I am an Intern Architect and recently did some freelance work for a lady. The lady found a house plan she liked, bought the CAD file from some architects, and hired me to modify the plan (add a sunroom, change one or two bathroom layouts, move windows around, mirror the plan, change foundation type), work with an engineer to stamp the appropriate drawings, and design a detached garage apartment. I did not draw up a contract for the work so no clear terms were in place as far as ownership of the drawings. But everything was fine until....
Her builders built a duplicate house, minus the garage apartment. Now the lady is trying to sue the builders, saying she had ownership of the design. The builders say I have rights to the drawings and have offered me a "royalty fee" for the drawings for the second house. I have refused the fee, as there is ensuing legal action brewing between the builders and the lady, and I would rather not involve myself. But for my own clarity, did I do the right thing to refuse the money, or should I have accepted the money?
Unfortunately, there was no contract that's why the idea of "ownership" is unclear. I know, I know, I should've written something up... I'm still learning how to be an architect.
You don't have a contract that defined ownership of the drawings during and after construction...bummer...if you did, it usually says the architect retains rights to the drawings for future use, then you could take some cash for the second build out and your client would be pissed, but that is your choice. Unfortunately it sounds like your client is a bitch and everybody is going to get shit on their hands in a lawsuit. I hope your consultants are protected under their contracts, I bet they have drawing ownership defined somewhere. Sounds like a mess. I wonder if she retains ownership of the plans since she bought them from some website in the first place despite your changes...I guess it depends on how extensive they were. Glad I'm not in that shitstorm.
you could have accepted the money. that would lead to a more interesting outcome, and i think your role in the subsequent lawsuits would be more fun. my guess is that the contractor would at that point state that it was clear that you had ownership of the documents, rather than the client. i think it would be more clear in a way at that point.
anyone have a link to the archinect podcast with the lawyer who spoke about copyright? one think you could do real quick is register the plans as your copyright.
other than that, i'm not a lawyer. 'do you have copyright ownership of these drawings' might be a better question than 'could i have accepted money.'
I think the engineer who stamped the original drawings is not at risk because stamps aren't required for residential work in MS, he only needed to stamp the foundation for the first house because it was in a certain municipality. The second house was built in a municipality that doesn't require foundation stamps . I imagine the builders "whited out" his seal for the second set of plans.
if the engineer drew the foundations, i assume he would have the same rights to ownership of his drawings that you would have to your drawings. if you sold the stuff that he drew as part of a set of stuff including what you drew, then don't you think you're selling his work?
i'm fairly certain that it's not the stamp that gives you copyright ownership.
Why not just write your client a letter in which you turn over to her all rights that you otherwise might have in the drawings. Then she can pursue whatever course of action she might wish to take against the contractor without your role confusing the situation.
You presumably got paid for your work and there's really no need to get caught in the cross fire here -- you have absolutely nothing to gain by allowing yourself to get dragged into this.
Agree totally with Stone. You all are missing the fact that the OP is NOT an "architect" and has no copyright protection under federal law. Without a contract the drawings really are just a commodity that you should turn over to the client who paid you for them and step away quietly.
Curt, listened to it, think I counted about 50 times they used the word "architect" and zero use of the word "intern", the “intern" is not an "architect" and does not have automatic copyright protection of work and no an "architect" does not need a contract to retain copyright. Anyone can copyright work, but it’s not automatic and must be done in the conventional manor with a formal filing. Non-architects can also protect work through contract provisions, but because the OP did neither he has no protection of his work. Automatic copyright is one of the good things the government provided us, but not interns. Automatic is the operative word.
i don't claim to be a lawyer or a millionaire or anything else special. i'm just a guy with an internet, so if it helps you can read this fine website and draw your own conclusions as to it's validity and intent
I am not a lawyer, but what I taught in ProPractice class was this:
An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. Source US Copyright Office Title 17
No mention there of being a registered architect or not. "Individual standard features" refers to not being able to copyright a basic feature like door that swings on hinges as a way to access a room; the basic function of a door can't be copyrighted.
