Small Project Design

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Custom Residential Architects Network and Small Project Practitioners .
-------------------------------------------
About eight years ago, I designed a huge renovation and addition to an old house here in Rockville, MD.  I was paid for the work through Schematic Design, and the Owner stopped the project.  At the time, he told me he wanted to continue the project when he had saved enough money for it.

Last week, I was driving through that neighborhood and saw that the project is under construction.  I reviewed the permit drawings at City Hall, and found that the design is nearly identical to the schematics I did.  There is no company name or architects seal on the permit drawings.

My question is: Does the Owner have a right to create construction documents and build a building based on my schematic design, if he paid for the schematic design?  

-------------------------------------------
Craig Moloney AIA
CEM Design
Rockville MD
-------------------------------------------

The answer is "Yes".  Even if you went through the process of actually copyrighting your design, the fact that it's "almost" identical is the caviat.  You were also paid for the work you did, so I assume there was no breech of contract.   

-------------------------------------------
Michael G. Huslage, AIA
Architect
Michael G. Huslage, PLLC
Raleigh, North Carolina
USA
-------------------------------------------

The question may be more ethical than legal, perhaps. Intellectual property rights and reality are often at conflict.

In a legal enriched arena, the playing field is not always level. Most breaches are due to a lack of understanding by our legal 'brothers,' our  willingness and the need to work beyond the scope to ascertain the context.  We  have likely done work for 'friends' and some are 'attorney friends, members of our Churches, neighbors, even family ' to assist them.
When they are displeased with the time 'they did not authorize', well most of us default, reduce the fees, and the discussion may be 'Sorry,  I am not compromising.' The project stops at  schematic or design development. Then we  may see the work constructed later, not even asked to visit it during or after construction.


The solution is difficult. Integrity may be upon our our shoulders. When you don't concur with your employer, could be similar. When you don't agree with the majority on a Church Building Committee, it is difficult. But, exposing them to quality and the concept of excellence and integrity, may well be worth the risk, in the long run. Our profession is most unique, in the regards for working beyond the scope, to assure the need and context is met. We have tangible life safety issues, analytical insights, aesthetic & subjective decisions to make in our process of design. We may have no option but to take the risk and train the 'naive' client, in hopes of elevating their understanding, and avoid the cunning ones.  The consequences may be  often significant, but it is our professional obligation to strive for excellence, and yes trust our clients are understanding of our concerns for their interest, in the larger scheme.   
-------------------------------------------
Archie Gupton AIA
Raleigh NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-07-2012 08:17
From: Michael Huslage
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

The answer is "Yes".  Even if you went through the process of actually copyrighting your design, the fact that it's "almost" identical is the caviat.  You were also paid for the work you did, so I assume there was no breech of contract.   

-------------------------------------------
Michael G. Huslage, AIA
Architect
Michael G. Huslage, PLLC
Raleigh, North Carolina
USA
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Philip Lembo AIA
Architect/Owner
Philip Lembo Architect
Clearwater FL
-------------------------------------------
There is no question about the fact that you are the copyright owner even if you do not have a written contract. The act of creation gives you ownership to the intellectual property produced.  To enforce this you should make sure that you have a dated copyright notice placed on all sketches or other material produced by you which is given to the owner.  I have a rubber stamp which I use for this purpose.   If you were paid a fee and were paid in full, the payment was for the service you performed and not for the product.   The product of your service is yours alone until you sell or assign the copyright to another individual or entity.   You have the right to demand a licensing fee from any Architect, Contractor or other individual or entity that makes use of your intellectual property.  

The key problem here, is to prove the connection between your original designs and the final product produced by someone else then determine whether it is worth it financially to pursue a lawsuit if the other parties do not agree to a licensing fee.   I knew an Engineer years ago who invented and patented a device which he latter found out was being manufactured by a company without paying a royalty to him.   He decided not to file a lawsuit because they were not making a great deal of money from the product and his attorney's fees would have been much greater than the amount he would have received from any settlement.






