I donated my time to create a basic set of construction documents for a local non-profit that builds houses. They are unstamped, although I do have my license. The municipality in which the house is being built does not require stamped drawings for this particular sized single family house.
Where it gets complicated is that a member of the public asked this non profit for a copy of the drawings so that they could build a similar house on their own, not affiliated with the non-profit.
My question is three-fold:
1. Who technically owns the original drawings? They were never stamped, and they were donated to the non-profit. Is it up to the non-profit if they want to give a copy to a member of the public?
2. What liability do I take on if I give permission to the non-profit to hand a copy of the drawings over to the private citizen?
3. Moving forward, is it better to stamp and put the standard fine print on these drawings, rather than hand over a "casual" set of drawings?
You need to talk to your professional association. That's the only relevant answer, since it depends so much on where you are.
If you were in my vicinity, those drawings would have to be stamped, for example, for whatever stupid reason. But typically you would own the copyright to those drawings, so you get to decide who gets to use them (or not).
Aug 31, 24 6:32 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
professional association? AIA? I don't think they can help.
What does your contract say? Mine says I own the drawings and they cannot be used for other projects. Where I live, you have to stamp drawings if you are licensed whether or not the municipality requires it. A lot of states are the same. Check your state laws.
I don't know who 'owns' the project without knowing your agreement with the non-profit. However, I would definitely make it clear to them that you consider your effort a donation for them only and not to be shared with any other entity.
Your liability to a third party is probably more limited - you didn't enter into any agreement or contract with them. Your defense would be that you didn't authorize their use of the set and therefore aren't liable for how anything was interpreted.
Moving forward, it's better to have a very clear agreement and contract with them that says that your work is a single purpose use, for them only.
As others have said, look at your contract with the nonprofit.
In most contracts (think AIA) the architect owns the instrument of service / design product. This means you own the design and the client is not allowed to build any more of that particular design unless they pay your for it. Obviously this can be changed in the contract language.
1. You own the original drawings and the nonprofit cannot give them out to others to build another project from it.
2. You have all the liability.
3. It depends. Personally, I would simply have things written in the contract.
Unless you are a genuine employee of the person or organization that is receiving the architectural service, you own the copyright from get go by default. If you are a genuine employee, then what you do is by default a "work for hire" scenario. If you are not an employee then you are an independent contractor. This is the most common case even for pro bono work. You do not have to make money to be legally an independent contractor. It can be pro bono. There are multiple reasons for that. The way an independent contractor would lose the copyright to the work to a client is that it has to be stipulated in the contract. Actually, it legally has to stipulate that the client would receive the intellectual property rights to the work prepared. Legally, no clause saying anything on the subject would default to federal statutory defaults on copyrights upon assessing the facts of the relationship between the architect and client. In most cases, the facts would indicate the architect is an independent contractor providing professional services and the client receives copies of the technical documents to be used for the project at the project location.The client would not have rights to reproduce the documents. You have to explicitly grant them a license to reproduce and to do so with conditions or limits like for one project location for a limited number of copies for a limited time period.
In most cases, its best to be clear you retain the intellectual property rights outright in the contract and make clear of any licensing allowances you will allow the client. One area of the copyright law that is kind of weak in architecture is the area of derivative works. A client can always reproduce the plans from scratch, more or less, from the existing building or via another contracted design professional. So the issue of derivative works doesn't quite apply the same way to architecture as it might a movie, a book, a painting, a video game, etc.
However, it is preferred that if the client uses another architect to remodel or renovate the building in, say, 20-30 years, the architect should draft up their own set. They can look to the existing drawings and any subtle changes done by contractors and the likes over the years and use that information as basis of the "As-Is" of the document set (the before proposed changes) and their proposed remodel changes. Preparing the technical submissions accordingly.
Contract should have a very expansive indemnification/ non liability clause for you where they protect you against anything including them and anyone else associated with them.
Indemnification / non liability clauses tend to only work in very narrow defined situations. Typically the will not hold up in court when they are applied standard of care / practices.
