I have a situation for which I'd love to get peoples' opinions.
I was recently hired to design an addition to a house where the previous architect was let go.
I contacted the previous architect and asked him if he could email me his CAD files of the existing plans and elevations.
He immediately started screaming at me that I "had a lot of F-ing balls" calling him and asking him for something that contractually was his.
I asked him if he had been compensated for his work. He said he had, but that the terms of the contract clearly state that he alone owns the drawings, and basically told me that if the clients felt otherwise about it, they could take it up in court.
I told him if he was concerned about being held liable for any errors or omissions in his drawings. I would be happy to sign a hold harmless agreement so there would be no way that he could be liable. But got nowhere with it.
In the past, I've been in the same situation as this other architect, and I as a professional courtesy, was willing to share my CAD files on the project since I had been compensated for the work and the drawings were no longer of any value to me.
I get that the contract states that the architect contractually owns the drawings, but always understood that clause was in the contract to protect the architect from a situation where the client takes and uses the architect's drawings without properly compensating them per the terms of the contract.
The previous architect was fully compensated for his work, so was it really that unreasonable for me to ask him to share his CAD files?
Sorry, but you're out of luck. Liability issues aside, CAD files are the property of the one who drew them. Best you can do is recreate from pdfs. Why would the fired architect give you any freebies? What you need to do is renegotiate your fee with the client to include new as-builts.
A lot of architects will not release CAD drawings, as if they were holding the key to the genome sequence that will cure cancer. LOL. That said, most of those architects are obstinate as balls.
Try recreating them yourself after asking for more money to do as-builts, or just get them redrafted by some drafting service.
You did the right thing about asking, but he has the right not to release his intellectual property. He probably exaggerated and there is a nicer way of saying no. Depending on the client of course, but most of the time we never release the cad files.
Releasing DWGs can expose a professional to all sorts of liability. Some clients have an unreasonable expectation of perfection, and a DWG is a great way to hand them a weapon with which to bludgeon a designer.
BIM isn't helping, either.
Apr 5, 21 1:51 pm ·
·
natematt
Every project we do now seems like we give the contractor the Revit files... I keep being like, is this in our contract? To the PMs and Principles... Idk, there are different expectations now with large projects than with small I guess. There is also a lot of legal paperwork involved.
That is categorically a terrible policy. The idea that we model to construction fidelity is willfully ignorant of how shit gets designed and documented. We also do not command fees commensurate with the amount of effort required for a construction ready model. When you deliver the model you should purge all 2d elements and slap a giant boiler plate which says they aren't to use the model for measurements or take offs. This isn't to fuck them over; they're going to use your model to avoid RFIs and then blame you when it's wrong.
Apr 5, 21 9:55 pm ·
·
natematt
To be fair, that's basically how it works for us most of the time, but I still don't like it.
We all learn about instruments of service and managing liability at some point. Now you'll know that if you want files, you'd better go in groveling, and even then don't expect to get them. I have shared my files with architects I know but even that was probably risky. I share files with consultants, and expect surveyors to share their files with me, though I always ask nicely.
Yup. In our contracts with consultants we state that BIM and AutoCAD files will be shared with each other and they lays out the narrow use for these files. Their is also and legal document signed with all parties involved dealing with the sharing of files.
Granted I only do residential design and on most projects I don't need a surveyor or engineer, but in the few dozen projects I've done that have included one or the other, I can't recall ever having a written contract with them. I wonder if this is more of a commercial thing, regional thing or, as happens sometimes, just a quirk of my experience?
I think the distinction of copyright and who 'owns' the cad files is clear--as defined by the AIA and most standard owner/architect contracts. That said, there are instances when the owner needs access to the files. (I say need, but perhaps that's a bit strong. 'Prefers' for ease in doing business is probably better put). An example would be a core/shell landlord building, where the LL wants to send out cad files for use by tenant architects. In this instance, having all architects working from one set of cad backgrounds make sense for consistency. Another example would be prototype/rollout designs managed by one firm, but the content is shared to many other architects--typically by a common client.
In the OP's scenario, I agree that it's probably best to just re-create from a pdf. There are countless programs that rip pdfs into cad. Then again, that's a whole other discussion. If I rip a pdf from another architect--thus creating my own cad file--is that now considered 'my intellectual property.' Eliminating liability from the other architect . . .