Original Message:
Sent: 02-08-2012 08:31
From: Archie Gupton
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

The question may be more ethical than legal, perhaps. Intellectual property rights and reality are often at conflict.

In a legal enriched arena, the playing field is not always level. Most breaches are due to a lack of understanding by our legal 'brothers,' our  willingness and the need to work beyond the scope to ascertain the context.  We  have likely done work for 'friends' and some are 'attorney friends, members of our Churches, neighbors, even family ' to assist them.
When they are displeased with the time 'they did not authorize', well most of us default, reduce the fees, and the discussion may be 'Sorry,  I am not compromising.' The project stops at  schematic or design development. Then we  may see the work constructed later, not even asked to visit it during or after construction.


The solution is difficult. Integrity may be upon our our shoulders. When you don't concur with your employer, could be similar. When you don't agree with the majority on a Church Building Committee, it is difficult. But, exposing them to quality and the concept of excellence and integrity, may well be worth the risk, in the long run. Our profession is most unique, in the regards for working beyond the scope, to assure the need and context is met. We have tangible life safety issues, analytical insights, aesthetic & subjective decisions to make in our process of design. We may have no option but to take the risk and train the 'naive' client, in hopes of elevating their understanding, and avoid the cunning ones.  The consequences may be  often significant, but it is our professional obligation to strive for excellence, and yes trust our clients are understanding of our concerns for their interest, in the larger scheme.   
-------------------------------------------
Archie Gupton AIA
Raleigh NC
-------------------------------------------

Craig,

The same thing happened to me years ago here in New Mexico. I was paid for the design work on a new custom residence, but never heard from the owner (who lived in Houston) again. I figured he was just not happy with my design, but a year later I was driving down the same street and saw the house completed! Same design. I checked with the local building department and found the same thing. "Home-owner" drawn plans. Although a little put out, I was more concerned if I had any liability, so I checked with my attorney. He told me that as long as my name and seal were not on the permitted construction documents, I could not be held liable for any problems that might arise--the design drawings are not considered legal documents. He also told me that if I was paid for the work I did, and didn't have a clear statement in my contract limiting the client's use of the design, I had no recourse for the owner using my design to build his house without hiring me to draw the construction plans.

The lesson here is to word your contracts carefully to limit use of your design. Many clients believe if they pay an architect for design work, they own the design. It's very difficult for home-owners, especially on remodel/addition projects, to understand that. It's their home and the design is specific to their home. How could the architect retain ownership of the design if they paid for the design work? It is probably worth the time at the beginning of the project to specifically discuss the issue with your client prior to starting. If they are not willing to sign off on that concept, you may want to reconsider whether or not to work for this client. If they refuse to allow you to retain ownership of the design (that's happened too) and you give in just to get the work, you have no recourse.

David Clarke AIA
Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc.
Las Cruces NM
-------------------------------------------

Really don't see what the problem is.
Quite flattering really.

The design was yours, you were paid for it.
Sounds like the drawings were redone (?) as 
evidenced at City Hall, so what's the problem?

Better than no architect involvement at all.

Thoughts?

-------------------------------------------
Tim Mangan AIA
Architect
architect's office
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------

If you designed this project 8 years ago then 1997 B141 Owner Architect agreement would have been commonly in use and if that document served as the basis for your agreement with the Owner then your rights are protected in the situation that you describe. 

Section 1.3.2.2 of the 1997 B141 indicates that the drawings are the Architect's Instrument of Service.....the Architect grants the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the instruments of service for the purposes of constructing the project.  It goes on to state....."Any termination of this Agreement prior to the completion of the Project shall terminate this license.  Upon such termination the Owner shall refrain from making further reproductions of Instruments of Service and shall return to the Architect within seven days of termination all originals and reproductions in the Owner's posession" 

A good way to explain this clause if Owner should balk at it is to explain to them that it's similar to buying a book or a software title in that you are buying a copy of the book or software, however you are not purchasing the intellectual property contained in the book or DVD.