Also, you the designer hold the copyright and are selling your client a "one time license for use" of the design. They can't build multiple copies unless your contract expressly says so. In this case, the builder absolutely has no rights to use the design.
IMO, and, again, I'm not a lawyer, you are wisest to stick with your client and not accept a buyoff from the builders. An open question is did your client have rights to use the design in the first place: did she legally purchase the CAD files via an agreement with the original architect? Or maybe are they plans bought legally from a plan set site? If she didn't get the plans legally then you *really* don't want to take any money for yet a third party using them.
Mar 10, 15 9:34 pm ·
·
First, people are starting on the wrong basis in their comment.
Strict legal sense: You may not edit or otherwise someone else's copyrighted work without permission authorized.... PERIOD. It's a federal crime/violation.
Step 1. Is it authorized by the architect for the original plans to be modified or altered from?
This means the client must have those rights or permission to have those plans modified or altered by anyone other than the original architect. Clients often misunderstands this material fact of copyright.
Having said that, copyright is almost not enforced at all in residential architecture because the cases never see federal court due to their very small economic nexus. The cost to pursue a case in Federal court often costs far more than the original fees. From a practical reality, copyrights is something that is almost as good as not existing at all when it comes to our micro-economy environment because we just don't make million dollars off of any single plan we make in the residential. You generally need to essentially break a $1 million barrier in economical value. A loss typically needs to be on the order of $100,000 or more to get the federal courts involved on a copyright matter. It is not a hard line rule and they may take cases under smaller value but priority is going to go to bigger cases involving bigger sums of money. One off job for a few hundred dollars isn't enough of a nexus for federal courts to hear the case unless they are very very bored (ie. has nothing else to do).
Most of us boutique shop architects/designers just don't benefit from federal intellectual property rights laws in practical reality.
Step 2: Knowing that a real legal case over the matter is very slim ever at a Federal court if you violated copyrights. There is the state courts which may hear copyright matters to extent provided they have some degree of state laws relating to copyrights even though copyrights is domain of Federal courts but this is something you probably won't see. Therefore, knowing you will likely not find a real legal case on you but maybe the original copyright holder and client/property owner.... under a breach of contract case at a local/state court. Since a license agreement is a contract agreement and often it is built into the contract agreement and the states would hear a breach of contract not so much a violation of copyright. That would be between client and the copyright holder but you may very well be named in the suit as accessory to the breach and be enjoined in the liability that may result. Will that happen or not... who knows. It's a gamble and how their attorney sets up the case and frames it.
With that in minds, your legal exposure is minimal in a practical sense but if you are unlikely to have a suit heard in Federal court it is a serious charge with serious ramifications. So now, Step 3 is determine for yourself whether it is morally/ethically right or wrong.
Step 3 is to determine whether it is morally or ethically wrong and how important is that to you considering putting yourself in the copyright holders place. This is about where your moral/ethical compass lies.
Step 4: Weigh the matters morally/ethically and legally.
It can be a big issue. There are things you may also consider, is pissing off that architect in your best interest in present and future.
Curt, no they can, it's just not "automatic". I am an architect, I don't need to do anything to get a copyright for my work, it's automatic, no paperwork involved. If a person is not an architect he would need to formally apply for it, with paperwork, to get it and this guy didn't do that. Both can have one the difference is how to get one.
Now I don't recommend the OP do this but a non-architect could, once he sees his work being replicated, rush out and file for one, then go after the offender but the offenders defense might be that he knew an architect did not do the work and assumed it wasn't protected and he would be right and the fact that the intern filed after the offender started using the work would be evidence of that... but it could stop him from replicating further.
Also, in all cases we should all be putting copyright notices on all our drawings... courts don't like when people are not warned or notified, easy thing to do.
Mar 10, 15 9:42 pm ·
·
I will advise that the U.S. Copyright law for "Architectural Works" applies to unlicensed building designers as they do licensed architects. The copyright office and the original framers of those provisions does not and did not differentiate between licensed and unlicensed as such licensure is a state law thing and not of any concern to Federal which does not license architects and does not make those differentiation.