So if I pull Hollywood movie frames into image files then recombine them into a video file it's now considered my property? Man, I think I'm a film maker now...
All those territorial pissing matches are holding back the entire profession...holding on to grudges/drawings like they're some lucky charms, get over it.
Apr 6, 21 3:12 am ·
·
SneakyPete
If that's what you think this is I would suggest a nice chat with your lawyer about your contracts.
Apr 6, 21 4:21 am ·
·
randomised
Architects that got paid for their services by their clients but are unwilling to share their drawings with their peers...why dwell in the past?
Apr 6, 21 4:30 am ·
·
SneakyPete
It's not about being unwilling, it's about good faith being consistently rewarded with lawsuits and loss of revenue.
Releases and clauses are worth approximately the cost of the paper plus whatever you want to eventually pay your lawyer. The simpler way is to just say 'no' unless there's something of value that makes it worth the risk.
Apr 6, 21 4:58 am ·
·
randomised
I've never heard of architects being sued for simply sharing their drawings with their peers as a courtesy...
Act like a bitter ornery old man, stuck in the mid to late 1900's, and you will be treated as such. Sharing is caring :-)
Apr 6, 21 5:13 am ·
·
SneakyPete
If you've never heard of it then the only possibility is that someone else is a bitter ornery old man, stuck in the mid to late 1900's. Your logic is, as usual, impeccable.
Apr 6, 21 5:34 am ·
·
randomised
Not saying you are the ornery old man, but grumpy people unwilling to share what they’ve already got paid for and is of no use to them any longer...
Actually rando - I've seen the fallout from this. Back in 2006 the firm I was with provided AutoCAD drawings to a client as part of the deliverables. Two years later the client hired another architect to do a small addition and provided them with the AutoCAD drawings we had provided to the client. The new architect got in some trouble for not sizing the addition correctly and some equipment wouldn't fit. The new architect blamed us because our drawings weren't accurate. Apparently a column was located incorrectly by 3" in our drawings. The client sued the new architect and the new architect sued us. We won however it still required time an money to defend ourselves.
Apr 6, 21 10:09 am ·
·
gibbost
These are cautionary tales, but I fail to see a significant difference between the pdf hard copy and the cad file. Using Chad's example above, if the second architect received a set of original drawings in pdf format only and relied upon them for accuracy, then the 3" bust would have still been an issue. I totally understand that the general fear of cad has always been the higher risk for user error (ie. layers turned off, grid lines accidently shifted, etc) but nowadays a pdf is nearly just as easily edited and manipulated. At a certain point, doesn't the second architect's risk and liability take over. In other words, the second architect was hired to ascertain existing conditions and build to suit. The same would be true for items not built exactly to spec on the original build--but the second architect simply relying on the old information as the gospel. There has to be some level of accountability when hiring the second architect. My point being, share the cad files when appropriate--because chances are there is going to a project where you might benefit from starting with a little bit of background info.
Pete, that's a great CYA note that likely appears on every set of drawings ever. But we all know it happens--now more than ever with the advent of programs like Blue Beam that allow you to literally calibrate and measure within a pdf.
Apr 6, 21 11:28 am ·
·
SneakyPete
Just because one can does not mean one should. We cannot get a building built without providing PDFs in 2021. We can get buildings built without providing CAD and BIM files, and with significantly less legal exposure. The idea that some idiot exploding a pdf is tantamount to a dog getting its nose in the door and therefore we should welcome Fido into the kitchen to enjoy the chicken carcass in the trash is foolish.
Apr 6, 21 12:06 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Just tossing something into the mix here... our stamps up here (and my insurance provider) explicitly prohibit the use of drawings not produced under direct supervision of the stamping arch (or authorised agent/staff). So if one arch takes another's drawings as (Hitchen) gospel, they likely will not be covered by their E&O or prof liability insurances if they use incorrect drawings and make a mistake. Still... we do our own measurements instead of relying on as-built.
gibbost - there is no difference legally between an AutoCAD, BIM, or PDF files. With AutoCAD and BIM files though you have the issue that more information is available to interpret and use incorrectly.