In addition to the above, Architectural Works are protected by the US Copyright laws follow this link for additional information: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf so there may be another means of recourse/protection assuming your agreement with the Owner did not grant the Owner the ownership of the design.

Architectural designs are considered intellectual property that belongs (unless your agreement says otherwise) to the architect and my personal opinion is that it should be considered flattery when ones property is stolen.   
-------------------------------------------
Christopher Yago AIA
Rockville VA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-07-2012 11:09
From: Tim Mangan
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

Really don't see what the problem is.
Quite flattering really.

The design was yours, you were paid for it.
Sounds like the drawings were redone (?) as 
evidenced at City Hall, so what's the problem?

Better than no architect involvement at all.

Thoughts?

-------------------------------------------
Tim Mangan AIA
Architect
architect's office
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------

My apologies, the last paragraph of my last post was intended to state:

".....it should NOT be considered flattery when ones property is stolen."

-------------------------------------------
Christopher Yago AIA
Project Manager
Moseley Architects
Rockville VA
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 02-07-2012 13:47
From: Christopher Yago
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

If you designed this project 8 years ago then 1997 B141 Owner Architect agreement would have been commonly in use and if that document served as the basis for your agreement with the Owner then your rights are protected in the situation that you describe. 

Section 1.3.2.2 of the 1997 B141 indicates that the drawings are the Architect's Instrument of Service.....the Architect grants the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the instruments of service for the purposes of constructing the project.  It goes on to state....."Any termination of this Agreement prior to the completion of the Project shall terminate this license.  Upon such termination the Owner shall refrain from making further reproductions of Instruments of Service and shall return to the Architect within seven days of termination all originals and reproductions in the Owner's posession" 

A good way to explain this clause if Owner should balk at it is to explain to them that it's similar to buying a book or a software title in that you are buying a copy of the book or software, however you are not purchasing the intellectual property contained in the book or DVD.

In addition to the above, Architectural Works are protected by the US Copyright laws follow this link for additional information: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf so there may be another means of recourse/protection assuming your agreement with the Owner did not grant the Owner the ownership of the design.

Architectural designs are considered intellectual property that belongs (unless your agreement says otherwise) to the architect and my personal opinion is that it should not be considered flattery when ones property is stolen.   
-------------------------------------------
Christopher Yago AIA
Rockville VA
-------------------------------------------

I believe the "license" aspect is engaged here.  The client can't run off and use your design unless you granted him the license to do so, and have been accordingly compensated for it.

-------------------------------------------
Adam Trott AIA
Adam J. Trott Architect
Erie PA
-------------------------------------------

An almost identical thing happened to my (then) business partner and I a number of years ago.  We worked on a project - an upscale town-home development - right through construction drawings.  We were paid, but the Owner decided not to build at that time.  A year or so later, the development was built as we designed it but with the name of a more well-known "foreign" (not from our small city) architect's office on the plans.  We called that architect's office and got a denial of any wrongdoing.  We looked at the plans and it was clear that virtually nothing was changed (a detail here and there, but nothing else).  We considered suing but, because we were paid for our work, decided it was not worth the effort.  It would have been nice, when the owner started making a big splash advertising for this new development, to have had our name on it.  It still rankles when I drive by the place (which means I try to avoid it).

-------------------------------------------
Martha John AIA
Architect
Martha K. John, Architect
Columbia MO
-------------------------------------------

It is important to have an agreement that states you own the drawings although more and more clients will insist otherwise. We also have a clear copyright statement on our drawings. But even when we clearly own the drawings it is a hassle to pursue these things.
A couple of years ago we were paid for Design Development drawings and the owner stopped work. We then got a call from another Architect and he asked permission to use our drawings. I decided to let him as long as listed us as "Design Architect" on all the drawings. He agreed but then I guess his price was higher than ours because then the Owner came back to us.
I am glad the Architet called - it showed he had integrity.... or he was afraid of getting caught.