From a federal perspective, I'm an architect and what I do is architecture as is those that are licensed as the Federal system of law does not have a legal framework of architectural licensure. Licensure as we know it is a state legal system and outside the purview of the federal legal system. In short, the U.S. Copyright office isn't going to spend time checking if the designer/architect is licensed.
Carerra, I don't think it's true that the copyright is only automatic if one is an registered professional. Can you find any wording to that effect in the link I posted?
Everybody seems to be missing the key statement. They weren't the interns drawings.
The lady found a house plan she liked, bought the CAD file from some architects
Subject to the sale agreement, the original architect may have a claim. But probably not, as I can't imagine that anyone stupid enough to sell their CAD files is smart enough to try put any kind of restriction on their use. The intern has no rights or claim to them.
Run, Forrest, run! As fast as you can from this miserable profession.
Miles I'm trying to assume that the architect who sold the plans to the lady allowed her, via that purchase, a "one time use" of the design. If her use of it was modified, I don't think that's a problem (as far as I know, IANAL). Once the intern did the changes and produced his/her own drawings, those designs became his/hers.
Coming at me faster than I can type. Architectural work is not protected by virtue of it being architectural.... AUTOMATIC protection is reserved for architects, all others must file for it and if they don't they don't have it. Anybody can draw today but those anybody's have to take action to obtain protection, architects don't. All citations above are based on one being an architect.
Altering work is a liability issue.
Not an attorney either but I filed for 2 copyright infringements in federal court, tried both cases myself and won both.
Mar 10, 15 10:09 pm ·
·
As long as you have a copyright notice or basically a date and your name, you are automatically receive copyright for your work but the real test of right is either A) through registration of your work or B) Uniqueness of your work or C) both.
Now, certain provisions are not available unless you register your copyright.
Now regarding the builder, a builder NEVER has a copyright to a architect or designer's work unless A) the architect/designer was their employee or there was an explicit license agreement between parties. When it comes to copyright matters, it has to be written / recorded agreement. An agreement only exists if there is tangible evidence of that agreement. Generally, it has to be written and signed.
It is one thing that can't just be verbal to be recognized unless there is indisputable evidence.
Builders needs to understand that just because they built it doesn't mean they get a copyright and just because a client handed them a COPY doesn't mean they can reproduce. Builders absolutely needs to verify the client has an agreement to sub-license the architect/designer's work.
They can not otherwise.
Too bad, many builders don't have the education of these matters.
Copyrights protection is automatic but one limits some of their options in a lawsuit. Carerra, it is worth looking at the actual copyright law. In fact, we get rights under two areas of the copyright law.... PICTORIAL WORKS and ARCHITECTURAL WORKS.
There is limitations imposed if you do not register BUT it doesn't mean you can't sue someone and get some remedy/restitution.
Mar 10, 15 10:14 pm ·
·
Carerra,
Architects from a federal copyright office applies to anyone who designs buildings. Licensure has absolutely zero bearing because licensing is a state law matter not a federal.
Basically, U.S. Copyright law and the Federal legal system on these matters makes no differentiation between a state licensed architect and a building designer. From the perspective of copyright law and federal courts, a building designer is an architect as is a state licensed architect.
The very houses in D.C. made a clarification that the "Architectural Works" part of the copyright law applies to unlicensed architectural designers (building designers) and state licensed architects alike because in the federal legal system.... there is no such thing as licensed architect because there is no such thing as federal architectural licensing system. The federal system does not involve state law in the enforcement of federal laws. They are separate legal systems.
It's possible the OP changed the original enough that it's now his own original work isn't? The original was just inspiration. I don't think we have enough information to know that.
Aside from the people who are not lawyers trying to speak legalese, the essential lesson should be 'don't be a dick.' Get that right and more often than not you'll be OK.
