Depends on the contract. Most contracts will have something saying the OP needs to provide a copy of the SD drawings when the phase is completed. Other than that the OP owes the client nothing else.

That's likely true, but what I meant are the work files, not the deliverables.

Ah! Certainty do not turn over any AutoCAD or BIM files unless it's stated in the contract.

Only as long as the judicial court of jurisdiction permits or allows for limitation of liability. Some courts do in fact prohibit and deem those clauses unenforceable. Confirm with an attorney. In cases, licensed professionals are not allowed to contractually limit their professional liability from their own actions. In some cases, it doesn't matter if licensed or not because such things are seen as simply trying to induce consumers into waiving their legal rights in order for the professional to escape responsibility for his or her actions. Some courts looks down on that very much so so much so that they deem any such terms as unconscionable that it is outright forbidden like the hold harmless clause so do in fact verify with a qualified lawyer.

I would also suggest that scans of drawings vs actual pdfs of the digital.

Absolutely. The next architect is going to do everything possible to reuse OP's files via copy and paste. To best protect the OP, they've got to be forced to redraw everything.

And rescale the scans to 97.5% of original so they can't be physically scaled. And take all the dimensions off.

You find it unrealistic because in most situations they cannot be liable.

Sadly courts have not been in our favor lately with these things.

A non-profit org may not really be the best repeat client

There's no shame or lack of professionalism in politely departing the project in way then minimizes future liability. That should be a standard procedure. It is indeed the right thing to do when the client is demonstrating that they are highly suggestible and ready to toss the architect for the supposedly shiner thing this GC is offering.

Just to defend non-profits a little - two of my best clients are non-profits. It really depends all on how they're run.

That would be a good thing. OP may need to explain project delivery methods to this client. And maybe some general life stuff like "the free shit someone offers you is seldom really free"

What a slap in the face, too.

definitely a slap in the face. I have done a lot of pro bono work for local organizations. Why? Because I feel it is important to give back to your community. Yea this is a smack in the face.

I agree.

That's not needed. Even without registering a building design it is automatically copyrighted. Regardless, the copyright won't matter. In most contracts the owner has a legal right to project deliverables for each phase completed as defined in the contract. \

Yes, but registering the work with the Copyright office allows the registrant to seek statutory damages against the infringer. The registration date must precede the alleged infringement, so registering the work sooner is advantageous. Without registration, the copyright owner can only seek actual damages/lost profits, which is more complicated (and likely less money).

Who writes the contract for the services? You or the client. If you, then you have rights which they can not automatically be entitled to unless you agree to it. So yes, contract language matters. 

What all professionals offering services should do is never hand over proprietorship rights of intellectual property unless it starts with 100 followed by a 3 trillion zeros separated by commas before the decimal point for the purchase of the ownership rights. What architects better start learning how to do correctly is never make IP asset purchase agreements a part of the actual professional services agreement. Those should be discrete and separate transactions. 

Agreements for selling intellectual property rights like IP licensing should be a separate transaction with separate signatures. They are sophisticated enough that they should never be directly part of the contract for services. It can be referenced by the professional services agreement that the client may use the design per a separate copyright licensure agreement between client and professional. 

Remember, "works for hire" clause of the copyright pertains to genuine employer-employee relationship. If you are a genuine employee of the client, the client is not a client but an employer. Client is to be reserved for the recipient of professional services under an independent contractor relationship. Work for hire clause in the copyright law refers to the situation of an employers ownership rights to your work like if you were an animator for Disney, Disney owns the copyrights of the drawings you produced. The architectural firm you work as an employee owns the IP rights to your designs you did for the firm while employed as an employee of the firm. 

Transferring of the ownership rights or issuing a copyright license allowing the client to produce copies of your drawings and using it for submission should be a separate and distinct agreement with its own signature lines. There are many parts to those agreements that makes it a good idea to not mix it into the professional services agreement itself. A professional service agreement should require the client shall enter an agreement, either to purchase the copyrights or to enter into a copyright licensure agreement prior to use of the plans and specifications or any other work where copyright law applies. The licensing agreement or the copyright purchase agreement should be made upon completion of drawings, specifications, etc.. Agreement does not need a complete itemized list of the copyrighted work. It can be presumptive for works that is to be created. In other words, licensure in advance of the creation of the copyrighted works. Often, some work should be created so things like revision drawings and such would be derivative works that would be inherently copyrighted and able to be presumptively part of the license agreement if made. Typical architectural services contracts sucks as a licensure agreement. 