-------------------------------------------
Joel Sims AIA
Lancaster PA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2012 10:52
From: Martha John
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

An almost identical thing happened to my (then) business partner and I a number of years ago.  We worked on a project - an upscale town-home development - right through construction drawings.  We were paid, but the Owner decided not to build at that time.  A year or so later, the development was built as we designed it but with the name of a more well-known "foreign" (not from our small city) architect's office on the plans.  We called that architect's office and got a denial of any wrongdoing.  We looked at the plans and it was clear that virtually nothing was changed (a detail here and there, but nothing else).  We considered suing but, because we were paid for our work, decided it was not worth the effort.  It would have been nice, when the owner started making a big splash advertising for this new development, to have had our name on it.  It still rankles when I drive by the place (which means I try to avoid it).

-------------------------------------------
Martha John AIA
Architect
Martha K. John, Architect
Columbia MO
-------------------------------------------

Sue Martha. The builder and other architect used your intellectual property without your permission. You are almost guaranteed a win. If a resident of the project suffers a building related injury you can bet that his or her lawyer will come after you and you will have to bear the cost of the suit, guilty or not. A local architect here won a million dollar suit a few years back when a builder used his plans, for which he had paid the architect, to build additional units without notifying the architect. The award included lost fees and a sizable punitive amount.

-------------------------------------------
Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2012 10:52
From: Martha John
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

An almost identical thing happened to my (then) business partner and I a number of years ago.  We worked on a project - an upscale town-home development - right through construction drawings.  We were paid, but the Owner decided not to build at that time.  A year or so later, the development was built as we designed it but with the name of a more well-known "foreign" (not from our small city) architect's office on the plans.  We called that architect's office and got a denial of any wrongdoing.  We looked at the plans and it was clear that virtually nothing was changed (a detail here and there, but nothing else).  We considered suing but, because we were paid for our work, decided it was not worth the effort.  It would have been nice, when the owner started making a big splash advertising for this new development, to have had our name on it.  It still rankles when I drive by the place (which means I try to avoid it).

-------------------------------------------
Martha John AIA
Architect
Martha K. John, Architect
Columbia MO
-------------------------------------------

In California, like most states, architects have been having problems with third parties "acquiring" their work through foreclosures, Court-appointed receiverships, and short sales. These third parties are claiming rights to use the architects work to complete projects under contractural assignment or transfer provisions or the original Owner deeming Architect's Instuments as "personal property" in a real estate transaction.  In cases where permits have been issued, the Architect's liability may still attached as the architect of record has previously stamped and sealed the work even there has not been a limited license granted to the new party using it. There are also insurance and indemnifiaction implications. The AIA/California Council is considering sponsoring new State legislation that would prohibit any third party from either claiming ownership (and therefore the copyright) or the rights to use an Architect's Instruments of Service without first executing a new written agreement authorizing such use.  Would legislation such as this make sense?

-------------------------------------------
R. Abramson AIA/L.A. Chapter
Los Angeles CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2012 09:06
From: Thad Broom
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

Sue Martha. The builder and other architect used your intellectual property without your permission. You are almost guaranteed a win. If a resident of the project suffers a building related injury you can bet that his or her lawyer will come after you and you will have to bear the cost of the suit, guilty or not. A local architect here won a million dollar suit a few years back when a builder used his plans, for which he had paid the architect, to build additional units without notifying the architect. The award included lost fees and a sizable punitive amount.

-------------------------------------------
Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------

Craig:
I've done quite a bit of research on this, with the help of an attorney who specializes in architectural copyright.  The copyright is yours, whether or not you've registered it officially with the copyright office (www.copyright.gov).  However, if you did,  you will/would be able to recoup the fees you didn't earn as a result of the infringement,  along with damages, up to (as I recall) $100,000 and legal fees.  The $35 fee and the minimum amount of time it takes to register your work is worth the effort. 