Possibly another can of worms, as the OP did not have ownership. But really it's just idle speculation based on one anonymous interpretation of a story. The real issue is the sad state of the profession. But somebody selling their CAD files, a builder pirating the design, the person who in theory paid for a single use suing as if they owned them ... it sounds ridiculous enough to be true.
Mar 10, 15 10:43 pm ·
·
Also, your statement that all others it is not automatic is a misstatement. Copyright is automatic to an extent. For example, I write a computer program, the moment I write the program, it is automatic. All that is necessary to demonstrate my work is copyrighted before someone else is A) date and copyright notice. Of course, works can be contested and that is where things can get muddy legally. Date of first publishing, helps. Documenting your evidence of claim to defend a right is required and that applies to everyone.
It used to be less automatic and that to get protection, you used to have to register but that has changed over the years.
You will have to register first before starting a lawsuit. However, your copyright begins the date of creation. You don't necessarily have to register before an infringement occured. However, you need to register before statutes of limitation expires on an infringement.
Correction - can't dig deep enough on a tablet but did learn that architectural copyright law changed in 1990, after my activity and it appears that it was broadened, and also appears watered down requiring action for actionable enforcement. In fact not much is automatic if you want to enforce it.
Other things that are now in play is proving it's "original work" which gets hard with house plans because everything has been done at least once.
Sorry for the stray misfire, pulling the "Old Guy" card on this one.
Mar 10, 15 11:01 pm ·
·
.
Mar 10, 15 11:04 pm ·
·
That's the shortest post.
Mar 10, 15 11:04 pm ·
·
Carerra,
Nothing is automatic if you want to sue. You basically have to register your copyright before suing someone.
However, you have your copyright but you have to register to sue. Nice way to filter down waste of Federal court's time.
R.B. Esq., anyone can sue anyone anytime for anything. The only thing required is a lawyer.
Mar 10, 15 11:13 pm ·
·
Not necessarily. Anyone can FILE for a lawsuit. But that is no guarantee the courts will hear the case. Some will simply reject the case without ever a hearing.
Don't be stupid Richard. It can take a decade or more just to get to court. And most of the time going to court is never the intention.
Mar 10, 15 11:31 pm ·
·
Small cases below nexus is often rejected on basis of nexus and in some cases for reasons of not qualifying. Cases like copyright infringement has statutes of limitation. Refiling under suits of new infringements. If your statutes of limitation has come and pass, a court isn't even going to start a hearing on the case
We are talking about different cases because. They can drag on for decades but if your case doesn't get to court by statutes of limitation/repose, that case is dead. If your copyright is not registered, your copyright lawsuit case is going to be rejected. You can file again if the statutes of limitation/repose hasn't expired or that will again be a basis for rejection.
The courts rejects alot of case because they don't have time for them. Yes, there are reasons where going to court is never the intention but that is not what is being discussed and sometimes that is more to discourage or move an infringer to change their ways. That's a whole different discussion is it not?
Mar 10, 15 11:41 pm ·
·
A person isn't technically suing someone until it has been preliminarily vetted and the courts accept the case be it a hearing and rejected at get go. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything. But not everything filed ever reaches to an actual lawsuit. Some cases are so frivolous nonsense that is it laughed out right off the bat before even a single appearance.
Richard, I had one case against me thrown out but I was five grand into it before it happened. Miles has his "Laws", here's my #1 - "Take the money and run".
Mar 11, 15 12:05 am ·
·
Yeah. My rule is if one has to go to court everyone loses except the lawyers.
Well, that builder stole the plans from *someone*. Either the OP, the homeowner or the original architect.
Maybe the OP, the original arch and the homeowner can team up and sue the builder. Of course, it might turn out that the original arch sues the OP too LOL>
Me: I'd just let the homeowner go on their merry way and I wouldn't claim any ownership of the design. Hopefully the OP made sure that the homeowner had permission from the original arch to modify the drawings.
HEY OP - get a dang contract next time. Mine always state that it's a one time license.
