Soru

Passage A
Historically, United States intellectual property law enforced a sharp dichotomy concerning architectural creations. While two-dimensional blueprints, elevations, and structural plans were rigorously defended as "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works" under the Copyright Act of 1976, the physical realization of those plans—the completed three-dimensional buildings—enjoyed no such statutory safeguard. If a rival firm illicitly copied a blueprint, the original architect had clear grounds for litigation; however, if that same rival simply examined a finished building, measured its dimensions, and constructed an identical edifice, the creator possessed almost no legal recourse. This disparity stemmed from the fundamentally utilitarian nature of buildings, which courts historically deemed inseparable from their aesthetic elements.

This legal paradigm shifted significantly when the United States acceded to the Berne Convention, an international treaty obligating signatory nations to protect architectural works. To achieve full compliance, Congress enacted the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) in 1990. The legislation successfully extended copyright coverage to the overall form of a constructed building, treating architecture as a distinct category of authorship independent of its utilitarian function. Consequently, architects gained the authority to prevent unauthorized physical replication of their actual structures, rather than merely protecting the technical drawings that preceded construction.

Passage B
The 1990 enactment of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) constituted a crucial expansion of intellectual property rights, driven primarily by the necessity of conforming to the dictates of the Berne Convention. Prior to this legislative update, American architects navigated a precarious legal environment where their two-dimensional technical drawings secured copyright protection, yet the tangible, three-dimensional structures derived from those very drawings were categorized as functional objects devoid of copyrightability. The AWCPA remedied this vulnerability by explicitly recognizing constructed buildings as protectable artistic works.

However, incorporating architectural works into the copyright framework necessitated careful balancing to avoid stifling public discourse and everyday visual experiences. Unlike a canvas painting or a written novel, architecture intrinsically defines the public environment. Acknowledging this reality, the AWCPA established a critical limitation known as the "pictorial representation exemption." This provision dictates that if an architectural work is situated in or ordinarily visible from a public place, its copyright is not infringed by the creation, distribution, or public display of photographs, paintings, or other visual representations. This specific exemption guarantees that sightseers can freely photograph city skylines, and filmmakers can capture urban streetscapes, without facing severe litigation from the architects of the structures featured in the background. While the AWCPA granted architects unprecedented control over physical replication, it simultaneously preserved an unobstructed visual public domain.

Based on the provided texts, which of the following factual statements are explicitly substantiated by BOTH Passage A and Passage B? (Select all that apply)