A license agreement would allow you to stipulate a price (a fee) for the license and the duration of the license as well as geographical boundary of the license. Commonly, they may be worldwide or limited to a country. They can be limited to an even narrower geographical area. The geographical area can be not only for the governing laws on the matter but a precise location. We can tailor the license agreement in conjunction with the professional services so they are independent agreements that works together. It can be a specific tax lot or group of tax lots as well as time limited. Meaning, the license isn't forever. It expires and the client can not continue use of that license and would have to re-enter the agreement for another fee and so on. 

NOTE: Just because you can obtain a copy from the city (FOIA stuff) does not mean you can obtain the right to reproduce and use such work for commercial purposes. Yes, you can use it for academic research and such but you can't use such to make derivative design from and to create new works from them while the copyright is still active and valid. Some works have gone into public domain. Cities can reproduce anything subject to FOIA upon requests. People obtaining copyrighted work under FOIA requests of federal, state, and local agencies does not mean they have a right to reproduce those and use it to make buildings from it. Whoever obtains such would still be required by law to get authorization from the copyright owner. A licensee does not have the right to sub-license unless it is explicitly agreed to. Copyright licensure agreements requires some degree of explicit indication of what is being covered by the license. Any rights a licensee has under the license is explicit to what the license agreement has outlined. If it isn't explicitly stated in the agreement, it is to be assumed to not be part of the agreement, as rule of thumb. A licensee can not sub-license unless the copyright owner explicitly provides that in the licensure agreement. That, typically, would not be a practical case in any such licensing in this profession. As copyright owner, you may deny issuing a license for the specific work that was made for one client to another for any number of reasons. Built architectural works has exceptions where a designer/architect who is remodeling an existing building would not be violating copyright law if he or she produces his or her own drawings of the existing structure and then produces his or her own drawings. However, it would be appropriate to credit the original design to the original architect/designer. This is because with actual built work, it is recognized under the provisions of the copyright laws for "architectural works" (versus the "pictorial works" provisions of the copyright law) that the original architect/designer may not be around still when some remodels or renovations and such are done in some unknown indeterminate time in the future. Use of the original drawings (if still under copyright) should seek permission from the copyright owner or his or her successor. Sometimes, that is their estate or children. Sometimes, it gets much more complicated. In some old works, the copyrights are expired and so it is not an issue anymore for those. However, it would still be ethically respectful to credit original designer/architect for original design... if known.

spaceman wrote:

Yes, but registering the work with the Copyright office allows the registrant to seek statutory damages against the infringer. 

 Any work done by an architect is already copyrighted.  You're not going to gain anymore protection or monetary damages by attempting to copyright a design a second time. 

The registration date must precede the alleged infringement, so registering the work sooner is advantageous. 

Any work done by an architect is already copyrighted on the date of the signed contract.  

Without registration, the copyright owner can only seek actual damages/lost profits, which is more complicated (and likely less money).

The architects work is already copyrighted.  Even with a copyright the owner can only seek actual damages or loss of profits.  It's still complicated.  

This is where you're incorrect. There are more damages available if you register the work. I'm also an architect who's has legal advice on this.

Yes, while the law as it is actually written and easily verified, there are two categories of damages that can be sought for copyright infringement per copyright law. While you can seek only one or the other (you have to choose in proceedings) when it gets down to that point, registering preserves both options to choose from (especially if timely registered). If not, you are limited only to actual damages. That is preclusion per copyright law. 

For architects, having the option to seek statutory damages would likely be better in most cases because it is easier to prove and support without requiring evidence and such for actual damages. How do you prove potential loss in revenue especially with one of projects? It isn't like you have future sales. You kind of have to prove that in a plausible manner when seeking actual damages. Statutory damages would be better for these cases in many cases. You aren't required to make that kind of proof at that level of evidentiary proof supporting the argument of the damages. SPECIAL NOTE: Always seek actual legal advice for course of action from a lawyer. Sometimes they make run the case under different avenues than conventional copyright infringement lawsuit if it would be likely a better option for seeking remedy like breach of contract if non-registered copyrighted architectural works would likely yield next to nil.

A defendant can claim, you aren't selling these plans like copies of a book or music album. You aren't making money and commercializing these works in terms of sales so you have no loss in sales. This is where things become an issue when suing for actual damages. Statutory damages also allows you to seek recovering attorney fees. Now, that is in actual copyright infringement lawsuits. If the case was not actually for copyright infringement but for say... breach of contract, then you might be able to seek remedies for breach of contract per the laws of your state or federal (depending on the governing laws for the contractual dispute). 

