I suggested it as a means going forward as part of enabling or empowering detection of counterfeit plans be it yours or anyone else. It might not be needed for an mediocre plain deck plan but for something more substantial and especially if you are doing something like house plans publishing or anytime it would be used for multiple buildings built.
The contractor doesn't need to make copies. They just need to order them from the publisher/designer.
Something already done is kind of after the fact and then use the copyright laws for restitution if necessary.
It's not clear from the original post that there's anything being misused here. The client didn't expect the work required for the tract approval application to be as involved or expensive as it is - so naturally he's looking for ways to cut costs. One way would be to assemble the tract approval application himself or with his own forces. That may be what's going on here.
The OP was expecting that the architecture firm would be assembling the application for the tract approval - but did the client explicitly agree to that service, and if so, was there any contract stipulation that the client could not use the architect's portion of the documents for the tract approval submittal if the client did not avail himself of the architects' services in compiling the whole submittal?
The other disciplines required for the submittal were directly contracted by the client - they're not the architect's consultants, so the architect doesn't necessarily need to have any involvement with their documents. The architect completed his portion of the documents, was paid for them and provided them to the client. The client seems to be within his rights to "take the drawings and run" at this point (for the purposes of this tract application - not for purposes of construction of this or any other development), unless there's something in the contract that prohibits it.
Also, since this just happened "the other day", the OP may yet hear from the client - whether within days or much later. I had a developer client who dropped off the radar entirely about 6 years ago, and just phoned a few weeks ago to pick up the project again as if he'd just set it aside for a few days. He hadn't run off and gotten permits or built the project (or any unauthorized replicas of it elsewhere) - he'd just set it aside. Some other project may just have pushed yours to the back burner for now...
Rick contractors don't typically order drawing sets from the architect. They order them directly from a print house. A large project, especially one that's bid, can have several hundred sets issued by the printer to bidding GCs and subs, fabricators, inspectors, etc. Even on a small residential project with no bid process, my state has 15 required inspections, most conducted by separate trade inspectors, each of whom needs a set.. Protecting all of those sets with holograms would be highly impractical.
Your hologram just messed up my 19th century cyanotype!
Jan 27, 16 4:37 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
The method as it is currently being conducted is essentially violation of copyright law. Only the copyright holder and their duly licensed licensee may make copies of the copyrighted work.
This method as it currently is technically the wrong way. The legally correct way is that only the copyright holder and their licensees may have copies of the copyrighted work made. The contractors would be infringing copyright.
What difference does it make if they have to order copies through you? Aside from you being able to make money from each copy made which is your legal right as the copyright holder.
As for the hologram, being impractical, my ass. You make up the cost in what you bill the contractor and other stake holders or the client. Simply put, they have to go through you for your work and the engineers for their work. You just build into the invoice by what you charge.
As long as you let the contractors infringe your copyright by making how many copies they want whenever they want without any control and oversight, they are going to continue to abuse the process for their own benefit. The wrong way has been going on for a long time so I don't blame you for the past. But as long as we let the wrong method continue, we'll continue to be screwed over. Copyrights and rights we have in them requires a responsibility on our part to protect it or we end up effectively losing those rights and ability to recover.
Add to that, you have a right to maximize your earnings from the copyrighted work.
When they bypass you the copyright holder to get copies of the work, you are losing money from it and you are losing recovery for losses and you are potentially exposing yourself to additional liability because of our professional liability to the design of your work.
Just PDF as raster instead of vector. Put your copyright on the sheet. Beyond that, don't worry about it. You got paid. Owner is trying to get a deal and will fail. Not your problem. Maybe go talk to the plan reviewer in case they catch your design coming in w another arch's stamp on it.
Balki do you remember a while back when everybody else in a thread was talking about shadow box construction and you didn't understand through several pages of it that they were talking about the facade of an office building, until long after you'd pontificated repeatedly and at length on the proper detailing and "professional standard of care" for designing the type of shadow boxes that are sold by Michaels craft stores for displaying one's smurf collections and dried flowers (complete with screen grabs from aforementioned craft store)? And then how upon realizing your utter foolishness you made yourself look even more clueless by scolding all the architects for using terms amongst themselves, on a website for architects, that don't appear in your Ching book or other "So You Want to be an Architect" high school summer course level material? That's how embarrassingly, cringe-worthily off base you are in this thread. Really.
Did you use an AIA B104 contract? I quickly re-read it. It does not favor you. Client paid... they get to use the drawings... you still own copyright... they paid for drawings though... so they get to use them even with other architects... you are freed from liability if they go to someone else.
In fact, that contract explicitly states that, if the Owner has paid you, they get the DWGs too. If the AIA has written their contract like that, I suspect this has been litigated many times. Good luck.
^ That's what I was trying to get to earlier. But then Balkins keeps insisting that he knows what he's talking about and we keep going further off the rails.