Release of CAD files
Hi everyone.
I have a situation for which I'd love to get peoples' opinions.
I was recently hired to design an addition to a house where the previous architect was let go.
I contacted the previous architect and asked him if he could email me his CAD files of the existing plans and elevations.
He immediately started screaming at me that I "had a lot of F-ing balls" calling him and asking him for something that contractually was his.
I asked him if he had been compensated for his work. He said he had, but that the terms of the contract clearly state that he alone owns the drawings, and basically told me that if the clients felt otherwise about it, they could take it up in court.
I told him if he was concerned about being held liable for any errors or omissions in his drawings. I would be happy to sign a hold harmless agreement so there would be no way that he could be liable. But got nowhere with it.
In the past, I've been in the same situation as this other architect, and I as a professional courtesy, was willing to share my CAD files on the project since I had been compensated for the work and the drawings were no longer of any value to me.
I get that the contract states that the architect contractually owns the drawings, but always understood that clause was in the contract to protect the architect from a situation where the client takes and uses the architect's drawings without properly compensating them per the terms of the contract.
The previous architect was fully compensated for his work, so was it really that unreasonable for me to ask him to share his CAD files?
Sorry, but you're out of luck. Liability issues aside, CAD files are the property of the one who drew them. Best you can do is recreate from pdfs. Why would the fired architect give you any freebies? What you need to do is renegotiate your fee with the client to include new as-builts.
A lot of architects will not release CAD drawings, as if they were holding the key to the genome sequence that will cure cancer. LOL. That said, most of those architects are obstinate as balls.
Try recreating them yourself after asking for more money to do as-builts, or just get them redrafted by some drafting service.
You're a designer and you don't understand instruments of service.
I'd suggest starting there before you design anything.
You did the right thing by asking first. Guy sounds like a loser. I got wrapped into a lawsuit over this same issue.. not fun.
You did the right thing about asking, but he has the right not to release his intellectual property. He probably exaggerated and there is a nicer way of saying no. Depending on the client of course, but most of the time we never release the cad files.
Releasing DWGs can expose a professional to all sorts of liability. Some clients have an unreasonable expectation of perfection, and a DWG is a great way to hand them a weapon with which to bludgeon a designer.
BIM isn't helping, either.
Every project we do now seems like we give the contractor the Revit files... I keep being like, is this in our contract? To the PMs and Principles... Idk, there are different expectations now with large projects than with small I guess. There is also a lot of legal paperwork involved.
That is categorically a terrible policy. The idea that we model to construction fidelity is willfully ignorant of how shit gets designed and documented. We also do not command fees commensurate with the amount of effort required for a construction ready model. When you deliver the model you should purge all 2d elements and slap a giant boiler plate which says they aren't to use the model for measurements or take offs. This isn't to fuck them over; they're going to use your model to avoid RFIs and then blame you when it's wrong.
To be fair, that's basically how it works for us most of the time, but I still don't like it.
We all learn about instruments of service and managing liability at some point. Now you'll know that if you want files, you'd better go in groveling, and even then don't expect to get them. I have shared my files with architects I know but even that was probably risky. I share files with consultants, and expect surveyors to share their files with me, though I always ask nicely.
Usually the surveyor / civil - to - designer sharing is enshrined in the respective contracts with the owner.
Yup. In our contracts with consultants we state that BIM and AutoCAD files will be shared with each other and they lays out the narrow use for these files. Their is also and legal document signed with all parties involved dealing with the sharing of files.
Granted I only do residential design and on most projects I don't need a surveyor or engineer, but in the few dozen projects I've done that have included one or the other, I can't recall ever having a written contract with them. I wonder if this is more of a commercial thing, regional thing or, as happens sometimes, just a quirk of my experience?
I think the distinction of copyright and who 'owns' the cad files is clear--as defined by the AIA and most standard owner/architect contracts. That said, there are instances when the owner needs access to the files. (I say need, but perhaps that's a bit strong. 'Prefers' for ease in doing business is probably better put). An example would be a core/shell landlord building, where the LL wants to send out cad files for use by tenant architects. In this instance, having all architects working from one set of cad backgrounds make sense for consistency. Another example would be prototype/rollout designs managed by one firm, but the content is shared to many other architects--typically by a common client.