Mar 11, 15 7:19 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
architectural ownership
I am an Intern Architect and recently did some freelance work for a lady. The lady found a house plan she liked, bought the CAD file from some architects, and hired me to modify the plan (add a sunroom, change one or two bathroom layouts, move windows around, mirror the plan, change foundation type), work with an engineer to stamp the appropriate drawings, and design a detached garage apartment. I did not draw up a contract for the work so no clear terms were in place as far as ownership of the drawings. But everything was fine until....
Her builders built a duplicate house, minus the garage apartment. Now the lady is trying to sue the builders, saying she had ownership of the design. The builders say I have rights to the drawings and have offered me a "royalty fee" for the drawings for the second house. I have refused the fee, as there is ensuing legal action brewing between the builders and the lady, and I would rather not involve myself. But for my own clarity, did I do the right thing to refuse the money, or should I have accepted the money?
What does the contract say?
But for my own clarity, did I do the right thing to refuse the money, or should I have accepted the money?
are you asking from a legal sense, or a moral sense, or an ethical sense?
And you still want to be an architect?
Cesspool cleaners wade though less shit than we do.
are you asking from a legal sense, or a moral sense, or an ethical sense?
I'm asking from a legal sense. I should've said "COULD I have accepted the money?"
What does the contract say?
Unfortunately, there was no contract that's why the idea of "ownership" is unclear. I know, I know, I should've written something up... I'm still learning how to be an architect.
You don't have a contract that defined ownership of the drawings during and after construction...bummer...if you did, it usually says the architect retains rights to the drawings for future use, then you could take some cash for the second build out and your client would be pissed, but that is your choice. Unfortunately it sounds like your client is a bitch and everybody is going to get shit on their hands in a lawsuit. I hope your consultants are protected under their contracts, I bet they have drawing ownership defined somewhere. Sounds like a mess. I wonder if she retains ownership of the plans since she bought them from some website in the first place despite your changes...I guess it depends on how extensive they were. Glad I'm not in that shitstorm.
you could have accepted the money. that would lead to a more interesting outcome, and i think your role in the subsequent lawsuits would be more fun. my guess is that the contractor would at that point state that it was clear that you had ownership of the documents, rather than the client. i think it would be more clear in a way at that point.
anyone have a link to the archinect podcast with the lawyer who spoke about copyright? one think you could do real quick is register the plans as your copyright.
other than that, i'm not a lawyer. 'do you have copyright ownership of these drawings' might be a better question than 'could i have accepted money.'
I think the engineer who stamped the original drawings is not at risk because stamps aren't required for residential work in MS, he only needed to stamp the foundation for the first house because it was in a certain municipality. The second house was built in a municipality that doesn't require foundation stamps . I imagine the builders "whited out" his seal for the second set of plans.
if the engineer drew the foundations, i assume he would have the same rights to ownership of his drawings that you would have to your drawings. if you sold the stuff that he drew as part of a set of stuff including what you drew, then don't you think you're selling his work?
i'm fairly certain that it's not the stamp that gives you copyright ownership.
Why not just write your client a letter in which you turn over to her all rights that you otherwise might have in the drawings. Then she can pursue whatever course of action she might wish to take against the contractor without your role confusing the situation.
You presumably got paid for your work and there's really no need to get caught in the cross fire here -- you have absolutely nothing to gain by allowing yourself to get dragged into this.
Agree totally with Stone. You all are missing the fact that the OP is NOT an "architect" and has no copyright protection under federal law. Without a contract the drawings really are just a commodity that you should turn over to the client who paid you for them and step away quietly.
is it true that only an 'architect' has copyright protection?
is it true that you need a contract to retain copyrights?
http://archinect.com/news/tag/549464/archinect-sessions-legal-correspondent
Curt, listened to it, think I counted about 50 times they used the word "architect" and zero use of the word "intern", the “intern" is not an "architect" and does not have automatic copyright protection of work and no an "architect" does not need a contract to retain copyright. Anyone can copyright work, but it’s not automatic and must be done in the conventional manor with a formal filing. Non-architects can also protect work through contract provisions, but because the OP did neither he has no protection of his work. Automatic copyright is one of the good things the government provided us, but not interns. Automatic is the operative word.
are you saying that people who are not registered architects don't hold copyrights for work they created?
i don't claim to be a lawyer or a millionaire or anything else special. i'm just a guy with an internet, so if it helps you can read this fine website and draw your own conclusions as to it's validity and intent
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-2
I am not a lawyer, but what I taught in ProPractice class was this:
An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. Source US Copyright Office Title 17
No mention there of being a registered architect or not. "Individual standard features" refers to not being able to copyright a basic feature like door that swings on hinges as a way to access a room; the basic function of a door can't be copyrighted.
