A special feature of works of architecture is that two separate rights, and thus two separate interests, most often coexist in such works. One is the property right that belongs to the owner of a property, and the other is the copyright of the author of a work of architecture. The architect, who is the author of a work of architecture, may have a copyright in that work, for example, in a constructed building, even though the right of ownership or other right in rem in that building may at the same time be held by someone else, since copyright is separate and independent from other rights. The owner of a real property to which the author of an architectural work simultaneously owns copyright cannot make use of that real property in violation of the copyright without the permission of the author. This is a limitation on the otherwise absolute right of ownership, and the owner cannot usually make changes to or restore works of architecture without the permission of the author. However, copyright infringement by the owner of a property often occurs. This is done by the unauthorized alteration of a work of architecture and the unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a work of architecture. An author whose copyright has been infringed has the right to protect his copyright. Since the only authors of works of architecture are usually architects, one of the assumptions underlying the effectiveness of the provisions I discuss in this essay is that the authors in whose interest these provisions were enacted are familiar with them. If they knew how the law protects them, what rights and options they have to protect themselves in advance, and what options they have when a violation occurs, the purpose of the law would be fulfilled.