In the OP's scenario, I agree that it's probably best to just re-create from a pdf. There are countless programs that rip pdfs into cad. Then again, that's a whole other discussion. If I rip a pdf from another architect--thus creating my own cad file--is that now considered 'my intellectual property.' Eliminating liability from the other architect . . .
Yep. Convert that pdf. The architect should at least set a reasonable fee for these dumb drawings. I never give anything more than plans anyway.
So if I pull Hollywood movie frames into image files then recombine them into a video file it's now considered my property? Man, I think I'm a film maker now...
Sure, why not.
We've probably all converted pdfs at some point, but pretending it's some magical path to litigation free success is dangerously naive.
All those territorial pissing matches are holding back the entire profession...holding on to grudges/drawings like they're some lucky charms, get over it.
If that's what you think this is I would suggest a nice chat with your lawyer about your contracts.
Architects that got paid for their services by their clients but are unwilling to share their drawings with their peers...why dwell in the past?
It's not about being unwilling, it's about good faith being consistently rewarded with lawsuits and loss of revenue.
Releases and clauses are worth approximately the cost of the paper plus whatever you want to eventually pay your lawyer. The simpler way is to just say 'no' unless there's something of value that makes it worth the risk.
I've never heard of architects being sued for simply sharing their drawings with their peers as a courtesy...
Act like a bitter ornery old man, stuck in the mid to late 1900's, and you will be treated as such. Sharing is caring :-)
If you've never heard of it then the only possibility is that someone else is a bitter ornery old man, stuck in the mid to late 1900's. Your logic is, as usual, impeccable.
Not saying you are the ornery old man, but grumpy people unwilling to share what they’ve already got paid for and is of no use to them any longer...
Actually rando - I've seen the fallout from this. Back in 2006 the firm I was with provided AutoCAD drawings to a client as part of the deliverables. Two years later the client hired another architect to do a small addition and provided them with the AutoCAD drawings we had provided to the client. The new architect got in some trouble for not sizing the addition correctly and some equipment wouldn't fit. The new architect blamed us because our drawings weren't accurate. Apparently a column was located incorrectly by 3" in our drawings. The client sued the new architect and the new architect sued us. We won however it still required time an money to defend ourselves.
These are cautionary tales, but I fail to see a significant difference between the pdf hard copy and the cad file. Using Chad's example above, if the second architect received a set of original drawings in pdf format only and relied upon them for accuracy, then the 3" bust would have still been an issue. I totally understand that the general fear of cad has always been the higher risk for user error (ie. layers turned off, grid lines accidently shifted, etc) but nowadays a pdf is nearly just as easily edited and manipulated. At a certain point, doesn't the second architect's risk and liability take over. In other words, the second architect was hired to ascertain existing conditions and build to suit. The same would be true for items not built exactly to spec on the original build--but the second architect simply relying on the old information as the gospel. There has to be some level of accountability when hiring the second architect. My point being, share the cad files when appropriate--because chances are there is going to a project where you might benefit from starting with a little bit of background info.
DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. GOOD DAY, SIR.
Pete, that's a great CYA note that likely appears on every set of drawings ever. But we all know it happens--now more than ever with the advent of programs like Blue Beam that allow you to literally calibrate and measure within a pdf.
Just because one can does not mean one should. We cannot get a building built without providing PDFs in 2021. We can get buildings built without providing CAD and BIM files, and with significantly less legal exposure. The idea that some idiot exploding a pdf is tantamount to a dog getting its nose in the door and therefore we should welcome Fido into the kitchen to enjoy the chicken carcass in the trash is foolish.
Just tossing something into the mix here... our stamps up here (and my insurance provider) explicitly prohibit the use of drawings not produced under direct supervision of the stamping arch (or authorised agent/staff). So if one arch takes another's drawings as (Hitchen) gospel, they likely will not be covered by their E&O or prof liability insurances if they use incorrect drawings and make a mistake. Still... we do our own measurements instead of relying on as-built.
Good call, NS.
gibbost - there is no difference legally between an AutoCAD, BIM, or PDF files. With AutoCAD and BIM files though you have the issue that more information is available to interpret and use incorrectly.
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.