Yeah... unless you had something in the contract that doesn't allow the client to use drawings that you gave him, and for which he paid you, for the very purpose intended, then I don't think you've got a valid grievance here. If he tries to use the drawings for the tract approval and finds out that the drawings need to be stamped then he'll probably be back, - but it's not always the case that drawings for this purpose require a stamp.
As for holograms and the architect profiting somehow off every set printed: it isn't feasible when drawings public, corporate, or institutional procurement regs standardize the cost of sets, the printer from which they must be available, etc. On projects that are funded in whole or part by public funds (schools, universities, civic projects, public safety, multi-family housing, correctional, and so on...) the unsuccessful bidders and subs usually have to be refunded most of the cost of the drawings if they return the sets to the printer within a few weeks. It's not at all an analogous situation to selling stock residential plans.
Thanks everyone for all the input, I really appreciate it and learned a lt in the process.
Just to clear a few things:
1. We were on an Hourly Not To Exceed Contract to prepare the architectural portion of the tract map submittal
2. We got paid to date. So, no problem there.
3. We dont know for a fact (yet) that the Client intends to use or infringe our Intellectual Prop. rights. However, with the way he acted, we have a suspicion. WE may find out one day or maybe never!
4. Yes, we had in our contract, that the Copyright belongs to us (the Architect).
5. Just to clear things, when you do a project design, you always retain the copyright unless you agree to sell it or give it away in your contract. All you are doing is selling your time to work on the project. Any miss-use of the work product or reproduction of it is an infringement of copyright.
6. I am not sure if a Client can pay for your TIME and then take the design elsewhere and keep working on it. I believe that is still an infringement of your copyright. He needs to get your consent.
Overall, I agree that within our profession, we stand on very weak ground as related to our intellectual property rights. Its obvious from many of the comments that most people say just take the money and forget it. This is probably what we are doing. However, I think its really a sad state for the profession that we are all simply willing to let go of the most important thing that we know: Our creativity Every other profession protects theirs rigorously.
There has to be ultimately a simple way of disseminating information including drawings , whether in paper format, PDF, CAD, etc.and be protected from being ripped off. Otherwise what is the difference between a creative and a non-creative person? The person/firm with the biggest library of stolen/copied plans/ideas wins !
Just what is it you are afraid of getting fucked out of? Were these complete CD's that you did for him that he can build off of? Or are they schematics? Was it your expectation that he would just start over completely anew if for some reason your relationship ended? Did he understand that?
The copyright is intended to protect you from unauthorized reuse of the work, not use for which it was intended and paid for. If they hire someone else to execute the rest of the work based on your design, too bad for you. If the client uses it on a different site you'd have a case.
Meanwhile, if, if, if ... you sound like my wife.
And I'm dead meat if anyone tells her I said that.
KR8VE: "Its really a sad state that we architects have no real and practical way of protecting our intellectual property rights even though there are laws in the book that supposedly protect us."
KR8VE: "within our profession, we stand on very weak ground as related to our intellectual property rights"
Architects stand on exactly the same ground as any other owner of intellectual property rights -- we can sue to enforce those rights if we believe they have been violated. In every such case, the owner of such rights must make a judgment as to the cost-effectiveness of pursuing such litigation.
You forgot about your right and protection from unauthorized derivative works. Remember, you have exclusive right to the design and derivative works unless you authorized through a licensing program another to be authorized to create derivative works.
Remember, a client isn't buying your copyright. A client may not directly or through contracting of another a person to make derivative works of your design. ONLY exception is someone documenting an existing building already built from which changes are to be made to it.
Otherwise, they are to start from scratch. No other architect, designer, engineer, contractor or otherwise shall edit, modify add or otherwise continue from the works of the copyright holder without first obtaining permission of the original copyright holder.
There is a basic process of getting permission / authorization from the copyright holder before creating derivative works.
Jan 27, 16 11:25 pm ·
·
JBeaumont:
U.S. Copyright law as with all laws are as BLACK & WHITE as black ink on white paper. It says something, therefore by NO exception unless it is absolutely written is there any exception for interpretation beyond the definition of a word. When a term is statutorily defined, then that term shall mean EXACTLY how it is defined. Words not statutorily defined shall have the ordinary dictionary definition of the word as the context would indicate.
There is any time in law when a law requires an apple that it means an orange. Whenever that happens, it is because the law is broken or failed to be followed accordingly. There is no room to be mysterious about the meaning of the law.
Copyright provides EXCLUSIVE rights to the copyright holder(s).
El Grecus, don't use AIA's contracts as they are written. Use your own contracts and have it defined so people aren't using contracts against you. If you are contractually placing yourself in a position to use your .DWG files then you are enabling them to screw you behind your back. This is why you make sure you aren't agreeing to contractual terms that erodes at your rights or empowers your client to screw you.