Also, you the designer hold the copyright and are selling your client a "one time license for use" of the design. They can't build multiple copies unless your contract expressly says so. In this case, the builder absolutely has no rights to use the design.
IMO, and, again, I'm not a lawyer, you are wisest to stick with your client and not accept a buyoff from the builders. An open question is did your client have rights to use the design in the first place: did she legally purchase the CAD files via an agreement with the original architect? Or maybe are they plans bought legally from a plan set site? If she didn't get the plans legally then you *really* don't want to take any money for yet a third party using them.
First, people are starting on the wrong basis in their comment.
Strict legal sense: You may not edit or otherwise someone else's copyrighted work without permission authorized.... PERIOD. It's a federal crime/violation.
Step 1. Is it authorized by the architect for the original plans to be modified or altered from?
This means the client must have those rights or permission to have those plans modified or altered by anyone other than the original architect. Clients often misunderstands this material fact of copyright.
Having said that, copyright is almost not enforced at all in residential architecture because the cases never see federal court due to their very small economic nexus. The cost to pursue a case in Federal court often costs far more than the original fees. From a practical reality, copyrights is something that is almost as good as not existing at all when it comes to our micro-economy environment because we just don't make million dollars off of any single plan we make in the residential. You generally need to essentially break a $1 million barrier in economical value. A loss typically needs to be on the order of $100,000 or more to get the federal courts involved on a copyright matter. It is not a hard line rule and they may take cases under smaller value but priority is going to go to bigger cases involving bigger sums of money. One off job for a few hundred dollars isn't enough of a nexus for federal courts to hear the case unless they are very very bored (ie. has nothing else to do).
Most of us boutique shop architects/designers just don't benefit from federal intellectual property rights laws in practical reality.
Step 2: Knowing that a real legal case over the matter is very slim ever at a Federal court if you violated copyrights. There is the state courts which may hear copyright matters to extent provided they have some degree of state laws relating to copyrights even though copyrights is domain of Federal courts but this is something you probably won't see. Therefore, knowing you will likely not find a real legal case on you but maybe the original copyright holder and client/property owner.... under a breach of contract case at a local/state court. Since a license agreement is a contract agreement and often it is built into the contract agreement and the states would hear a breach of contract not so much a violation of copyright. That would be between client and the copyright holder but you may very well be named in the suit as accessory to the breach and be enjoined in the liability that may result. Will that happen or not... who knows. It's a gamble and how their attorney sets up the case and frames it.
With that in minds, your legal exposure is minimal in a practical sense but if you are unlikely to have a suit heard in Federal court it is a serious charge with serious ramifications. So now, Step 3 is determine for yourself whether it is morally/ethically right or wrong.
Step 3 is to determine whether it is morally or ethically wrong and how important is that to you considering putting yourself in the copyright holders place. This is about where your moral/ethical compass lies.
Step 4: Weigh the matters morally/ethically and legally.
It can be a big issue. There are things you may also consider, is pissing off that architect in your best interest in present and future.
Curt, no they can, it's just not "automatic". I am an architect, I don't need to do anything to get a copyright for my work, it's automatic, no paperwork involved. If a person is not an architect he would need to formally apply for it, with paperwork, to get it and this guy didn't do that. Both can have one the difference is how to get one.
Now I don't recommend the OP do this but a non-architect could, once he sees his work being replicated, rush out and file for one, then go after the offender but the offenders defense might be that he knew an architect did not do the work and assumed it wasn't protected and he would be right and the fact that the intern filed after the offender started using the work would be evidence of that... but it could stop him from replicating further.
