First let me being by saying, I'm still an undergraduate student in architecture. However, at the beginning of my academic endeavor, I remember reading about the concept of academic property. Essentially, in a design process it can act as protection against people stealing your ideas and concepts- written, drawn or simply just spoken. And, in reading about it, I enjoyed the protection that it would give me to share my thoughts. Since then, I've become more politically minded and more Misesian (I've seen the light, in a sense, haha). I understand and agree that copyrights and patents only impede progression in certain industries, but does this concept of intellectual property ownership/freedom also translate into architecture? I feel like it shouldn't, but maybe that's selfish of me, because it would benefit me, to protect my ideas in this way. But, I think anything creative/abstract like art or architecture should belong to its creator (though, I wouldn't own the photos taken of my buildings, or art pieces).
Nope. I can't see any distinction between architecture and any other field dealing with IP that would lead you to this conclusion, outside of your own personal bias.
makaveli71:But, I think anything creative/abstract like art or architecture should belong to its creator
Yes, of course it should belong to it's creator. As should the designs, plans, etc.
But should anyone take a photo and create an exact replica there would be nothing you could do, providing of course that they don't transgress any property of yours. However, If they tried to sell what they had copied and pass it off as created by you then they would be committing fraud.
"Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery" "If creativity is a field, copyright is the fence." -John Oswald
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.