Report comment

@Jaffer Khan
ZHA appears to hold no PATENT on any aspects of the design and has never claimed to. You should make an effort to understand intellectual property terminology before making all sorts of FULL CAPS claims.
Inasmuch as the ZHA design may resemble other stadia in layout, organisation, structure etc., ZHA will have no standing to claim copyright either, as such aspects would constitute a "state of the art" (unless of course ZHA copied innovations from prior designs :-) ).
The same applies to any aspects of the above which can be described as contextually or constructionally self-evident, and therfore not demonstrably innovative, unique and/or especially characteristic of the design. This would apply for example to entrances or circulation in obvious places and arrangements, structural or constructional methods which are self-evidently efficient, economical or contextually appropriate and the like. Again, here any copyright claim would be unsuccessful.
Especially where a design has not been built (where the copyright claim would address changes to an existing scheme which might ruin its core intent), such claims are notoriously difficult to prosecute, even more so internationally.
Generally and for good reason, architects do not register patents or industrial designs in a WIPO-enforceable manner, relying on automatic Berne Convention-type copyright protection, which is notoriously weak in many areas - architectural similarity being one of them, and actually for very good reasons.