When they get a set of plans, they bought a 'book'. When does just purchasing a book allow the book buyers rights to reproduce? NEVER.
The point is NEVER sign away your rights unless you make money from time they use your plans / designs. I know what the damn AIA contracts say. I read them and various versions of them over the years. I don't use them because the use of them as they are is basically violating the architectural licensing laws. I have to amend it in order for that compliance but then its a potential copyright violation while the license to edit is there, it is intended to be edited in a very limited fashion which the extent of editing needed would basically exceed the intent of the license and potentially a copyright infringement.
That is why you need to write your contracts so that it preserves your rights. Unless you want to be giving up the copyrights and hand them over to every client you have.
Essentially, architects have been operating their practices as if their copyrights are automatically given to the client when they pay you for your services. You have been treating it as a work for hire when you are not the client's employee.
As a matter of fact, lets hold off comments or replies to this and my previous post or send it PM.
Unfortunately this is the mistake that most Architects make. They somehow think that once they get paid for work done, the client has the right to take the work somewhere else and continue to finish it, change it, use it anyway he can. This is an absolute infringement on the Author's copyright and is not allowed.
I suppose then, the big issue is do we have the guts, will, financial means to pursue the violator. I believe a lot of us would if there were copyright attorneys that would take on cases on a contingency basis after evaluating their merit.
Jan 28, 16 12:36 am ·
·
stone:
Architects stand on exactly the same ground as any other owner of intellectual property rights -- we can sue to enforce those rights if we believe they have been violated. In every such case, the owner of such rights must make a judgment as to the cost-effectiveness of pursuing such litigation.
True but architects have let themselves be in a position where they just let every person on earth be able to copyright infringe them and the architects won't do anything because they are afraid to litigate.
An undefended copyright is as good as no copyright. Not defending your copyright under any circumstances is basically telling everyone to go ahead and make how many copies you desire, you aren't going to do anything then why don't you just declare your work as public domain.
Jan 28, 16 1:06 am ·
·
KR8VE,
I believe there are some who will first look at the case and if the case is a clear cut as it can be then I wouldn't be surprised if they may entertain such.
The first and most clear thing that must be proven is that copyright infringement occured. You need to prove that. I had proposed the hologram as an example of a method which we can use in proving an unauthorized copy of the plans occured. That is, the client or their contractor or somewhere down the pike, made illegal/unauthorized copies.
That has to be clear before pursuing copyright infringement.
The next part is identifying the party who did it. That's the tricky part. You have to find the responsible party and that party would be the one that is pursued.
BEFORE you do anything irrational, you want to be sure you are barking up the right tree.
When you identify the right party then you weigh in on whether or not the case merits pursuit. In some cases, it is better to have them cease & desist and settle out of court in a civil manner.
You still have to defend your rights but defending does come in many forms and not always is it a lawsuit. I don't propose it as the only option.
You need to be clear that you can prove your case and prove that they made copies. It's also a leverage. You can say that you have the evidence and means to prove that unauthorized copies are such. You have a means of proving that the unauthorized copies are counterfeit.
It puts the leverage to say, hey, we can be honest with each other and then move forward or we can play this out in the courts. They probably will not want to be caught up in litigation any more than you do.
Jan 28, 16 1:28 am ·
·
KR8VE,
If you are who I think you are, I can't imagine your work being such that would not have considerable unique composition and expression as a whole.
Unfortunately this is the mistake that most Architects make. They somehow think that once they get paid for work done, the client has the right to take the work somewhere else and continue to finish it, change it, use it anyway he can.
NO, the mistake that most architects make is in thinking everything they do is pioneering, unique, brilliant and the next best thing to the invention of the Salk polio vaccine. Face it folks, the OP might have done a nice job of designing the hypothetical small lot houses for the bureaucrats to envision, but he didn't find the cure for cancer. There are only so many ways to put eight rooms together, and they were all done before any of us were out of diapers. He did the work, he got paid, end of story. Time to move on.
Unfortunately this is the mistake that most Architects make. They somehow think that once they get paid for work done, the client has the right to take the work somewhere else and continue to finish it, change it, use it anyway he can. This is an absolute infringement on the Author's copyright and is not allowed.
i think you're mistaken. you had an agreement with your client to develop drawings for a tract map submittal. as you said,
1. We were on an Hourly Not To Exceed Contract to prepare the architectural portion of the tract map submittal
you fulfilled your agreement by developing those drawings. i assume part of that submittal included elevations and maybe floor plans, which were developed to a conceptual or maybe schematic level. it sounds like now there is a possibility another architect will take the elevations that your client paid for and develop them so your client will be able to proceed with his development.
i think it should be obvious that your client did not pay you to develop elevations that they can't use for their development. in fact, your client is now somewhat obligated to follow your elevations because that's what the city approved right? your copyright might prevent that client from using your tract submittal for another lot or in another jurisdiction, but it doesn't prevent them from using that submittal for it's intended purpose.
how do you think this works in the real world? is copyright law intended to make sure you get paid to develop permit and construction drawings for every project you touch? every project you even think about? you weren't hired to develop permit drawings or construction drawings. you were hired to develop a tract map submittal. there is no reason for you to be upset. it's still quite possible your client will return to your firm when they need permit drawings developed, but if you're going to throw a tantrum because you can't get every project you want, when you want it, they might not want to continue working with you.