In any case, actual copyright lawsuits are very specific cases under the scope of copyright law that are only heard in federal courts because it is federal law that is exclusive federal jurisdiction. What OddArchitect described sounded, to me, like a state case using breach of contract claim in order to recover some kind of remedy instead of proceeding under actual copyright infringement at federal court. I already said that. Anyway, this is why I felt it seems that OA was more likely mis-recalling details of the case which he may have not paid close enough attention for the recollection... understandable... he's an architect not a lawyer and legal mumble jumble isn't all that interesting of a topic to many people who are goes into the architecture profession.

​Rick - in most states, any work done by an architect is automatically copyrighted and registered. The date of each is when the contract is signed by the party hiring the architect.

First, you got things wrong. Architect stamp and seal has absolutely zero bearing on whether a copyrighted work is registered. Under law, a work created is PRESUMPTIVELY copyrighted. That is that a work created is to be presumed to be copyrighted unless it is proven that the work is in fact a copyright infringement of another's copyrighted work. Merely creating something does not mean it is copyrighted to you. Just because you make a drawing of Deadpool does not mean you own the copyright to that drawing. The work may belong to someone else and your drawing may be deemed an unlawful derivative work. In addition, before you can sue anyone for copyright infringement, you must register the work with the copyright office. 

In order to sue for statutory damages under copyright law, the work must be registered with the copyright office at time of infringement or if infringement occurred during the first three months after publication or creation of creative work, you had timely registered within three months and in which case it may cover infringement before date of registration as long as the registration was timely.

In addition, read: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1338 and read page 3 of the PDF (printed page: 955) of digitalcommons.du.edu--DenverUniversityLawReviewVol84Issue3Article11 ---- Copyright infringement cases are exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). 

Don't confuse copyright infringement with contract issues. Okay? 

A defendant with a brain between their head or have an attorney with a brain in his/her head would respond to copyright infringement claims under a state court as stating the state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over copyright infringement pursuant of 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Pointing improper venue for such case. A copyright owner can dispute the contractual aspect of a case involving copyright matters under state court. They must however dispute the copyright infringement cases in federal court.

Architect stamp has no bearing on copyright registration itself. A work is ONLY registered is filed and registered with the copyright office and a copy of said work submitted... and ultimately approved (ie. not denied).

Depends on the state. Also the contract dictates the copyright and registry, NOT the stamp. I'm sorry Rick but you're mistaken on this.

Rick - 

I was editing this but it got lost . . ..

I apologize, I was mistaken about an architectural design being a registered copyright. 

Copyright in a design, whether registered under § 102(a)(5) or § 102(a)(8), generally gives an architect the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, display, and prepare a work based upon the design. This protection, unless the work is a work-made-for-hire, lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. 

There is no need for an architect to register a copyright as a standard AIA contract already copyrights and gives the architect the same legal protections as a if the work was a registered copyright. 

 Also the contract dictates the copyright, NOT the stamp.

Actually the laws dictates. 

However, contract determines issues like whether the client receives a license to use the copyrighted work. Since the architect is the author of the creative work as with any author is (except a work for hire as a genuine employee... where the work would be owned by the employer), the architect would be the copyright owner of the architectural designs, the plans, and specifications. Clients are not employers. If there is a professional-client relationship it is an independent contractor relationship. 

A client who is the employer of the architect is not a client but an employer. If you are using the AIA standard contracts and standard language, it preserves the independent contractor(professional)-Client relationship model. In that case, the work for hire clause of copyright law does not apply between the Architect and the Client. 

In order for client to use the copyrighted work, the architect should license the work to the client per terms of a licensing agreement and protecting his or her liability interest and other such issue. Any work that qualifies as copyrightable is copyrighted upon creation of the copyrighted work. However, to preserve the right to sue for statutory damages for copyright infringement, the work does need to be registered. That is controlled by federal statutory law and takes precedence over any contractual term. Federal court could give a shit less what your contract terms say, they are governed by the copyright law itself in determining if you have right to sue on statutory damages for infringement of copyright. You would need to timely register the copyright and in general, it must be registered before the infringement occurred or at least filed. Otherwise, you may only be able to sue for copyright infringement for absolute damages and before you can sue for copyright infringement at all, you must register the copyright in order to gain requisite standing to sue for copyright infringement. 

