I've been working with a residential client and have substantially completed schematic design with the majority of fee's paid. The signed contract is a limited letter of agreement for reduced services and not a full Owner-Architect Agreement, thus does not have termination clause language.
The client took the schematic drawings and talked with a builder to obtain pricing information. I have now been informed they would like to work with the builder that has a drafter to complete the design for permitting and construction. They are sighting a need to save money as reason not to continue forward with Architectural Services. I had offered to try and reduce services to finish the project, but was told no and asked to release design copyright. If I release copyright, I will likely be asked next to provide project CAD files.
I'm uncertain as to what is a fair and professional solution to the request.
Yes, you can add password protection to pdfs with adobe pro that prevents some shenanigans... but even without, converting pdf to CAD does not really give you good lines anyways so might be unnecessary.
This is why I don't understand when everyone seems fine with these limited letters of agreement or some abbreviated form of agreement they concocted with their lawyer. They are better than nothing (don't get me wrong), and are probably fine when everything is going ok and you don't really need to refer to it for anything.
But when things start to take a turn ... well, you're left with close to nothing unless you really know what you're doing when you put it together with your lawyer. Everybody thinks they know what they're doing, but then things like this happen. You what I haven't seen on these forums ... people complaining a standard contract didn't cover this type of thing.
My advice. Do what your agreement states. If it states nothing with regard to termination and transfer of copyright ... do nothing. If you want to work with them to modify the agreement to handle this sort of thing, go ahead. Call up your lawyer to help get you through the negotiations.
Note that most standard agreements still don't release copyright to the owner. Instead they grant the owner a limited license to use the instruments of service (drawings, etc.) for their project. The copyright remains the architect's. Further, they usually require indemnification of the architect by the owner if the owner uses the drawings for something other than their project, or if the agreement wasn't terminated for cause.
make them sign a liability waiver indicating they are taking on full responsibility for everything; send the pdf's & a stripped down .dwg, and wish them well
no good comes from trying to get pedantic over design authorship (esp if not itemized in contract) & you never know if they recommend you to someone else that can afford you properly
meanwhile, do a little more prying during your next project interview to figure if the next client is a fit
I wouldn't give them cad, I'd consider those instruments of service and I don't remember getting engineering plans with my car or CocaCola's recipe with my last drink purchase - only flattened PDFs (so that PDF is essentially holding an image vs actual geometry that can be interpreted/imported by cad as lines, etc).
Personally, I think that it's because of instances like this is that role and value of architects is getting eroded - if a client has money to build an actual project, they have the money for the architect...
Aug 23, 20 2:04 pm ·
·
proto
I used to feel that way as well. But over time, I realized I provide more value than just access to a digital tool.
That sucks. Happens though. Don’t release CAD. I normally talked to the client with the fox in the hen house argument. Basically, without you, their uneducated arses might be buying subpar. Depending how that goes, if they aren’t sold. Sell extra services to sit down with them and peer review the GC’s final design, and perform a couple construction observations with a couple reports. Let them feel like you are worried about them getting suckered more than the money. Basically, you need to sell yourself and your value to them; something you either failed at or the GC simply convinced them you weren't worth.
Architect Copyright Release
I've been working with a residential client and have substantially completed schematic design with the majority of fee's paid. The signed contract is a limited letter of agreement for reduced services and not a full Owner-Architect Agreement, thus does not have termination clause language.
The client took the schematic drawings and talked with a builder to obtain pricing information. I have now been informed they would like to work with the builder that has a drafter to complete the design for permitting and construction. They are sighting a need to save money as reason not to continue forward with Architectural Services. I had offered to try and reduce services to finish the project, but was told no and asked to release design copyright. If I release copyright, I will likely be asked next to provide project CAD files.
I'm uncertain as to what is a fair and professional solution to the request.
Do not provide CAD.
Secure pdf of the design and gto.
"Secure pdf" can you clarify? With the ability of AutoCAD to convert pdfs to cad files, are you talking about protecting that from occurring?
Yes, you can add password protection to pdfs with adobe pro that prevents some shenanigans... but even without, converting pdf to CAD does not really give you good lines anyways so might be unnecessary.
When you can submit scribbles to a building department and they accept them for SFRs (in the U.S.), good lines aren't necessary.
This is why I don't understand when everyone seems fine with these limited letters of agreement or some abbreviated form of agreement they concocted with their lawyer. They are better than nothing (don't get me wrong), and are probably fine when everything is going ok and you don't really need to refer to it for anything.
But when things start to take a turn ... well, you're left with close to nothing unless you really know what you're doing when you put it together with your lawyer. Everybody thinks they know what they're doing, but then things like this happen. You what I haven't seen on these forums ... people complaining a standard contract didn't cover this type of thing.
My advice. Do what your agreement states. If it states nothing with regard to termination and transfer of copyright ... do nothing. If you want to work with them to modify the agreement to handle this sort of thing, go ahead. Call up your lawyer to help get you through the negotiations.
Note that most standard agreements still don't release copyright to the owner. Instead they grant the owner a limited license to use the instruments of service (drawings, etc.) for their project. The copyright remains the architect's. Further, they usually require indemnification of the architect by the owner if the owner uses the drawings for something other than their project, or if the agreement wasn't terminated for cause.
make them sign a liability waiver indicating they are taking on full responsibility for everything; send the pdf's & a stripped down .dwg, and wish them well
no good comes from trying to get pedantic over design authorship (esp if not itemized in contract) & you never know if they recommend you to someone else that can afford you properly
meanwhile, do a little more prying during your next project interview to figure if the next client is a fit
live & learn
and don't burn bridges unnecessarily
This is also good advice.
I wouldn't give them cad, I'd consider those instruments of service and I don't remember getting engineering plans with my car or CocaCola's recipe with my last drink purchase - only flattened PDFs (so that PDF is essentially holding an image vs actual geometry that can be interpreted/imported by cad as lines, etc).
Personally, I think that it's because of instances like this is that role and value of architects is getting eroded - if a client has money to build an actual project, they have the money for the architect...
I used to feel that way as well. But over time, I realized I provide more value than just access to a digital tool.
Ask your governing body/Architects Association in your State for direction.
They're the ones who will give you proper directions.
That sucks. Happens though. Don’t release CAD. I normally talked to the client with the fox in the hen house argument. Basically, without you, their uneducated arses might be buying subpar. Depending how that goes, if they aren’t sold. Sell extra services to sit down with them and peer review the GC’s final design, and perform a couple construction observations with a couple reports. Let them feel like you are worried about them getting suckered more than the money. Basically, you need to sell yourself and your value to them; something you either failed at or the GC simply convinced them you weren't worth.
by residential do you mean a single family home or is it residential such as aparments?
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.