"Comments from anyone with prior real experience with issues as related to copyright protection of Architect's work are appreciated." Balkins, this is the OP's disclaimer to you. Please stfu.
That being said, OP whoever the developer hires will need to go to you guys for information on the design. Especially if your drawings do not have much information on it such as building Heights and zoning information.
If the developer continues with the project and wants to go to another architect the other architect will want to do their own due diligence.
I have seen people win lawsuits in West Hollywood for slightly altering somebody else's design and then building it on another lot. This lawsuit applied to a few different properties and a few different designs.
That being said, OP whoever the developer hires will need to go to you guys for information on the design. Especially if your drawings do not have much information on it such as building Heights and zoning information.
My take away from this is: This is billable time for your "consultation". Don't give it away for free.
So you are then saying that we as architects are only paid for our "Time" and nothing else. Per your assessment, there is no "Intellectual Property" in any Architect's work.
So, I can go to Norman Foster, insinuate that I am giving him a project, have him design it, pay him just for that portion, then walk to a 3rd rate drafting service without Foster's knowledge and/or consent and have his design put into technical drawings and then build the project..and according to you, then, Norman Foster or Zaha Hadid or any other Architect should be ok with this as long as they got paid for the design portion! hmmm..I don't think so!!!! Lets say they are even ok with it, then who gets the "Design" credit for the project when it gets built/ published etc.. ?
I think you have it completely wrong...We as Architects are not only selling time, we are engaging in a creative endaveur and must retain our intellectual property unless we agree at the outset to give it up. Whether its a small residential project with its own challenges and innovations that one can bring to it or a much larger more complex project!!
Under your scenario then , there should be "Design Firms" and then "Drafting Service Firms". Design firms do the design and get paid for it and executive firms do the technical drawings. Yes, there are joint ventures like that all the time but its done through legal contracts with proper credits and responsibilities given to both firms with proper follow through so that the design intent is executed properly.
I think some of the comments on here are coming from Architects or non-architects that one way or another don't care about their own design and creative abilities and look at design as just another commodity. At least in our firm, we highly value our design sensitivity and this is what separates us from many others, hence when something like this happens, it puzzles us and forces us to reach out and do something about it ! and yes , believe it or not, for the last 25 yrs, we never had this experience .
So you are then saying that we as architects are only paid for our "Time" and nothing else. Per your assessment, there is no "Intellectual Property" in any Architect's work.
no, i'm saying you were paid for the design work you did. it sounds like what you agreed to is to provide services up to the point of the tract submittal, at which point you were no longer under contract to provide services for that development. if it was important to your company to be under contract through permitting or through construction administration, you should have made that clear from the start. i don't think there is an expectation that the developer would see their relationship with the architect as that great of a commitment, and i don't think it's fair to say the skillset required to put together a tract submittal or a masterplan is the same as the skillset to put together construction documents, even if both are services your firm provides.
i have worked on a few industrial masterplans across the country where i will develop documents for pricing, marketing, municipal approval, or for the developer to submit with an RFP, where i have building plans, site circulation, parking, and elevations developed to the extent that they can get a rough price. of course my firm would prefer to stay involved through construction, but typically the developer finds a local contractor on a design-build team or some other arrangement that ends up working better than having us involved. so, we do the part we were hired to do and then hand it off to the next team.
the developer does not lose their development just because you are no longer contracted to provide the design services of that development.
if zaha or foster had a contract to provide services up to a tract development plan, then i think they would be in the same position you are in.
i can't answer the 'design credit' questions. i think you have a right to take credit for the work you did. from what i've seen, architects are generally not given credit anyway. the newspaper will mention the developer and contractor and that's it. would you give the civil engineer equal credit your firm gets?
It's not a matter of not caring about it, it's a matter of not being able to do anything about it... go ahead, hire a lawyer and take it to The Supreme Court, but rest assured you'll be dead and broke before you get there. You need to learn to pick your fights, and this ain't it.
Copyright protection
shuellmi,
I suggested it as a means going forward as part of enabling or empowering detection of counterfeit plans be it yours or anyone else. It might not be needed for an mediocre plain deck plan but for something more substantial and especially if you are doing something like house plans publishing or anytime it would be used for multiple buildings built.
