Legally you can provide the same services any unlicensed person can provide - drafting, rendering, design for exempt buildings (which depends on the local laws where you practice). There is no special law covering what you can or can't do when you're employed elsewhere.

But- as has been discussed here on another thread- many firms prohibit moonlighting of any kind. So it's between you and your firm whether you can provide these services without jeopardizing your current job. If you get paid so badly you'd spend your free time providing these kinds of services maybe you ought to be looking for a different job.

BTW the AIA has nothing to do with deciding what an architecture license is required for. That's determined by each state, and each state's laws are a bit different. You should look up "architecture practice law" or similar for whatever state you would work in to find out exactly what requires a license.

Thank you Midlander,

Having done some research, I came across the AIA document which I refer to below and believe quotes the 'NYS professional practice laws'

http://www.aianys.org/what's_legal_whats_not.pdf

"...It also means that you cannot perform, or offer to perform, any or all phases of architectural design, architectural drafting, or similar services".

It seems this would include 'architectural' renderings and drafting too? This is what I gets me, there has to be more to it than that...

If you're not an architect... Let alone an AIA member... Who gives a shit what some AIA article says not to mention the laws of this over regulated country. Sometimes you have to bluff. There's a million reasons why you shouldnt start your own company, but if the AIA is going to scare you away then you dont have the cojones to run a business anyway. What's a couple of renderings anyway? My long winded point to this is you should never look at moonlighting as "sidework." Its kinda like the word intern... It allows yourself to see it as less than professional and thats the biggest mistake you can make.

I'll give you my two cents: Design the whole building, but don't sign it. Be daring. Don't submit it to the building's department. Don't take that liability.

Find an architect of record to redraw and figure out constructibility.

Perfectly legal.

There are hundreds of architecture firms that do just that: OMA in Seattle, KPF in NYC, Herzog & De Meuron in NYC as well, Zaha Hadid in NYC....

-Exceptions Not Requiring an Architect’s or Professional Engineer’s Stamp or Seal

The following exceptions do not require the stamp or seal of a licensed, registered architect or profes- sional engineer (N.Y. Educ. Law § 7307(5)):

•farm buildings and other buildings used solely and directly for agricultural purposes;
•single family residential buildings 1500 square feet or less, not including garages, carports, porches,

cellars, or uninhabitable basements or attics;
•alterations, costing $10,000 or less within New York City and $20,000 or less outside of New York

City, if these alterations do not involve changes affecting the structural safety or public safety of the building or structure.

----------------------------------------------------------

So, all houses over 1500 SF in NY require a stamp?

It appears so but I'm pretty sure anything under 1500 SF still requires some sort of certified building designer.

So say, hypothetically, someone on craigslist (shady source for work I know) has requested renderings for a sculptural site piece for a school (their client) with no design on my end, what are the possible legal liabilities, or would this be totally legal?

Thank you everyone for the feedback

You don't need to worry about renderings, unless you are producing construction documents you have no liability for anything.   You can draw pretty pictures and render to your hearts content without worry.

Speaking as an employer I would caution you to ask for permission. It is a screw-you world but you could end up being the one screwed.

Where's Richard when you need him?

dude, you can render what ever you want.  only need an arch license for CDs.   And you CAN design that sculptural site piece.  Its art.  Artists make public art not architects.  You are paranoid.  No one can prohibit you from creating art, sculpture, or renderings.  These things are protected by free speech.  You can design whatever you want so long as you do not represent yourself as an architect or offer architectural services.  just call it art and you will be untouchable. 

dude, you can render what ever you want.  only need an arch license for CDs.

I'm curious about this.....are you certain about the above statement?  I don't live in NY, but I read the link provided:

It also means that you cannot perform, or offer to perform, any or all phases of architectural design, architectural drafting, or similar services. 

The OP's intent was to  "provide 3d rendering services, documenting/drafting of existing conditions, etc."     You're saying he's fine doing just renderings and calling them "art", but it might be be argued that he'd be providing a service clearly intended as part of the process of architectural design.  Where I live, what you're saying is true, but the quote in boldface seems pretty strong.  

Yes.  I am 99% sure that the above is refering to the use of the language in conjunction with the service and not the actual service itself.  It would be a clear violation of speech to prohibit artistic renderings.  Also, there are off shore rendering services that do this all this time.  If a law cannot be enforced equally that law is unjust.  I am not a lawyer but have lawyers in the family whom I have had this conversation with.  Deffidently should check with someone locally though.   

also, if they give you a problem you SHOULD write up a laundry list of all the fancy starchitects that do this or have done this in NY and demand equal enforcement of the law before you ever obey any cease and decist order.   It would be a constitutional violation of several liberties if they selectively enforce the law.... including your right to due process.     

dont forget that federal law trumps state law.  Put up a fight.   this is Merica 

OK -- interesting -- the language in the link kind of blows my mind a bit.  And I'm definitely asking and not telling in my posts....

Is NY where you live, jla-x?  Is the 1500 SF thing for real?  Interesting to me, because if so, then it essentially means that all (most) houses need an architect's stamp?  Is that the case? 

Agree with the notion of free speech, restriction of trade plays here too, but the employer issue is key. Today in most states employment is at-will and one can be let go for no reason. Think this is reason and not worth the risk. Sure anyone can draw a rendering and call it art but in an employment situation liability is in play….a rendering implies constructability. Just ask, it will probably be OK, but if it isn’t you may have dodged a bullet.