Shame on the Owners of your project for stealing your work.  And shame on the Architectural firm who stole Martha's project--knowing full well that what they were doing was illegal and unethical.

-------------------------------------------
Susan Rochelle AIA
Susan M. Rochelle Architect
Milford NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-13-2012 13:18
From: Richard Abramson
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

In California, like most states, architects have been having problems with third parties "acquiring" their work through foreclosures, Court-appointed receiverships, and short sales. These third parties are claiming rights to use the architects work to complete projects under contractural assignment or transfer provisions or the original Owner deeming Architect's Instuments as "personal property" in a real estate transaction.  In cases where permits have been issued, the Architect's liability may still attached as the architect of record has previously stamped and sealed the work even there has not been a limited license granted to the new party using it. There are also insurance and indemnifiaction implications. The AIA/California Council is considering sponsoring new State legislation that would prohibit any third party from either claiming ownership (and therefore the copyright) or the rights to use an Architect's Instruments of Service without first executing a new written agreement authorizing such use.  Would legislation such as this make sense?

-------------------------------------------
R. Abramson AIA/L.A. Chapter
Los Angeles CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2012 09:06
From: Thad Broom
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

Sue Martha. The builder and other architect used your intellectual property without your permission. You are almost guaranteed a win. If a resident of the project suffers a building related injury you can bet that his or her lawyer will come after you and you will have to bear the cost of the suit, guilty or not. A local architect here won a million dollar suit a few years back when a builder used his plans, for which he had paid the architect, to build additional units without notifying the architect. The award included lost fees and a sizable punitive amount.

-------------------------------------------
Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Tim Mangan AIA
Architect
architect's office
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------
Martha, That's not identical, and it's understandable how you try to avoid it.
I've had many projects be terminated early in schematics and have went by the site years later to find the project built. That doesn't bother me, actually I'm rather pleased to see if my idea held up at all.

But, the last one when I worked as a consulting architect with another architect hurt badly because we had got planning approval and were well into submitting the drawing for permit. The owner said that they would like the files sent to a interior designer / lighting designer. I balked, but the lead architect agreed. A couple of weeks later we were informed that they were having trouble with the bank loan and the project was terminated, we were also having trouble being paid.

Now heres the kicker, the owner went out and hired a well known local "star architect" to do the project, oddly we found out that the building dept. plans still had my lead architect stamp and name on them.

Long and short, we had enough leverage to get paid right away, but we also had to swallow hard when the project was published on the front cover of a local magazine.

BTW....the local star architect never even mentioned our work.....he basically ignored us....and he's now FAIA.

Bottom line is I'm more wary of high profile (powerful) people now.....they are probable the worst offenders.






Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2012 10:52
From: Martha John
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

An almost identical thing happened to my (then) business partner and I a number of years ago.  We worked on a project - an upscale town-home development - right through construction drawings.  We were paid, but the Owner decided not to build at that time.  A year or so later, the development was built as we designed it but with the name of a more well-known "foreign" (not from our small city) architect's office on the plans.  We called that architect's office and got a denial of any wrongdoing.  We looked at the plans and it was clear that virtually nothing was changed (a detail here and there, but nothing else).  We considered suing but, because we were paid for our work, decided it was not worth the effort.  It would have been nice, when the owner started making a big splash advertising for this new development, to have had our name on it.  It still rankles when I drive by the place (which means I try to avoid it).