Also, in all cases we should all be putting copyright notices on all our drawings... courts don't like when people are not warned or notified, easy thing to do.
I will advise that the U.S. Copyright law for "Architectural Works" applies to unlicensed building designers as they do licensed architects. The copyright office and the original framers of those provisions does not and did not differentiate between licensed and unlicensed as such licensure is a state law thing and not of any concern to Federal which does not license architects and does not make those differentiation.
From a federal perspective, I'm an architect and what I do is architecture as is those that are licensed as the Federal system of law does not have a legal framework of architectural licensure. Licensure as we know it is a state legal system and outside the purview of the federal legal system. In short, the U.S. Copyright office isn't going to spend time checking if the designer/architect is licensed.
Carerra, I don't think it's true that the copyright is only automatic if one is an registered professional. Can you find any wording to that effect in the link I posted?
Everybody seems to be missing the key statement. They weren't the interns drawings.
The lady found a house plan she liked, bought the CAD file from some architects
Subject to the sale agreement, the original architect may have a claim. But probably not, as I can't imagine that anyone stupid enough to sell their CAD files is smart enough to try put any kind of restriction on their use. The intern has no rights or claim to them.
Run, Forrest, run! As fast as you can from this miserable profession.
Miles I'm trying to assume that the architect who sold the plans to the lady allowed her, via that purchase, a "one time use" of the design. If her use of it was modified, I don't think that's a problem (as far as I know, IANAL). Once the intern did the changes and produced his/her own drawings, those designs became his/hers.
Coming at me faster than I can type. Architectural work is not protected by virtue of it being architectural.... AUTOMATIC protection is reserved for architects, all others must file for it and if they don't they don't have it. Anybody can draw today but those anybody's have to take action to obtain protection, architects don't. All citations above are based on one being an architect.
Altering work is a liability issue.
Not an attorney either but I filed for 2 copyright infringements in federal court, tried both cases myself and won both.
As long as you have a copyright notice or basically a date and your name, you are automatically receive copyright for your work but the real test of right is either A) through registration of your work or B) Uniqueness of your work or C) both.
Now, certain provisions are not available unless you register your copyright.
Now regarding the builder, a builder NEVER has a copyright to a architect or designer's work unless A) the architect/designer was their employee or there was an explicit license agreement between parties. When it comes to copyright matters, it has to be written / recorded agreement. An agreement only exists if there is tangible evidence of that agreement. Generally, it has to be written and signed.
It is one thing that can't just be verbal to be recognized unless there is indisputable evidence.
Builders needs to understand that just because they built it doesn't mean they get a copyright and just because a client handed them a COPY doesn't mean they can reproduce. Builders absolutely needs to verify the client has an agreement to sub-license the architect/designer's work.
They can not otherwise.
Too bad, many builders don't have the education of these matters.
Copyrights protection is automatic but one limits some of their options in a lawsuit. Carerra, it is worth looking at the actual copyright law. In fact, we get rights under two areas of the copyright law.... PICTORIAL WORKS and ARCHITECTURAL WORKS.
There is limitations imposed if you do not register BUT it doesn't mean you can't sue someone and get some remedy/restitution.
Carerra,
Architects from a federal copyright office applies to anyone who designs buildings. Licensure has absolutely zero bearing because licensing is a state law matter not a federal.
Basically, U.S. Copyright law and the Federal legal system on these matters makes no differentiation between a state licensed architect and a building designer. From the perspective of copyright law and federal courts, a building designer is an architect as is a state licensed architect.
The very houses in D.C. made a clarification that the "Architectural Works" part of the copyright law applies to unlicensed architectural designers (building designers) and state licensed architects alike because in the federal legal system.... there is no such thing as licensed architect because there is no such thing as federal architectural licensing system. The federal system does not involve state law in the enforcement of federal laws. They are separate legal systems.