You do not need any of that to sue for other contractual disputes. You can sue for breach of contract but if the breach is in fact copyright infringement, you might (or might not... not sure) need to sue the copyright infringement case before federal court and register it before to then take the resulting judgment (if in your favor) back to state court regarding breach of contract. The judgment in the copyright infringement can be the prima facie evidence for the breach of contract. So you can hammer it on both venues. Civil cases are not subject to 'double jeopardy'. So in a way, copyright infringement can be both a copyright infringement case (in federal court) and a breach of contract case (in your state trial court [civil not criminal]). 

It could also lead to a separate criminal case. So, a client who does that could have some very bad days. This is if you can get a federal prosecutor willing to prosecute on criminal charges but usually it doesn't ever go that far. Usually it is just civil cases. 

Whether you want to sue on breach of contract claim basis or if you want to sue for copyright infringement basis seeking damages under copyright infringement claim, or both..... that is entirely up to you and how much punishing you want to do.

In my personal opinion, not all works is worth the trouble to do copyright registration. However, if you are designing a building and it merits registration, I'd register it so I preserve certain legal options if I pursue suing someone for copyright infringement. Timely registration is necessary to preserve the right to sue for statutory damages.

FYI: No state has authority over copyright laws, registration of copyrights, lawsuits regarding copyright infringement, and so forth. Copyright law precludes states' authority making such laws, technically unconstitutional because Congress precludes the states' jurisdiction on the subject matter via legislation that has passed a long time ago. 

You can sue for breach of contract which violating copyright could be a breach of a contractual term and sue on breach of contract but that is not suing for copyright infringement even if the copyright infringement is the basis for the breach of contract.

You can only sue for copyright infringement claim in federal court. State courts do not have jurisdiction over copyright infringement claims. States can however sue on basis of breach of contract claims.

If you have a term in contract saying something to the effect:

 Client and any other person on behalf of the client shall not make copies of the Architect's copyrighted work without first obtaining permission or license from the Architect. Copying of the Architect's work without permission or licensure from the Architect shall be deemed a copyright infringement and also as a breach of contract. Architect reserves the right to sue for copyright infringement and also for breach of contract in the applicable courts of jurisdiction.

In which case, you have the right to sue in the applicable courts under the applicable claims meaning you can sue in your federal district court and in your state courts for the respective claims, respectively. You can sue on both claims for the same underlying act.

In some cases, breach of contract cases may be sued in federal district courts but it would be in state courts in most cases because in the world of architect's typical practice, it would not be federal except the copyright infringement claims. A breach of contract would only be concerned if the party being sued violated terms of the contract. It doesn't question if it violates copyright law. 

The copyright infringement claim (which would need to be heard in federal district court) would be determining if copyright infringement occurred per the law not the contract language. So, you can win the breach but lose the copyright infringement case but likely you would win both cases but any legal case are fact-based and determined on a case by case basis. The trier of fact will have to determine accordingly. A breach of contract case is driven by contract law and terms of contract. Copyright infringement cases are driven by copyright law. 

Copyright licensure agreements may be evaluated at federal level if there is a violation of the licensing. In other cases, it may be looked at in state under the contract law terms and to a certain extent, copyright law matters. How much the case hinges on the copyright law itself may effect the venue to take the case. You choose the venue (your lawyer, of course) based on where it should be heard based on the laws and facts of the case.

Contracts (which licensing agreements for example... are) defines permissions granted. AIA contracts may have some limited "licensing agreement" of sorts but usually, I would avoid licensing in the actual AIA contract itself but have a copyright license agreement if I were to grant a license to a client. I would prefer licensing over transferring copyright ownership to a client. You can have a much more robust licensing agreement and also obtain additional amounts (licensing fees akin to royalty for a license for a specific period and/or quantity). This becomes more robust and controlled versus the standard AIA contract might have for these situations. This doesn't mean you can't use the AIA contract with only minor modifications (reviewed by an attorney, of course). 

The licensing agreements should be custom and tailored and ideally designed to work in the contractual ecosystem of the contract type you are using such as the AIA or whatever contracts. The main architectural service contract can set the terms that requires a client to obtain permission or license to make copies but until then, they do not have ANY right to make any additional copies whatsoever. If they want to make additional copies, they will have to obtain either permission or enter into a custom licensure agreement and pay a fee which should pay for legal costs and pay for any sort of insurance premiums or whatever you may need to pay to cover increased exposure or whatever that may be. The client may also simply pay for additional copies to be printed instead for a nominal price. 