-------------------------------------------
Martha John AIA
Architect
Martha K. John, Architect
Columbia MO
-------------------------------------------

I am going through a very comparable situation. I need comments from my fellow Architects. I was approached to design an industrial office building. Client did not want to sign the Agreement for a complete project. They wanted the conceptual first before signing for construction/permit drawings. I did not suspect any problem, until I realized they are trying to get the conceptual as a fully accepted design (according to code and other requirements) by the City and Business Park Association. I am not mentioning the name of the city and the association to avoid any disclosure with this ongoing project. But both City and the Association are very accommodating in making the corrections before submission. But I was paid only $1,000 for the conceptual design. Usually I make a hand sketch of floor plan, site plan and a rough perspective showing at least two building elevations, based on their criteria. Unfortunately, I did this one in AutoCAD. I accepted that token amount in expectation of getting properly paid through the complete set of drawings. I was paid in full, but they were not signing the Agreement for the complete project. Because they wanted to make sure the conceptual was fully acceptable to their ever changing criteria, as well as City and the Association, meaning spending unlimited time until it is fully ready for submission. I explained them that this process is part of Design Development, which starts after signing the contract for the full project with the initial deposit. We stated to get into unpleasant disagreement about the definition of "Conceptual Design".

I learned one thing very hard way that, I never defined them what is a conceptual design. Later on during their demand I tried to explain but, they did not agree with my explanation. I WISH MY FELLOW ARCHITECTS HELP ME WITH THE DEFINITION FROM AN AUTHENTIC SOURCE ABOUT "CONCEPTUAL DESIGN". At certain point I rejected the job, unless they sign the Agreement for complete project. I was always afraid they will use my design and use someone else to complete it. Surprisingly they came back to me after many months with their own draft of a ridiculous Agreement to move forward. Instead of getting into another disagreement, I brought that Agreement and postponed the conversation for reviewing. The hardship I am going through, due to client's qualification, who is an Engineer and claims he is very familiar with the process. He worked with many Architects and understands their roll. PLEASE HELP AND COMMENT.

-------------------------------------------
Tarit Chaudhuri AIA, CCIM
President
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2012 10:52
From: Martha John
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

An almost identical thing happened to my (then) business partner and I a number of years ago.  We worked on a project - an upscale town-home development - right through construction drawings.  We were paid, but the Owner decided not to build at that time.  A year or so later, the development was built as we designed it but with the name of a more well-known "foreign" (not from our small city) architect's office on the plans.  We called that architect's office and got a denial of any wrongdoing.  We looked at the plans and it was clear that virtually nothing was changed (a detail here and there, but nothing else).  We considered suing but, because we were paid for our work, decided it was not worth the effort.  It would have been nice, when the owner started making a big splash advertising for this new development, to have had our name on it.  It still rankles when I drive by the place (which means I try to avoid it).

-------------------------------------------
Martha John AIA
Architect
Martha K. John, Architect
Columbia MO
-------------------------------------------

We are currently dealing with this issue with an incredibly unscrupulous developer, with public funds...
We designed a community center being funded with Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds. We developed the project through design development without compensation under threat of contract termination. The developer told us no one could be paid until the project was priced at that point and the budget approved. The day after the budget was approved, they terminated our contract and are proceeding with the contractor as design build. Which is an even more hateful term than value engineering. All it really means is that the contractor will build the cheapest building he can for the same price.
There are larger issues here like why on earth would the AIA not be advocating for us to insure that architects must be used on public projects? Our profession impacts public health safety and welfare, and we are required to complete continuing education to stay current on these issues. Why then on a public facility would an architect (other than the general contractor who used to be an architect) not be required? It represents a complete conflict of interest, compromises HSW and is literally hiring the fox to build the hen house. These federal funding programs have all sorts of requirements like minority participation and minimum wage requirements for construction workers. Why would an independent architect not be required?
But back on topic... We have an amazing insurance company who when hearing this story advised us to seek out a copyright attorney. Attorneys who typically deal with AIA or other contractual issues are not familiar with the laws around intellectual property - which is at the heart of this matter. The insurance company told us that more and more they are seeing architects seeking and winning claims on intellectual property violations. And not only is basic compensation at stake, but there are severe fines attached to copyright violations. We are lucky enough to have an ex-client who is a copyright attorney and has also said that you can collect a percentage of any profit that a developer has made by stealing your work. This is a crime, not flattery. And my advice is seek a copyright attorney. Until we as a profession start defending our work, we will continue to be victimized by unscrupulous business practices. 

