Questions 2: Issue 2: 2.1. Is the architectural plan protected by copyright Law? 2.2. Does the behavior of Conforama violate the copyright law or does it fall under the exception of fair use? (What Conforama should have done in order to use Nathan plan without violating copyrights? Rule: Rule 2.1 Rule 2.2 Read p. 163 Limitation on Exclusive Character of Copyright Students must define copyright and indicate the duration of copyright. Student must define the fair use exception and enumerate and explain the main factors used to assess if the alleged infringement falls under fair use. Application: Application 2.1 Students must apply the copyright definition and conditions. Application 2.2 Students should apply the factors of fair use to Conforama behavior. Conclusion: Students must conclude by giving their opinion based on legal rules answering all the questions mentioned in Issue 2. Case study 2: Conforama has applied to an International Architectural Competition. The rules of the competition required to prepare an eco-friendly and modern architectural plan for a Municipality park. The competition rules require the plan to be impressive in a way that would enhance the touristic reputation of the city where it is implemented. While trying to find inspiration, one of Conforama engineers discovers the plan of an extraordinary park prepared as a graduation project by an architect student. The plan fulfills all the criteria set by the competition. The engineer decides to use that plan with some minor adaptations mainly linked to the perimeter and presented it as a Conforama plan. The competition committee was over thrilled with the plan. Conforama won the International prize for their creative architectural plan. This prize has helped into attracting even more visitors from all over the world for the parc, and gaining more clients for Conforama. Nathan, the original owner of the architectural plan, was surprised to see his plan gaining an international recognition. He is claiming that he is the copyright holder of the plan and that Conforama has not taken her permission before using it although in a different country and thus hey have violated cop right law. Conforama replied asserting that even if no permission was given, their use of the plan is not a violation of copyright their action falls under the exception of fair use. Questions 2: Issue 2: 2.1. Is the architectural plan protected by copyright Law? 2.2. Does the behavior of Conforama violate the copyright law or does it fall under the exception of fair use? (What Conforama should have done in order to use Nathan plan without violating copyrights? Rule: Rule 2.1 Rule 2.2 Read p. 163 Limitation on Exclusive Character of Copyright Students must define copyright and indicate the duration of copyright. Student must define the fair use exception and enumerate and explain the main factors used to assess if the alleged infringement falls under fair use. Application: Application 2.1 Students must apply the copyright definition and conditions. Application 2.2 Students should apply the factors of fair use to Conforama behavior. Conclusion: Students must conclude by giving their opinion based on legal rules answering all the questions mentioned in Issue 2. Case study 2: Conforama has applied to an International Architectural Competition. The rules of the competition required to prepare an eco-friendly and modern architectural plan for a Municipality park. The competition rules require the plan to be impressive in a way that would enhance the touristic reputation of the city where it is implemented. While trying to find inspiration, one of Conforama engineers discovers the plan of an extraordinary park prepared as a graduation project by an architect student. The plan fulfills all the criteria set by the competition. The engineer decides to use that plan with some minor adaptations mainly linked to the perimeter and presented it as a Conforama plan. The competition committee was over thrilled with the plan. Conforama won the International prize for their creative architectural plan. This prize has helped into attracting even more visitors from all over the world for the parc, and gaining more clients for Conforama. Nathan, the original owner of the architectural plan, was surprised to see his plan gaining an international recognition. He is claiming that he is the copyright holder of the plan and that Conforama has not taken her permission before using it although in a different country and thus hey have violated cop right law. Conforama replied asserting that even if no permission was given, their use of the plan is not a violation of copyright their action falls under the exception of fair use