The contractor doesn't need to make copies. They just need to order them from the publisher/designer.
Something already done is kind of after the fact and then use the copyright laws for restitution if necessary.
It's not clear from the original post that there's anything being misused here. The client didn't expect the work required for the tract approval application to be as involved or expensive as it is - so naturally he's looking for ways to cut costs. One way would be to assemble the tract approval application himself or with his own forces. That may be what's going on here.
The OP was expecting that the architecture firm would be assembling the application for the tract approval - but did the client explicitly agree to that service, and if so, was there any contract stipulation that the client could not use the architect's portion of the documents for the tract approval submittal if the client did not avail himself of the architects' services in compiling the whole submittal?
The other disciplines required for the submittal were directly contracted by the client - they're not the architect's consultants, so the architect doesn't necessarily need to have any involvement with their documents. The architect completed his portion of the documents, was paid for them and provided them to the client. The client seems to be within his rights to "take the drawings and run" at this point (for the purposes of this tract application - not for purposes of construction of this or any other development), unless there's something in the contract that prohibits it.
Also, since this just happened "the other day", the OP may yet hear from the client - whether within days or much later. I had a developer client who dropped off the radar entirely about 6 years ago, and just phoned a few weeks ago to pick up the project again as if he'd just set it aside for a few days. He hadn't run off and gotten permits or built the project (or any unauthorized replicas of it elsewhere) - he'd just set it aside. Some other project may just have pushed yours to the back burner for now...
Rick contractors don't typically order drawing sets from the architect. They order them directly from a print house. A large project, especially one that's bid, can have several hundred sets issued by the printer to bidding GCs and subs, fabricators, inspectors, etc. Even on a small residential project with no bid process, my state has 15 required inspections, most conducted by separate trade inspectors, each of whom needs a set.. Protecting all of those sets with holograms would be highly impractical.
impractical has nothing on balkins, he will hologram the shit out of those 3 deck plans for future earnings.
Your hologram just messed up my 19th century cyanotype!
Bloopox,
The method as it is currently being conducted is essentially violation of copyright law. Only the copyright holder and their duly licensed licensee may make copies of the copyrighted work.
This method as it currently is technically the wrong way. The legally correct way is that only the copyright holder and their licensees may have copies of the copyrighted work made. The contractors would be infringing copyright.
What difference does it make if they have to order copies through you? Aside from you being able to make money from each copy made which is your legal right as the copyright holder.
As for the hologram, being impractical, my ass. You make up the cost in what you bill the contractor and other stake holders or the client. Simply put, they have to go through you for your work and the engineers for their work. You just build into the invoice by what you charge.
As long as you let the contractors infringe your copyright by making how many copies they want whenever they want without any control and oversight, they are going to continue to abuse the process for their own benefit. The wrong way has been going on for a long time so I don't blame you for the past. But as long as we let the wrong method continue, we'll continue to be screwed over. Copyrights and rights we have in them requires a responsibility on our part to protect it or we end up effectively losing those rights and ability to recover.
Add to that, you have a right to maximize your earnings from the copyrighted work.
When they bypass you the copyright holder to get copies of the work, you are losing money from it and you are losing recovery for losses and you are potentially exposing yourself to additional liability because of our professional liability to the design of your work.
JeromeS,
LOL!
Balki do you remember a while back when everybody else in a thread was talking about shadow box construction and you didn't understand through several pages of it that they were talking about the facade of an office building, until long after you'd pontificated repeatedly and at length on the proper detailing and "professional standard of care" for designing the type of shadow boxes that are sold by Michaels craft stores for displaying one's smurf collections and dried flowers (complete with screen grabs from aforementioned craft store)? And then how upon realizing your utter foolishness you made yourself look even more clueless by scolding all the architects for using terms amongst themselves, on a website for architects, that don't appear in your Ching book or other "So You Want to be an Architect" high school summer course level material? That's how embarrassingly, cringe-worthily off base you are in this thread. Really.
Did you use an AIA B104 contract? I quickly re-read it. It does not favor you. Client paid... they get to use the drawings... you still own copyright... they paid for drawings though... so they get to use them even with other architects... you are freed from liability if they go to someone else.
In fact, that contract explicitly states that, if the Owner has paid you, they get the DWGs too. If the AIA has written their contract like that, I suspect this has been litigated many times. Good luck.
^ That's what I was trying to get to earlier. But then Balkins keeps insisting that he knows what he's talking about and we keep going further off the rails.
JBeaumont, post a link. I must have missed that one, and tomorrow looks like a slow day.
Yeah... unless you had something in the contract that doesn't allow the client to use drawings that you gave him, and for which he paid you, for the very purpose intended, then I don't think you've got a valid grievance here. If he tries to use the drawings for the tract approval and finds out that the drawings need to be stamped then he'll probably be back, - but it's not always the case that drawings for this purpose require a stamp.
