representative of the defendant (Jung Design Co., Ltd.) was a former employee of the plaintiff (AYAO + Partners Design Co., Ltd.). After the employment terminated, the defendant displayed a series of finished interior design project photographs (hereinafter “Disputed Interior Design Photos”), which had been taken during his tenure with the plaintiff, on the website of his new company. As a result, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on Articles 84 and 88-1 of the Copyright Act, requesting the defendant take down the Disputed Interior Design Photos from the website. The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (hereinafter “IP Court”) rendered a judgment against the plaintiff after trial. Below summarizes the opinions of the IP Court:
Summary of the Judgment by the IP Court:
The following summarizes the Rejection Decision issued by the TIPO, the Petition Rejection Decision by the Petitions and Appeals Committee, the Administrative Judgment of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (2022 Xing Shang Su Zi No. 47), and the Administrative Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (2023 Shang Zi No. 55):
I. The Disputed Interior Design Photos do not qualify as architectural works
Under the Copyright Act, the scope of architectural works includes architectural plans, architectural models, architectural structures, and other original architectural creations, such as landscape engineering, garden design, bridges, etc. The protection is not restricted to forms of integral appearances but extends to arrangements, configurations, and structural design of space.
As for “interior design,” the term usually refers to the planning of relevant objects within a building, which includes walls, windows, materials, lighting, plumbing and electricity systems, furniture arrangements, etc. If such design is closely integrated with the architectural structure, becoming an inseparable part of the space, and showcases the designer’s individuality and originality through its overall design, it may then be considered as “architectural works” and protected by copyright.
Nonetheless, even though the plaintiff argued that the Disputed Interior Design Photos should be deemed as architectural works, it failed to specify or demonstrate how the said design showed originality through its spatial arrangement, structural configuration, and architectural integration. The plaintiff also did not prove that the said design was inseparable from the building. As a result, the IP Court rendered that it was difficult to regard the Disputed Interior Design Photos as architectural works.
II. The Disputed Interior Design Photos do not qualify as photographic works
The photographic works designated by Article 5 of the Copyright Act include photographs, slides, and other creations of photographic methods. A photographic work must possess “originality” and “creativity” to be protected by copyright. That is, photographers must show individual creativity in aspects such as the selection of scenes, lighting, angles, and compositions, and must achieve a sufficient degree of creativity.
In this case, the Disputed Interior Design Photos are taken by the representative of the defendant while employed by the plaintiff company, under the instructions of the company, for the purposes of submission to clients and for promotional use. The IP Court held that these photos were merely simple project records of construction works. They did not show the photographers had creative choices over their subject-matters or compositions, nor did they display any expressions of ideas or emotions. In addition, the photographic methods used in these photos were mechanical representation, which was difficult to meet the requirements for originality and creativity of photographic works.
Accordingly, the court concludes that the Disputed Interior Design Photos do not qualify as photographic works protected by the Copyright Act.
Wisdom Analysis
The Judgment illustrates the high threshold set by the IP Court for determining the nature of “architectural works” and “photographic works,” which helps prevent the overextension of copyright. However, it also reveals the gray area in the legal protection of the design industry. In future practices, design companies should strengthen their capacity of demonstration and contract management if they wish to secure their rights. For instance, design companies should explicitly highlight the aspects of their work that are original in contracts, deliverable outputs, and promotional materials to assist the court in recognizing the designs as architectural works. To more effectively safeguard their creative outputs, design companies should consider utilizing a combination of legal mechanisms, including copyright law, trade secret law, and unfair competition law.