The contracts (from architect service agreement contract to the licensure agreement to said copyrighted work of the Architect) are dictated by the terms of the agreements and the respective laws including contract and liability laws for contractual disputes to copyright law for copyright infringement claims. 

As said earlier, some cases a singular act (unauthorized copying of Architect's copyrighted work by client or by a person on behalf of the client) can be a breach of contract claim as well as a copyright infringement claim. The client can be responsible for the act under these claims whether they do it themselves or commission, ask, requested, or otherwise get another person to do the unauthorized copying on his or her behalf regardless if there was any financial or other compensation made or not. You may or may not be able to directly go after the "other person" that did the job on behalf of the client due to 'privity of contract' issues but you can go after the client responsible for the unauthorized copying made. 

If you are following so far, good. Client can be vicariously responsible/liable to the act even if they didn't do the work himself or herself. Breach of contract claim serves a different angle and area of law and concern than copyright infringement claim, itself. Both claim approaches can be used against a client that does unauthorized copying of an Architect's copyrighted works.

I'm not reading all of that Rick. I've been involved in a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Long story short - We won because the work was automatically copyrighted when the client signed the contract. We received full fees for the work that was plagiarized.

Yes, copyright is automatic. Berne Convention, 1989. However, architectural work is not copyrighted at the time of architectural service contract is made, typically. These agreements are typically made before you even start any services with a client from which any copyrighted material be created. Copyright infringement claim is a federal claim that is to be sought in federal court. 

To begin a lawsuit for copyright infringement - https://www.wiley.law/alert-Copyright-Registration-Is-A-Prerequisite-to-Suing-for-Infringement [READ]. Supreme Court settled that. 

Further READ: https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/ 

The case you had was not a copyright infringement case but a breach of contract case in which copyright infringement by unauthorized copying was the basis of the breach of contract because the contractual term that the client signed, bounded the client to the agreement that they will not make copies of the architect's copyrighted work without permission. Your case that you are talking about is a breach of contract case not a copyright lawsuit case. 

In a breach of contract case, the court is determining the answer to the fundamental question: "Did the defendant violate a terms or condition of the contractual agreement." State courts do not have legal jurisdiction over copyright infringement cases. They can not have jurisdiction over federal law and federal law remedies with regards to copyright as that is an exclusive federal subject-matter jurisdiction. State courts do in fact have jurisdiction over contract. When the client signed the contract, they became bound to the agreement and its terms the moment they signed the agreement. 

Copyright infringement cases (which I am talking about that is to be heard in FEDERAL court) is concerned with answering the following question: "Did the defendant violate the plaintiff's exclusive rights under the copyright law by making copies without permission by the plaintiff?", "is the copyright registered in order to bring an infringement action", and "was the work timely registered in order for plaintiff to seek statutory damages. If not, the plaintiff is limited to seeking actual damages for any infringement that occurred prior to registration.". 

Contracts have very limited role in answering these questions. A contract may determine if defendant had authorization or not by plaintiff. Once the answer is determined then that's about the end of the role of the contract in these cases. 

Breach of contract action and copyright infringement actions are two different legal actions for two different legal proceedings. Yes, the underlying act of unauthorized copying of an architect's copyrighted work by a client can be a basis for both of these two distinct legal actions which the Architect can seek both actions for the same underlying act in the respective courts of jurisdiction. An architect may seek either or both actions for the same underlying action. It depends on whether or not you want to spend time in court rooms for both types of actions but you could do that at your discretion.

In your case, the issue is not a copyright infringement action that was sought but a breach of contract action. Unauthorized copying (copyright infringement) just happens to be the underlying act that was the basis of the breach of contract. Copyrights begin when the work is created not when a contract is signed. Contractual obligations begins when a contract is signed.

The contract gave you an alternate remedy that you could seek with regards to a client's unauthorized copying of your copyrighted work through the "breach of Contract" action mechanism of contract law instead of actually suing on copyright infringement action, itself. A way to seek remedy without going to federal court by making a client agree to terms that they shall not make copies of the Architect's copyrighted work without permission of the architect. So you sue on breach of contract grounds instead of suing under copyright infringement via federal copyright laws. You have both options you could pursue but one could be adequate enough because federal registration processes, mandatory deposit, and federal court costs can be a pain in the rear to get a case started.