As for holograms and the architect profiting somehow off every set printed: it isn't feasible when drawings public, corporate, or institutional procurement regs standardize the cost of sets, the printer from which they must be available, etc. On projects that are funded in whole or part by public funds (schools, universities, civic projects, public safety, multi-family housing, correctional, and so on...) the unsuccessful bidders and subs usually have to be refunded most of the cost of the drawings if they return the sets to the printer within a few weeks. It's not at all an analogous situation to selling stock residential plans.
Thanks everyone for all the input, I really appreciate it and learned a lt in the process.
Just to clear a few things:
1. We were on an Hourly Not To Exceed Contract to prepare the architectural portion of the tract map submittal
2. We got paid to date. So, no problem there.
3. We dont know for a fact (yet) that the Client intends to use or infringe our Intellectual Prop. rights. However, with the way he acted, we have a suspicion. WE may find out one day or maybe never!
4. Yes, we had in our contract, that the Copyright belongs to us (the Architect).
5. Just to clear things, when you do a project design, you always retain the copyright unless you agree to sell it or give it away in your contract. All you are doing is selling your time to work on the project. Any miss-use of the work product or reproduction of it is an infringement of copyright.
6. I am not sure if a Client can pay for your TIME and then take the design elsewhere and keep working on it. I believe that is still an infringement of your copyright. He needs to get your consent.
Overall, I agree that within our profession, we stand on very weak ground as related to our intellectual property rights. Its obvious from many of the comments that most people say just take the money and forget it. This is probably what we are doing. However, I think its really a sad state for the profession that we are all simply willing to let go of the most important thing that we know: Our creativity Every other profession protects theirs rigorously.
There has to be ultimately a simple way of disseminating information including drawings , whether in paper format, PDF, CAD, etc.and be protected from being ripped off. Otherwise what is the difference between a creative and a non-creative person? The person/firm with the biggest library of stolen/copied plans/ideas wins !
Just what is it you are afraid of getting fucked out of? Were these complete CD's that you did for him that he can build off of? Or are they schematics? Was it your expectation that he would just start over completely anew if for some reason your relationship ended? Did he understand that?
The copyright is intended to protect you from unauthorized reuse of the work, not use for which it was intended and paid for. If they hire someone else to execute the rest of the work based on your design, too bad for you. If the client uses it on a different site you'd have a case.
Meanwhile, if, if, if ... you sound like my wife.
And I'm dead meat if anyone tells her I said that.
KR8VE: "Its really a sad state that we architects have no real and practical way of protecting our intellectual property rights even though there are laws in the book that supposedly protect us."
KR8VE: "within our profession, we stand on very weak ground as related to our intellectual property rights"
Architects stand on exactly the same ground as any other owner of intellectual property rights -- we can sue to enforce those rights if we believe they have been violated. In every such case, the owner of such rights must make a judgment as to the cost-effectiveness of pursuing such litigation.
Miles, hey, I only thought my wife did that!
Miles,
You forgot about your right and protection from unauthorized derivative works. Remember, you have exclusive right to the design and derivative works unless you authorized through a licensing program another to be authorized to create derivative works.
Remember, a client isn't buying your copyright. A client may not directly or through contracting of another a person to make derivative works of your design. ONLY exception is someone documenting an existing building already built from which changes are to be made to it.
Otherwise, they are to start from scratch. No other architect, designer, engineer, contractor or otherwise shall edit, modify add or otherwise continue from the works of the copyright holder without first obtaining permission of the original copyright holder.
There is a basic process of getting permission / authorization from the copyright holder before creating derivative works.
JBeaumont:
U.S. Copyright law as with all laws are as BLACK & WHITE as black ink on white paper. It says something, therefore by NO exception unless it is absolutely written is there any exception for interpretation beyond the definition of a word. When a term is statutorily defined, then that term shall mean EXACTLY how it is defined. Words not statutorily defined shall have the ordinary dictionary definition of the word as the context would indicate.
There is any time in law when a law requires an apple that it means an orange. Whenever that happens, it is because the law is broken or failed to be followed accordingly. There is no room to be mysterious about the meaning of the law.
Copyright provides EXCLUSIVE rights to the copyright holder(s).
El Grecus, don't use AIA's contracts as they are written. Use your own contracts and have it defined so people aren't using contracts against you. If you are contractually placing yourself in a position to use your .DWG files then you are enabling them to screw you behind your back. This is why you make sure you aren't agreeing to contractual terms that erodes at your rights or empowers your client to screw you.
When they get a set of plans, they bought a 'book'. When does just purchasing a book allow the book buyers rights to reproduce? NEVER.
