Frost-Tsuji Architects v. Highway Inn, Inc., et al.

There is a disparity between the circuits as to explicit exclusive rights afforded by the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (“AWCPA”) which has not been previously reviewed by this Court. 17 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 106 recognize “architectural works” as a designated special Class with explicit exclusive rights by Act of Congress. The First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits review their cases recognizing the rights of the copyright author, while the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits advance the standard of implied license, which is not a limitation or exception under § 120.

1. Whether judicial grant of an unremunerated, involuntary, sua sponte implied license, is allowed to negate the explicit exclusive rights in “architectural works” to do and to authorize the bundle of rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106; contrary to 17 U.S.C. § 201(e), and in violation of U.S. Constitution Art. 1, § 8, Clause 8, and against the congressional mandates of AWCPA.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit disregarded this Court by failing to recognize misconduct and illegal acts that nullify any license, in determining fee awards in a copyright infringement case, as decided in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1979, 2016 WL 3317564.

3. Whether removal of indications of attribution without the author’s knowledge or authorization, on