That's true. Anything that constitutes basically, malpractice or professional negligence does not hold up in court, anywhere. What exactly is the line of what is negligence is not clear. So professional practice, you want to stay far from those "iffy" areas.
However, the clause is still useful for indemnification / non-liability clauses (if it is accepted at all in the courts that have legal jurisdiction where you are so.... CONSULT an attorney that is familiar with contract laws in your state or country and familiar with the applicable laws, would be good advice) in cases where you want to be held harmless from being held liable for acts that are not your responsibility such as acts that are the responsibility of other parties. Because this is a pro bono job, one way to mitigate liability is limit contract scope of work that you are performing. Another, do not promise beyond the standard of care. Do not promise perfection. These are ways you can limit or mitigate liability. However, you can not be entirely without liability.
There is a certain, "quasi-minimum" scope of sorts which you must exercise per your licensing board regulations. You can not escape that and your option to escape that is not having a license AND not practicing at all. If you want to design buildings and not have liability, choose a different career. Perhaps be a CGI modeler making 3d models for games, movies, and TV shows. That might be an option if you want to design buildings but don't want liability because they aren't built. They are just CGed in and fictional. That doesn't help in this case. In this case, if you are doing massive amount of work, don't do pro bono... at all. Pro bono for small stuff and maybe a discount rate or a more lenient and longer term payment plan when it comes to non-profits. Be fair but don't butt rape yourself. After all, its a deduction on adjusted gross income, it is not a tax exemption. It's treated more like a business loss and you can only take so much deductions until you have no taxable income and no tax due. You only get refund if you pre-paid taxes from which you overpaid. So keep that in mind.
No prob. Besides, it is probably fine that you go by an alias, anyway. Minor obfuscation. LOL. Anyway, most of what I said was probably more on the lines of responding to greenlander and the general discussion by extension.
Question about pro-bono drawings and liability
I donated my time to create a basic set of construction documents for a local non-profit that builds houses. They are unstamped, although I do have my license. The municipality in which the house is being built does not require stamped drawings for this particular sized single family house.
Where it gets complicated is that a member of the public asked this non profit for a copy of the drawings so that they could build a similar house on their own, not affiliated with the non-profit.
My question is three-fold:
1. Who technically owns the original drawings? They were never stamped, and they were donated to the non-profit. Is it up to the non-profit if they want to give a copy to a member of the public?
2. What liability do I take on if I give permission to the non-profit to hand a copy of the drawings over to the private citizen?
3. Moving forward, is it better to stamp and put the standard fine print on these drawings, rather than hand over a "casual" set of drawings?
Any insight is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
You own the product. You take on all of the liability. I’ll stamp everything that is constructed, regardless.
You need to talk to your professional association. That's the only relevant answer, since it depends so much on where you are.
If you were in my vicinity, those drawings would have to be stamped, for example, for whatever stupid reason. But typically you would own the copyright to those drawings, so you get to decide who gets to use them (or not).
professional association? AIA? I don't think they can help.
What does your contract say? Mine says I own the drawings and they cannot be used for other projects. Where I live, you have to stamp drawings if you are licensed whether or not the municipality requires it. A lot of states are the same. Check your state laws.
I don't know who 'owns' the project without knowing your agreement with the non-profit. However, I would definitely make it clear to them that you consider your effort a donation for them only and not to be shared with any other entity.
Your liability to a third party is probably more limited - you didn't enter into any agreement or contract with them. Your defense would be that you didn't authorize their use of the set and therefore aren't liable for how anything was interpreted.
Moving forward, it's better to have a very clear agreement and contract with them that says that your work is a single purpose use, for them only.
As others have said, look at your contract with the nonprofit.
In most contracts (think AIA) the architect owns the instrument of service / design product. This means you own the design and the client is not allowed to build any more of that particular design unless they pay your for it. Obviously this can be changed in the contract language.
