This article examines a case between the T-Peg, Inc. corporation and Vt. Timber Works, Inc, and how it relates to copyright law in the context of architecture. T-Peg, Inc. sued Vt. Timber Works, Inc, alleging that it infringed copyright of architectural plans under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA). T-Peg claimed that Vt. Timber Works copied its design and plans for timberframed houses. The AWCPA states that the overall design of an architectural work, as well as the elements within it, are governed by the Act. In analyzing this case, the court considered a similar issue in copyright infringement cases in Strudza vs. United Arab Emirates. In this case, the plaintiff (Strudza) accused the defendant (the UAE) of using his architectural plans to construct its embassy, using components that were "hallmarks" of the plaintiff's design. This article is useful because it brings up the issue of "substantial similarity" in cases of architecture and copyright, and how the standards for substantial similarity are used to determine the outcome of cases like this. In this case with T-Peg and Vt. Timber Works, the court determined that substantial similarity must take into consideration the overall appearance of a work, as well as the appearance of individual components. A standard was developed from this that considers the overall "look and feel" of an architectural work. Another example of a case, that this article mentions, that takes into consideration the "look and feel" of a building, is the Shine vs. Childs case. In this case, the similarity between the plaintiff's Olympic Tower building, and the defendant's Freedom Tower was debated. Using the "look and feel" test, the court determined that although individual elements of the Freedom Tower were original, the overall composition of the building was too similar to the Olympic Tower, and thus the defendant was charged as guilty.

The issue of "substantial similarity" is a large one with regards to copyright and architecture, and this article discusses the standards for substantial similarity, and identifies the test that tries to provide optimal protection for architectural works. It points out that creativity in architecture involves arrangement, selection, and coordination of elements into an original, final entity. The AWCPA, which first extended copyright law to architecture, does not determine the scope of protection to be applied to an architectural work. The author of this article, Daniel Su, points out that one thing that makes it difficult to determine what is substantially similar in architecture is the dichotomous nature of the field, which is both utilitarian and aesthetic. This article also uses the Shine v. Childs case involving the dispute over the Freedom Tower and the Olympic Tower. This case was the first one to involve a monumental architectural work, and is the basis for the "look and feel" test that courts use in cases involving architecture and copyright. In 1999, Shine, an architecture student at Yale, created a design for an "Olympic Tower", to be used as a media center during the 2012 Olympic games. The defendant, David Childs, was on a panel of architects who reviewed the designs for the Olympic Tower, and used a similar design when he constructed the Freedom Tower four years later. The total concept and feel test that the court used involves the comparison of two works without any dissection. This test has been criticized because "concepts" themselves are denied copyright protection, and some designs such as domes, parapets, and arches are unprotectible ideas. The article compares the "concept and feel" test to analytic dissection, which deals with the analysis of specific elements of an architectural work. The discussion of analytic dissection in comparison with the "concept and feel" test with regards to substantial similarity is the basis of this article, and provides detailed information on one of the issues facing architects and their dealings with copyright law.