How Article 7 of B101 is written, amended, or otherwise has a significant role in determining the client's rights or lack thereof, obligations, etc. in relationship to copyrights of the work prepared by Architect. This can have profound importance in any case.

You're incorrect on several points. I'm not going to debate this with you. Instead, I'll trust what lawyers have told me.

Are you saying federal law is wrong? 

Colorado does not have constitutional right at all to hear copyright infringement claims. No state does. ONLY FEDERAL COURT has jurisdiction. 

Second, no work that is not created can have a copyright before it is created. Contract doesn't create copyright of architectural design. The only way a state court could hear a case that involves copyright infringement is if copyright infringement was the act and basis that causes a breach of contract. Then it is in the context of determining if a breach of contract occurred. 

The only way an architectural work was created on or before your architectural service agreement was if it was created on or before you entered into a contractual agreement with a client like maybe in the case of a stock house plan. You wouldn't be engaging in custom design/architectural design services before you have an agreement with the client? Clients are not obligated to pay you services before work done prior to a contractual agreement. 

A work can not be copyrighted before it is created. Copyrights applies to tangible expressions not ideas in your head. There are NO intellectual property rights of ANY kind for mere unrealized, uncreated ideas that only exists in your head. Mere ideas rattling inside your brain can not obtain copyrights, patents, or trademark protections at all until it is created in a tangible form (digitally/electronically or in physical media). 

Architectural service agreements can indicate when a contract is entered into and when parties of contract are obligated to the terms of the contract. 

Read: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Richard Balkins wrote:

"Are you saying federal law is wrong?" 

No. I'm saying your interpretation is flawed. Again, I'll listen to our lawyer and the judge in the court case I was part of.

There is no 'double jeopardy' when it comes to civil actions. Unless your case was in FEDERAL court, you never had an actual copyright infringement case. If it was state court, it was more likely a breach of contract claim from which copyright infringement was the CAUSE of the breach of contract. 

If you been in an actual lawsuit on a copyright infringement claim, you would have had to register the work with the copyright office, submit copy/copies to Library of Congress (mandatory deposit), paid fees, and the case would be in Federal Court... if you were in Colorado in that case.... most likely it would have been at Wayne N. Aspinall Federal Building United States Courthouse, being the closest federal district courthouse. 

You can't sue for copyright infringement until the work is registered. Copyright infringement claims are federal claims. Breach of contract is a claim that can be a state-level claim. If the client made a breach of contract by copyright infringement then you can take a breach of contract claim at state court on that basis. 

To make a direct claim on the copyright infringement itself, you have to do that in federal court after you register the copyright. Having copyright and having the right to sue are two different thing. Registering is a requirement for legal standing to sue for copyright infringement. Having exclusive rights to reproduction of your work is not the same as registration. 

You can sue for copyright infringement that occurs before you register the work BUT you may be limited to only actual damages for infringement that occurred before you registered the work and you must register the work in order to take legal action with regards to copyright infringement, itself. You can take action for breach of contract in state trial court (civil-case side) that is caused by copyright infringement by a party to the contract (client for example), regardless.

I'm not arguing this with you. You're incorrect when it comes to architectural work performed by an architect. Good day.

Typically, when you start a contract with a client, the only thing that you created that is copyrighted at that point is the contract itself (either AIA or you.... if you make your own contract) and any written or otherwise recorded communication you made already. Anything else that is not created, yet... is not copyrighted until it is created. That's basic copyright principle. Prior to 1989, (Berne Convention) you had to register the copyright before it is copyrighted and protected. However, a work could never by copyrighted prior to it existing in some tangible form since ever. There is no legal protection under any law for unrealized ideas that only exists in your head. Why would there be any?

"No. I'm saying your interpretation is flawed. Again, I'll listen to our lawyer and the judge in the court case I was part of." 

How about the actual law and the copyright office which I referenced, already. Did you read them? 

When you enter a contract with client, is there ANY architectural drawings prepared prior to the contract? Yes or No.

If a drawing wasn't created, how can there be a copyright to that drawing, yet? Copyright can not predate the work itself. Each work created has its own copyright date from its creation point. Compilation of work has a date that can be based on dates of which each individual work in the compilation is created, respectively. The contract's date is not the copyright date of the construction document. You'd have a date on the construction document or the CAD file for when the file was created. 

Read: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Rick - I don't care what you post. I'm going to go with what the lawyers and the presiding judge said on the case. You can keep posting links but I'm not going to read them. I've literally had experts direct me on this and I'm going to listen to them.

