Can I claim copy right of the interior design projects I did before while working for a design firm that went bankrupt?

I would agree with Attorney Goldstein's analysis if I agreed with his underlying assumption. He assumes the initial Company had a "copyright" in the interior design of the space that was photographed. I think that assumption is probably mistaken for at least three reasons: (1) "Interior design" is not one of the 8 specific categories enumerated in 17 U.S.C. 102 as comprising the "subject matter of copyright." It does not come within the purview of "architectural works," in my opinion, because an "architectural work" is defined as meaning "the design of a building ..." or entire structure. That does not include the purely interior design of an individual unit within an already existing structure. (By including "architectural works" in sec. 102, Congress sought to extend copyright protection beyond the pictorial representations of buildings to buildings themselves. Accordingly, after passage of the 1990 Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, the copyright in a building and in its plans were distinct and could be infringed separately.) (2) In its final iteration- i.e., as assembled in real life- the interior design of a unit is not "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." It therefore does not satisfy the most basic requirement for copyright protection. It follows that, while an interior designer certainly uses, collects, assembles and arranges elements that are themselves protected by copyright (e.g., artwork, fabric, carvings, etc.), the resulting assemblage is not itself copyrightable since, absent fixation, it cannot qualify as an original work of authorship eligible for protection under the Act. It also, therefore, cannot qualify as either a "compilation" or "derivative work." (3) A photograph can be protected by copyright, however, even if the object of the photograph isn't. See Copyright Office Circular 40. So, the important question from my perspective here is: Who is "the author" of the photographs in question? If the designer took them after leaving his former design firm, they cannot be their work-for-hire. He is their "author" for purposes of the Act, holds the copyright in them and can post them. (That does not mean that he could replicate the designs depicted in the photographs in three dimensions inside a building. If he did that, he would probably violate his prior firm's state-law rights and, perhaps, be guilty of unjust enrichment. As I understand the situation, however, the designer has no intention of doing that. He simply wants to include the photographs in his online portfolio. As long as he accurately states that he created the designs while employed at his former firm, he is not- in my view- unfairly competing with it.) If he took the photographs while still employed by his former firm, on the other hand, they would be work-for-hire and that Company would own the copyright in them. * * * I do not mean to suggest that because design work that does not encompass the interior architecture of an entire building may not be within the "subject matter of copyright," that "interior design" is not a creative enterprise and not legally protected. Far from it. The Copyright Act protects appropriate plans and drawings as "pictorial works" and realized designs, in my view, are eligible for state-law protection. (If they are not within the subject matter of copyright, then legitimate state-law claims concerning them should not be preempted.) Designers and design firms can and should work with knowledgeable intellectual property law counsel to develop ways to protect their creations. Appropriate legal judgments can only be made based upon a full development of the facts. The fact that three experienced counsel have come to such differing preliminary views, based on the limited facts we were given, is testament to that fact. Disclaimer: This answer does not establish an attorney-client relationship. It is for general informational purposes