Saint, that is definitely the case.

I've had to go through three separate and independent filings just to knock down a wall in an apartment building. This sort of stuff can get pretty intense.

I wish all of this were more black and white, it's like there's a giant gray area with an endless pit of liability but that's risk/reward I guess.

So bottom line is not use work equipment/time and notify employer of any outside work because I would not want to jeopardize anything for sure..

I wouldn't hesitate if it were project for family or a friend but being that it's a craigslist source I remain skeptical not knowing anything about the project itself or my role in the grand scheme of it..

Anyone else have experience with anything similar and what seems acceptable in NY?

Thank you again everyone 

I say moon light the shit out of whatever you got! Fuck what employers think. Use your judgment on what to do and what not to do. Youre only guilty if you get caught!

I like to thinking that you were forced to do so, architecture wages are in the dumps!

^absolutely 

I get a 403 error trying to access the AIANYS site so I can't comment on that - I guess they assume all traffic from abroad is dangerous!

Anyway, I wouldn't consider the AIA an impartial source of information on whether an architect is needed. New York's architecture practice laws are here, and pretty easy to read. It looks like the kind of site-sculpture you are talking about would need an architect's stamp to get approval in NY:

The practice of the profession of architecture is defined as rendering or offering to render services which require the application of the art, science, and aesthetics of design and construction of buildings, groups of buildings, including their components and appurtenances and the spaces around them wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned.

But, you aren't providing those services - you are providing an image of someone else's design. From a legal standpoint you should be fine. The client though might need to involve an architect in this to get it approved - a school would likely be willing to follow the broadest reading of this law if it's pointed out to them.

midlander, that definition of practice is generic bs.  same definition in most states.  site specific art work is not illegal.  in fact, its illegal to make it illegal.  the involvement of an engineer may be required for large sculptures but the artist 100% can design whatever they like.  public art is a long established profession and there are many many artists that work in that arena.   see turrell, lin, irwin, serra, etc.  

1. This article shall not apply to:
   1. Farm buildings, including barns, sheds, poultry houses and other buildings used directly and solely for agricultural purposes; nor to residence buildings of gross area of fifteen hundred square feet or less, not including garages, carports, porches, cellars, or uninhabitable basements or attics; or
   2. Alterations, costing ten thousand dollars or less, to any building or structure within the city of New York and twenty thousand dollars or less, to any building or structure outside the city of New York which do not involve changes affecting the structural safety or public safety thereof.

AND

The practice of the profession of architecture is defined as rendering or offering to render services which require the application of the art, science, and aesthetics of design and construction of buildings, groups of buildings, including their components and appurtenances and the spaces around them wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned. Such services include, but are not limited to consultation, evaluation, planning, the provision of preliminary studies, designs, construction documents, construction management, and the administration of construction contracts.

^ From midlander's link

Wow, good luck.

wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned.

drawing a picture is outside of this scope

^ True if you stop reading where you did.

The practice of the profession of architecture is defined as rendering or offering to render services which require the application of the art, science, and aesthetics of design and construction of buildings, groups of buildings, including their components and appurtenances and the spaces around them wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned. Such services include, but are not limited to consultation, evaluation, planning, the provision of preliminary studies, designs, construction documents, construction management, and the administration of construction contracts.

Saint, you are over thinking it.  This is the definition of architectural practice.  That is true, but in no way does this definition legally bar anyone from engaging in a profession that shares similar overlapping qualities so long as they do not call it architecture.  Sculpture is not architecture, and public art is a long established profession with many contemporary practitioners in nyc and elsewhere .  There is no possible legal way that the state can have the authority to prohibit one from engaging in what is commonly defined as art.   I am sure site sculpture is commonly defined as art and not architecture.  Even if it is architectural in nature (as some of serras work), it is still not primarily designed to serve a utility function.  In short, a hospital cannot be defined as art, because its primary function is utilitarian, not expressive or experiential.  A memorial on the other hand is primarily expressive and thus can be considered art.  This is why memorials tend to be somewhere in that overlapping area of practice between artist and architects.  Yes, an engineer must/should be involved.  Yes, a landscape architect must/should be involved. This in no way means that artist cannot design art, and it in no way limits what art can be in materiality or scale.  Its certainly a grey area, and the way the law is written certainly seems contradictory, but laws are not always enforceable or absolute in their interpretation.  One could also say that Urban planning / urban design overlaps with that above definition...Again, laws must be equally enforced / enforcable or they are unconstitutional.   "equal protection under the law" is guaranteed under the 14th amendments due process clause....So basically if so and so does it you can too...

I'm sure he can draw a sculpture, an actual art piece, and not have trouble.

Was wondering more about 3D renderings, which are part of a Phase, and are intended as such.

jla-x, I'm not saying site art is illegal. But it's possible it requires an architect or engineer's stamp to get installed - probably depending on the nature of the piece and it's location. Maybe Donna or someone who works with museum installations can confirm whether this is typical.

This scultpure in chicago was on private property, but violated some zoning ordinance and led to the city suing the owner. I think it was later removed and modified to comply with zoning restrictions.

New York had a famous dispute over public art by Richard Serra which kind of established some precedent for overriding an artist's intention when the public owner changes their mind (due to extraordinary public protest). Serra by the way has an ego that way upstages even the fussiest of architects!