It's possible the OP changed the original enough that it's now his own original work isn't? The original was just inspiration. I don't think we have enough information to know that.
Aside from the people who are not lawyers trying to speak legalese, the essential lesson should be 'don't be a dick.' Get that right and more often than not you'll be OK.
Possibly another can of worms, as the OP did not have ownership. But really it's just idle speculation based on one anonymous interpretation of a story. The real issue is the sad state of the profession. But somebody selling their CAD files, a builder pirating the design, the person who in theory paid for a single use suing as if they owned them ... it sounds ridiculous enough to be true.
Also, your statement that all others it is not automatic is a misstatement. Copyright is automatic to an extent. For example, I write a computer program, the moment I write the program, it is automatic. All that is necessary to demonstrate my work is copyrighted before someone else is A) date and copyright notice. Of course, works can be contested and that is where things can get muddy legally. Date of first publishing, helps. Documenting your evidence of claim to defend a right is required and that applies to everyone.
It used to be less automatic and that to get protection, you used to have to register but that has changed over the years.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
You will have to register first before starting a lawsuit. However, your copyright begins the date of creation. You don't necessarily have to register before an infringement occured. However, you need to register before statutes of limitation expires on an infringement.
http://copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
http://copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf
I read the document from the committee on the Architectural Works copyright. I have to track down that particular document.
Miles... I agree.
Congratulations on the shortest post you've ever written.
Brevity is king.
Correction - can't dig deep enough on a tablet but did learn that architectural copyright law changed in 1990, after my activity and it appears that it was broadened, and also appears watered down requiring action for actionable enforcement. In fact not much is automatic if you want to enforce it.
Other things that are now in play is proving it's "original work" which gets hard with house plans because everything has been done at least once.
Sorry for the stray misfire, pulling the "Old Guy" card on this one.
.
That's the shortest post.
Carerra,
Nothing is automatic if you want to sue. You basically have to register your copyright before suing someone.
However, you have your copyright but you have to register to sue. Nice way to filter down waste of Federal court's time.
R.B. Esq., anyone can sue anyone anytime for anything. The only thing required is a lawyer.
Not necessarily. Anyone can FILE for a lawsuit. But that is no guarantee the courts will hear the case. Some will simply reject the case without ever a hearing.
Don't be stupid Richard. It can take a decade or more just to get to court. And most of the time going to court is never the intention.
Small cases below nexus is often rejected on basis of nexus and in some cases for reasons of not qualifying. Cases like copyright infringement has statutes of limitation. Refiling under suits of new infringements. If your statutes of limitation has come and pass, a court isn't even going to start a hearing on the case
We are talking about different cases because. They can drag on for decades but if your case doesn't get to court by statutes of limitation/repose, that case is dead. If your copyright is not registered, your copyright lawsuit case is going to be rejected. You can file again if the statutes of limitation/repose hasn't expired or that will again be a basis for rejection.
The courts rejects alot of case because they don't have time for them. Yes, there are reasons where going to court is never the intention but that is not what is being discussed and sometimes that is more to discourage or move an infringer to change their ways. That's a whole different discussion is it not?
A person isn't technically suing someone until it has been preliminarily vetted and the courts accept the case be it a hearing and rejected at get go. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything. But not everything filed ever reaches to an actual lawsuit. Some cases are so frivolous nonsense that is it laughed out right off the bat before even a single appearance.
Richard, I had one case against me thrown out but I was five grand into it before it happened. Miles has his "Laws", here's my #1 - "Take the money and run".
Yeah. My rule is if one has to go to court everyone loses except the lawyers.
Well, that builder stole the plans from *someone*. Either the OP, the homeowner or the original architect.
Maybe the OP, the original arch and the homeowner can team up and sue the builder. Of course, it might turn out that the original arch sues the OP too LOL>
Me: I'd just let the homeowner go on their merry way and I wouldn't claim any ownership of the design. Hopefully the OP made sure that the homeowner had permission from the original arch to modify the drawings.
HEY OP - get a dang contract next time. Mine always state that it's a one time license.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.