Copyright office is the agency in charge of the copyright registrations. Federal court has jurisdiction to hear copyright infringement disputes. State courts can not hear such disputes but can hear contractual disputes such as breach of contract. If a contract term requires client to not make unauthorized copies, and they then make unauthorized copies, you have a contractual dispute (breach of contract) and also a copyright infringement dispute. Copyright infringement by making unauthorized copies can be the causal act that causes the breach of contract. So you can sue from the breach of contract claim in state court for the act. You must sue in federal court for copyright infringement claims seeking the remedies under U.S. copyright law. You could choose to sue for breach of contract in that scenario and it might be an adequate remedy if the client made unauthorized copies of your work without going through the steps to sue federally for copyright infringement claims. Terms and conditions of AIA contract (as amended) would be a contract dispute and violation of the terms and conditions of the contract would be a breach of contract claim. If that breach is caused by copyright infringement, you can sue on breach of contract, or sue on copyright infringement, or sue on both claims for the same underlying act of copyright infringement. Civil lawsuits are not subject to so called "double jeopardy" limitations. You can be sued multiple times for the same act and on multiple claims relating to the same act in one or more courts of jurisdiction.

https://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html - Section 101, 102, 103, 104, 104A, 105, 106, 106A,... well read the whole damn chapter but 102-106A is a good start and 107-111 is probably worth reading. 101 is worth reading for definitions. That is the law not the judge's ruling. The judge can be in error in part. However, I do not believe it was a material error. However, your case sounded more like a state court case that was actually a breach of contract dispute that resulted from copyright infringement but the claim itself was a contractual claim (breach of contract) because it doesn't matter if the judge errored on when a copyright begins. The contract's binding obligation itself began when the contract was entered into. The copyright for the work began the moment it was created. So the terms and conditions of the contract was a standing binding obligation to the client the entire time from the time the contract was entered into and when the copyrighted work was created and continued on even after that.

Besides, a client could not possibly (scientifically) violate copyright of your work before it was created. Not unless we are talking about time travel... it is otherwise pretty well beyond possible. There's no copyrights to ideas that only exists in your head. Maybe if someone can read your mind and then create it before you did... maybe but otherwise... not likely.

When registering works, you can file the copyrighted work as "architectural work" and also as "technical drawing". Read Circular 41 (Copyright Registration of Architectural Works). If you want to preserve protection and claims, you may want to cover both types of authorship in making a separate filing for each and do so simultaneously. You should consider the costs when billing and initial retainer (or whatever you want to call that initial fee). This way, you cover your ass on that front.

You can keep posting Rick but I'm not reading any of it. I don't get my legal advice online. I go straight to a lawyer.

Not even from the Copyright office? Where the hell do you think lawyers get their information from? They weren't born with the knowledge and the knowledge most of them got came from online sources even the information from court cases. You know... OJCIN (Oregon court cases), PACER, etc.... ONLINE! So, you can read the law and ask the lawyer. You think lawyers are spending all day reading dusty books at the local library all the time or rely on solely those sources?

Laws are published online so you can read the damn things and not be ignorant of the laws.

I question your recollection of some of the factual details of the case you had. Was it in a federal court house? Yes or no. If No then you did not have a copyright infringement case. A judge would have had to declare that they lack subject matter jurisdiction. The client's attorney would have motioned that the case is not in the correct venue. Other statements you made indicates to me that it was a contract dispute claim. Copyright infringement is an IP claim not a contract claim. Breach of contract is a contract claim. IP violation can be the cause of a breach of contract and you can take the claim under breach of contract not copyright infringement (which you would have had to take at federal court). You can't have a copyright to a work before it is created. A work that doesn't exist can't be illegally copied, either. You don't need to register a copyright to sue for breach of contract where the cause of the breach is by copyright infringement. To seek remedy under U.S. copyright law, for copyright infringement, you need to register the work.... FIRST and then file the case in a federal court. Copyright infringement remedies and breach of contract remedies are separate remedies. I'm confident that you are not talking with the lawyer of that case at this time so far. They took what was probably the easiest avenue to seek remedy over the act at hand which was probably more than enough to curb any further violation of the contract or copyright.

For doing this under breach of contract, all you need to prove are 1. you have a contractual term / condition that the client agreed to that they would not make copies without your permission and 2. prove that they made copies without your permission. That can result in some remedies. 