The point is NEVER sign away your rights unless you make money from time they use your plans / designs. I know what the damn AIA contracts say. I read them and various versions of them over the years. I don't use them because the use of them as they are is basically violating the architectural licensing laws. I have to amend it in order for that compliance but then its a potential copyright violation while the license to edit is there, it is intended to be edited in a very limited fashion which the extent of editing needed would basically exceed the intent of the license and potentially a copyright infringement.
That is why you need to write your contracts so that it preserves your rights. Unless you want to be giving up the copyrights and hand them over to every client you have.
Essentially, architects have been operating their practices as if their copyrights are automatically given to the client when they pay you for your services. You have been treating it as a work for hire when you are not the client's employee.
As a matter of fact, lets hold off comments or replies to this and my previous post or send it PM.
Well said RickB-OR !!
Unfortunately this is the mistake that most Architects make. They somehow think that once they get paid for work done, the client has the right to take the work somewhere else and continue to finish it, change it, use it anyway he can. This is an absolute infringement on the Author's copyright and is not allowed.
I suppose then, the big issue is do we have the guts, will, financial means to pursue the violator. I believe a lot of us would if there were copyright attorneys that would take on cases on a contingency basis after evaluating their merit.
stone:
Architects stand on exactly the same ground as any other owner of intellectual property rights -- we can sue to enforce those rights if we believe they have been violated. In every such case, the owner of such rights must make a judgment as to the cost-effectiveness of pursuing such litigation.
True but architects have let themselves be in a position where they just let every person on earth be able to copyright infringe them and the architects won't do anything because they are afraid to litigate.
An undefended copyright is as good as no copyright. Not defending your copyright under any circumstances is basically telling everyone to go ahead and make how many copies you desire, you aren't going to do anything then why don't you just declare your work as public domain.
KR8VE,
I believe there are some who will first look at the case and if the case is a clear cut as it can be then I wouldn't be surprised if they may entertain such.
The first and most clear thing that must be proven is that copyright infringement occured. You need to prove that. I had proposed the hologram as an example of a method which we can use in proving an unauthorized copy of the plans occured. That is, the client or their contractor or somewhere down the pike, made illegal/unauthorized copies.
That has to be clear before pursuing copyright infringement.
The next part is identifying the party who did it. That's the tricky part. You have to find the responsible party and that party would be the one that is pursued.
BEFORE you do anything irrational, you want to be sure you are barking up the right tree.
When you identify the right party then you weigh in on whether or not the case merits pursuit. In some cases, it is better to have them cease & desist and settle out of court in a civil manner.
You still have to defend your rights but defending does come in many forms and not always is it a lawsuit. I don't propose it as the only option.
You need to be clear that you can prove your case and prove that they made copies. It's also a leverage. You can say that you have the evidence and means to prove that unauthorized copies are such. You have a means of proving that the unauthorized copies are counterfeit.
It puts the leverage to say, hey, we can be honest with each other and then move forward or we can play this out in the courts. They probably will not want to be caught up in litigation any more than you do.
KR8VE,
If you are who I think you are, I can't imagine your work being such that would not have considerable unique composition and expression as a whole.
Unfortunately this is the mistake that most Architects make. They somehow think that once they get paid for work done, the client has the right to take the work somewhere else and continue to finish it, change it, use it anyway he can.
NO, the mistake that most architects make is in thinking everything they do is pioneering, unique, brilliant and the next best thing to the invention of the Salk polio vaccine. Face it folks, the OP might have done a nice job of designing the hypothetical small lot houses for the bureaucrats to envision, but he didn't find the cure for cancer. There are only so many ways to put eight rooms together, and they were all done before any of us were out of diapers. He did the work, he got paid, end of story. Time to move on.
KR8VE, you should hire Rick to represent you. Sounds like a perfect marriage.
A preemptive lawsuit sounds like the only solution here. Let me know how it turns out
If you are who I think you are
I saw unicorns and rainbows, and butterflies in astoria in january!
Unfortunately this is the mistake that most Architects make. They somehow think that once they get paid for work done, the client has the right to take the work somewhere else and continue to finish it, change it, use it anyway he can. This is an absolute infringement on the Author's copyright and is not allowed.
i think you're mistaken. you had an agreement with your client to develop drawings for a tract map submittal. as you said,
1. We were on an Hourly Not To Exceed Contract to prepare the architectural portion of the tract map submittal
you fulfilled your agreement by developing those drawings. i assume part of that submittal included elevations and maybe floor plans, which were developed to a conceptual or maybe schematic level. it sounds like now there is a possibility another architect will take the elevations that your client paid for and develop them so your client will be able to proceed with his development.
i think it should be obvious that your client did not pay you to develop elevations that they can't use for their development. in fact, your client is now somewhat obligated to follow your elevations because that's what the city approved right? your copyright might prevent that client from using your tract submittal for another lot or in another jurisdiction, but it doesn't prevent them from using that submittal for it's intended purpose.
how do you think this works in the real world? is copyright law intended to make sure you get paid to develop permit and construction drawings for every project you touch? every project you even think about? you weren't hired to develop permit drawings or construction drawings. you were hired to develop a tract map submittal. there is no reason for you to be upset. it's still quite possible your client will return to your firm when they need permit drawings developed, but if you're going to throw a tantrum because you can't get every project you want, when you want it, they might not want to continue working with you.