-------------------------------------------
Cheryl Noel AIA
Wrap Architecture, Inc.
Chicago IL
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2012 10:52
From: Martha John
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

An almost identical thing happened to my (then) business partner and I a number of years ago.  We worked on a project - an upscale town-home development - right through construction drawings.  We were paid, but the Owner decided not to build at that time.  A year or so later, the development was built as we designed it but with the name of a more well-known "foreign" (not from our small city) architect's office on the plans.  We called that architect's office and got a denial of any wrongdoing.  We looked at the plans and it was clear that virtually nothing was changed (a detail here and there, but nothing else).  We considered suing but, because we were paid for our work, decided it was not worth the effort.  It would have been nice, when the owner started making a big splash advertising for this new development, to have had our name on it.  It still rankles when I drive by the place (which means I try to avoid it).

-------------------------------------------
Martha John AIA
Architect
Martha K. John, Architect
Columbia MO
-------------------------------------------

I think it's worth remembering that just because we drew it, the design is not automatically "copyrightable." There needs to be something artistically original beyond the functional elements. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States

There are two types of architectural copyrights: 1) The drawings themselves. (If these are reproduced exactly without authorization, this may be a clear copyright violation.); and 2) The design.

Often in residential schematic design, the level of "design" isn't too much more than functional floor plans and related elevations. You would have to ask yourself, are you providing much more artistry than good quality mainstream architecture? I am not a lawyer, and obviously I haven't seen these designs, but you may or may not have a design that is actually worthy of copyright protection. If you have designed an architectural gem that would be recognized in the magazines, this may be worth pursuing. If just something "nice," it may not be worth it.

-------------------------------------------
Richard Morrison AIA
Richard Morrison, AIA, ASID
Redwood City CA
-------------------------------------------

[snip]

My question is: Does the Owner have a right to create construction documents and build a building based on my schematic design, if he paid for the schematic design?  

-------------------------------------------
Craig Moloney AIA
CEM Design
Rockville MD
-------------------------------------------

The issue is about protecting your intellectual property, not just copyright of a particular design.
The AIA contract has very specific language regarding the client's use of 'our instruments of service'.
This is not limited to unique design, it applies to ALL of our work including details and specifications.
No one has a right to use your work without your permission.
At a minimum, if they terminate your contract prior to the completion of the project, they owe you a licensing fee for the continued use of your work.
If you are not using AIA contracts, at least use similar language in your agreements.

-------------------------------------------
Cheryl Noel AIA
WRAP Architecture, Inc.
Chicago IL
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-13-2012 14:15
From: Richard Morrison
Subject: Copyright Infringement?

I think it's worth remembering that just because we drew it, the design is not automatically "copyrightable." There needs to be something artistically original beyond the functional elements. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States

There are two types of architectural copyrights: 1) The drawings themselves. (If these are reproduced exactly without authorization, this may be a clear copyright violation.); and 2) The design.

Often in residential schematic design, the level of "design" isn't too much more than functional floor plans and related elevations. You would have to ask yourself, are you providing much more artistry than good quality mainstream architecture? I am not a lawyer, and obviously I haven't seen these designs, but you may or may not have a design that is actually worthy of copyright protection. If you have designed an architectural gem that would be recognized in the magazines, this may be worth pursuing. If just something "nice," it may not be worth it.

-------------------------------------------
Richard Morrison AIA
Richard Morrison, AIA, ASID
Redwood City CA
-------------------------------------------

[snip]

My question is: Does the Owner have a right to create construction documents and build a building based on my schematic design, if he paid for the schematic design?  

-------------------------------------------
Craig Moloney AIA
CEM Design
Rockville MD
-------------------------------------------