You can get compensatory damages, possibly liquidated damages, injunctions, etc. depending on jurisdiction. You have options but it would be easier to prove and win the case (probably). No need to prove registration. A work would be copyright the instance it is created in tangible medium. Once it exists, it is copyrighted. They do not need to really analyze the validity of the copyright unless defendant challenges the validity of the copyright.

OddArchitect, I am not challenging what a lawyer and judge said. I am challenging what you said or your account of what they said because you are not providing actual quotes of what they said or their ruling. Your argument is outright contradicts the law, outright. Interpretations should be like within the same universe as the law not so damn far apart that it is absolutely on opposite ends of the universe apart. You make a claim the copyright begins with the contract. The establishment of copyrights have absolutely nothing to do with contract. It is defined in FEDERAL law that in published on the internet for the whole damn universe to see what it says verbatim exactly as adopted and amended by Congress. This is the same law judges have to interpret from. 

The law says it begins when the work is created in tangible medium. That's like right there in chapter 1 of Title 17 where the copyright law is. 17 U.S. Code § 102. 

"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:" and the word subsists means "to have existence" (Merriam-Webster dictionary or basically means "exists"). 

It's just fancy for saying exists when the work is an original work of authorship fixed in tangible medium of expression. The copyright is automatic and the work is presumptively copyrighted upon its creation in tangible medium. Registration is required for suing for copyright infringement itself and that must be in federal court.

I do not believe the lawyers or the judge in the case would be advising an interpretation that is so far not aligned with any reasonable interpretation of the laws per the definitions and ordinary meaning of the words provided. Words in law can not have the absolute opposite meaning to what the words mean. How can any work be copyrighted before it even exists?

Did the contract predates the copyrighted work that are the deliverables of the Architect's services under the contract with the client. 

In my first ever "job" (internship as a senior in HS) in an architect's office in DC, one of my tasks was to run drawing sets down to get registered for copyright. I was informed at that time that it was no longer required since case law covered architectural drawings, but that the name partner liked to still do it anyway

I agree. Registering isn't mandatory which is per the Berne Convention back in 1989. No one, not even I am arguing it is mandatory except if you sue someone you need to register the copyright in order to file a copyright infringement claim. That is an outright statutory requirement literally in the copyright law. It is also required for claiming statutory damages in which case would need to be registered before the infringement occurred. You can only claim for actual damages for infringement that occurs before your copyright is registered. If you wait to until infringement occurs and suing someone for it before you register the copyright, you are limiting your damages to only actual damages. This can potentially limit your claim amount that you can recover. That is what I been saying this whole time, here. 

You need to register to preserve certain remedies for copyright infringement. Sure, your work might be 'automatically' copyrighted but you can still seriously screw yourself in remedies and you can't sue for copyright infringement in state courts and you can't sue in federal court for copyright infringement until you register the copyright. It is required before the case can proceed. Federal courts everywhere in the U.S. is required to mandate that. State courts are not allowed to hear copyright infringement cases. It is illegal for them to do so because they would be illegally asserting jurisdiction in subject matter that federal law prohibits state and local courts of a subpolitical body of any state (municipal, county, parish, etc.) to have any jurisdiction because it was declared by federal law to be of exclusive federal jurisdiction. 

Any ruling by state courts on copyright infringement claims is null and void and not worth the paper it is written on. However, nothing stops a state court from hearing a breach of contract claim in which case, the claim would be based on a party to the contract (ie. Client) making copies of the architectural plans without permission when a clause in the contract requires that the party (client) shall not make copies of the architect's instruments of service (architectural plan, drawings, specifications, and other works the architect prepared) without the architect's permission. In that case, it is just determining if the party/client violated the terms and conditions of the contract (breach of contract). Then it is state law remedies for breach of contract that is sought.

In the practical world, if I was only going to make a few hundred dollars or so selling only a couple dozen copies or so, it wouldn't be worth it to register the copyright or sue. If I was selling... say... 10,000+ copies of a game or software for $5 to $20 then I can afford to register it and maybe I might be able to afford to sue. I have to be looking at revenue volume in that respect to make that assessment if the work wants the expense. An architectural project might pull a good sizable amount of money for a single work for a single client.

I like the idea that like 5-10% of the information about architecture that ChatGPT or other AI language models will be fed is just rick's ramblings and therefore they will be completely useless at taking our jobs in the future.

I just don't know how Rick has the time to type all of this nonsense, unless Rick is an original AI model gone rogue