That being said, OP whoever the developer hires will need to go to you guys for information on the design. Especially if your drawings do not have much information on it such as building Heights and zoning information.
If the developer continues with the project and wants to go to another architect the other architect will want to do their own due diligence.
I have seen people win lawsuits in West Hollywood for slightly altering somebody else's design and then building it on another lot. This lawsuit applied to a few different properties and a few different designs.
That being said, OP whoever the developer hires will need to go to you guys for information on the design. Especially if your drawings do not have much information on it such as building Heights and zoning information.
My take away from this is: This is billable time for your "consultation". Don't give it away for free.
@ curtkram
So you are then saying that we as architects are only paid for our "Time" and nothing else. Per your assessment, there is no "Intellectual Property" in any Architect's work.
So, I can go to Norman Foster, insinuate that I am giving him a project, have him design it, pay him just for that portion, then walk to a 3rd rate drafting service without Foster's knowledge and/or consent and have his design put into technical drawings and then build the project..and according to you, then, Norman Foster or Zaha Hadid or any other Architect should be ok with this as long as they got paid for the design portion! hmmm..I don't think so!!!! Lets say they are even ok with it, then who gets the "Design" credit for the project when it gets built/ published etc.. ?
I think you have it completely wrong...We as Architects are not only selling time, we are engaging in a creative endaveur and must retain our intellectual property unless we agree at the outset to give it up. Whether its a small residential project with its own challenges and innovations that one can bring to it or a much larger more complex project!!
Under your scenario then , there should be "Design Firms" and then "Drafting Service Firms". Design firms do the design and get paid for it and executive firms do the technical drawings. Yes, there are joint ventures like that all the time but its done through legal contracts with proper credits and responsibilities given to both firms with proper follow through so that the design intent is executed properly.
I think some of the comments on here are coming from Architects or non-architects that one way or another don't care about their own design and creative abilities and look at design as just another commodity. At least in our firm, we highly value our design sensitivity and this is what separates us from many others, hence when something like this happens, it puzzles us and forces us to reach out and do something about it ! and yes , believe it or not, for the last 25 yrs, we never had this experience .
you really should look at this site http://plagiat9.webnode.ru/
^^ After 25 years you guys finally got your cherry busted. Welcome to the real world.
Maybe the client left because he got your sticky sanctimony all over his clothes and the dry cleaner couldn't get it out.
So you are then saying that we as architects are only paid for our "Time" and nothing else. Per your assessment, there is no "Intellectual Property" in any Architect's work.
no, i'm saying you were paid for the design work you did. it sounds like what you agreed to is to provide services up to the point of the tract submittal, at which point you were no longer under contract to provide services for that development. if it was important to your company to be under contract through permitting or through construction administration, you should have made that clear from the start. i don't think there is an expectation that the developer would see their relationship with the architect as that great of a commitment, and i don't think it's fair to say the skillset required to put together a tract submittal or a masterplan is the same as the skillset to put together construction documents, even if both are services your firm provides.
i have worked on a few industrial masterplans across the country where i will develop documents for pricing, marketing, municipal approval, or for the developer to submit with an RFP, where i have building plans, site circulation, parking, and elevations developed to the extent that they can get a rough price. of course my firm would prefer to stay involved through construction, but typically the developer finds a local contractor on a design-build team or some other arrangement that ends up working better than having us involved. so, we do the part we were hired to do and then hand it off to the next team.
the developer does not lose their development just because you are no longer contracted to provide the design services of that development.
if zaha or foster had a contract to provide services up to a tract development plan, then i think they would be in the same position you are in.
i can't answer the 'design credit' questions. i think you have a right to take credit for the work you did. from what i've seen, architects are generally not given credit anyway. the newspaper will mention the developer and contractor and that's it. would you give the civil engineer equal credit your firm gets?
It's not a matter of not caring about it, it's a matter of not being able to do anything about it... go ahead, hire a lawyer and take it to The Supreme Court, but rest assured you'll be dead and broke before you get there. You need to learn to pick your fights, and this ain't it.
i decided i needed to add more to your "paid for our time" comment since my post wasn't long enough
gwharton has had many (drunken) rants about how architects bill. you should search for them. worth the read.
* they may not have been drunken. that was color i added for effect.
^^ In point of fact most of the starchitects I've seen want somebody else to do the unglamorous aspects while they just do the "design".
Why did you give the client the thumb drive drawings in the first place if you are so worried about it?
^ ++ what Carrera said ++ ^
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.