1. You own the original drawings and the nonprofit cannot give them out to others to build another project from it.
2. You have all the liability.
3. It depends. Personally, I would simply have things written in the contract.
Unless you are a genuine employee of the person or organization that is receiving the architectural service, you own the copyright from get go by default. If you are a genuine employee, then what you do is by default a "work for hire" scenario. If you are not an employee then you are an independent contractor. This is the most common case even for pro bono work. You do not have to make money to be legally an independent contractor. It can be pro bono. There are multiple reasons for that. The way an independent contractor would lose the copyright to the work to a client is that it has to be stipulated in the contract. Actually, it legally has to stipulate that the client would receive the intellectual property rights to the work prepared. Legally, no clause saying anything on the subject would default to federal statutory defaults on copyrights upon assessing the facts of the relationship between the architect and client. In most cases, the facts would indicate the architect is an independent contractor providing professional services and the client receives copies of the technical documents to be used for the project at the project location.The client would not have rights to reproduce the documents. You have to explicitly grant them a license to reproduce and to do so with conditions or limits like for one project location for a limited number of copies for a limited time period.
In most cases, its best to be clear you retain the intellectual property rights outright in the contract and make clear of any licensing allowances you will allow the client. One area of the copyright law that is kind of weak in architecture is the area of derivative works. A client can always reproduce the plans from scratch, more or less, from the existing building or via another contracted design professional. So the issue of derivative works doesn't quite apply the same way to architecture as it might a movie, a book, a painting, a video game, etc.
However, it is preferred that if the client uses another architect to remodel or renovate the building in, say, 20-30 years, the architect should draft up their own set. They can look to the existing drawings and any subtle changes done by contractors and the likes over the years and use that information as basis of the "As-Is" of the document set (the before proposed changes) and their proposed remodel changes. Preparing the technical submissions accordingly.
Contract should have a very expansive indemnification/ non liability clause for you where they protect you against anything including them and anyone else associated with them.
Indemnification / non liability clauses tend to only work in very narrow defined situations. Typically the will not hold up in court when they are applied standard of care / practices.
That's true. Anything that constitutes basically, malpractice or professional negligence does not hold up in court, anywhere. What exactly is the line of what is negligence is not clear. So professional practice, you want to stay far from those "iffy" areas.
However, the clause is still useful for indemnification / non-liability clauses (if it is accepted at all in the courts that have legal jurisdiction where you are so.... CONSULT an attorney that is familiar with contract laws in your state or country and familiar with the applicable laws, would be good advice) in cases where you want to be held harmless from being held liable for acts that are not your responsibility such as acts that are the responsibility of other parties. Because this is a pro bono job, one way to mitigate liability is limit contract scope of work that you are performing. Another, do not promise beyond the standard of care. Do not promise perfection. These are ways you can limit or mitigate liability. However, you can not be entirely without liability.
There is a certain, "quasi-minimum" scope of sorts which you must exercise per your licensing board regulations. You can not escape that and your option to escape that is not having a license AND not practicing at all. If you want to design buildings and not have liability, choose a different career. Perhaps be a CGI modeler making 3d models for games, movies, and TV shows. That might be an option if you want to design buildings but don't want liability because they aren't built. They are just CGed in and fictional. That doesn't help in this case. In this case, if you are doing massive amount of work, don't do pro bono... at all. Pro bono for small stuff and maybe a discount rate or a more lenient and longer term payment plan when it comes to non-profits. Be fair but don't butt rape yourself. After all, its a deduction on adjusted gross income, it is not a tax exemption. It's treated more like a business loss and you can only take so much deductions until you have no taxable income and no tax due. You only get refund if you pre-paid taxes from which you overpaid. So keep that in mind.
I apologize if you already know this or anything but the name is new but finally figured it out who you were. Anyway, how goes it.
It's good! I got bored and decided to change my name here. Rest of my profile is the same though. ;)
No prob. Besides, it is probably fine that you go by an alias, anyway. Minor obfuscation. LOL. Anyway, most of what I said was probably more on the lines of responding to greenlander and the general discussion by extension.
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.