The IPKat is grateful to James Heald for drawing his attention to a story covered by Bloomberg. It seems that the architect of the main Berlin railway station has won a moral rights case against the German rail company Deutsche Bahn AG. The architect, Meinhard von Gerkan, objected to the replacement of his original roof, which resembled a cathedral’s nave, with a flat metal roof designed by another architect.

The court said:
"The chamber is of the opinion that the flat ceiling seriously distorted the architectural design…[The decision to change the roof] is a breach of architects' rights as set out in the copyright law".
The station being built (right)

The decision was welcomed by the architecht’s firm, a partner of which commented:
"We are very happy about this decision…It means this current ceiling will be torn down and replaced".
The IPKat says that when IP dictates the way in which ‘real’ property (in the land law sense) can be used, the result tends to be messy.

CLARIFICATION: the roof originally depicted with the post was not the roof at the heart of the controversy. Instead, the offending ceiling is located underground.
CHANGING STATIONS CHANGING STATIONS Reviewed by Unknown on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 Rating: 5


  1. Can some1 please explain where "morolity" comes into play here.
    Also (I paraphrase):
    "The architect was forced to slice 100 mts off... making the station asymmetrical...."
    Doesn't this imply that even the modified plan was by von Gerkan. So who breached whose copyright?


  2. humble suggestion to IPKAT: could you change your default date/time display settings so as to display what date a comments was posted, instead of just the time...

    Many thanks.

  3. Didn't realise I could do that. Have attempted to bring it to pass.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.