“This was a jewel box, our jewel box, and somebody ripped it off,” Sands said. “Hablinski promised us this would be one of a kind.”
Outraged on his own and on behalf of his clients, Hablinski filed a lawsuit against the builders and owners of the Beverly Hills property. Referring to the Beverly Hills property as the “copycat house”, the suit alleged copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition and other complaints.
After a three-week trial in Los Angeles, a six-person jury ruled this month in Hablinski's favour and awarded him nearly $6 million. The jury found that the defendants conspired with a former Hablinski employee to copy plans for the Sands house and use them to build the Beverly Hills home.
(Hablinski has created custom designs for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver, Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, Jennifer Lopez, and Jim Carrey.)
Mess or not, stealing is stealing. There is certainly lesser construction out there which is not the real issue. How would you feel if you got "Elihu'd"? - particulars of the theft:
1) one of the conspirators was a former employee
2) the builder owner(s) was a plumbing fixture material supplier for the original Hablinski project - 4 brothers were in on it
3) they tried to strip any remnants of copied material from the recipient users harddrive to conceal the theft.
#3 nailed their hides. the cookie jar lids slams down and slowly chews on the trapped appendage taking a couple sticky fingers off in front of the media.
The suit tested and solidified the bounds of
the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990.
Previously, architects could only copyright their architectural
plans, but this law extends the protection to building designs
as well.
"This is a significant verdict because it confirms the broad
scope of copyright protection available to architects and other
artists," said Roger N. Behle, Jr., co-counsel for
Hablinski+Manion. "Third parties, such as contractors and
homeowners, can be held liable for the infringing activities of
those they hire. As a result, homeowners must be very careful
when they hire someone to design plans. It is up to the
homeowner to know who they are dealing with." According to
comments made in court and to the media when the suit was
filed, the Elihu brothers claimed they had no idea the plans
were copied."
It certainly is something to remember for all parties in design & build.
I would say that the original client DID suffer damage - he hired an architect so that he would have a one of a kind house (he clearly stated that was important to him), and then someone came along and negated the 'value' of that investment. I'd say he should be compensated the design fee he paid the architect (not any fee that went to CA, but the design and documents portion of the work), if it's possible for them to separate that out, by those who negated the 'value' of what he paid for.
Jun 13, 05 2:23 pm ·
·
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.
copycat house
uhoh, like showing up at a party wearing the same designer dress as the hostess. except that's even worse if you're male. :-)
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jun102005/realty11420200569.asp
“This was a jewel box, our jewel box, and somebody ripped it off,” Sands said. “Hablinski promised us this would be one of a kind.”
Outraged on his own and on behalf of his clients, Hablinski filed a lawsuit against the builders and owners of the Beverly Hills property. Referring to the Beverly Hills property as the “copycat house”, the suit alleged copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition and other complaints.
After a three-week trial in Los Angeles, a six-person jury ruled this month in Hablinski's favour and awarded him nearly $6 million. The jury found that the defendants conspired with a former Hablinski employee to copy plans for the Sands house and use them to build the Beverly Hills home.
(Hablinski has created custom designs for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver, Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, Jennifer Lopez, and Jim Carrey.)
architectural pollution x 2!
it was such a schlocky mess the first time, it HAD to be repeated.
Mess or not, stealing is stealing. There is certainly lesser construction out there which is not the real issue. How would you feel if you got "Elihu'd"? - particulars of the theft:
1) one of the conspirators was a former employee
2) the builder owner(s) was a plumbing fixture material supplier for the original Hablinski project - 4 brothers were in on it
3) they tried to strip any remnants of copied material from the recipient users harddrive to conceal the theft.
#3 nailed their hides. the cookie jar lids slams down and slowly chews on the trapped appendage taking a couple sticky fingers off in front of the media.
of long term note. from an article in Forbes.com............
The suit tested and solidified the bounds of
the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990.
Previously, architects could only copyright their architectural
plans, but this law extends the protection to building designs
as well.
"This is a significant verdict because it confirms the broad
scope of copyright protection available to architects and other
artists," said Roger N. Behle, Jr., co-counsel for
Hablinski+Manion. "Third parties, such as contractors and
homeowners, can be held liable for the infringing activities of
those they hire. As a result, homeowners must be very careful
when they hire someone to design plans. It is up to the
homeowner to know who they are dealing with." According to
comments made in court and to the media when the suit was
filed, the Elihu brothers claimed they had no idea the plans
were copied."
It certainly is something to remember for all parties in design & build.
e-)
art tech geek, link to Forbes article doesn't work - I'd love to read it if you can find it.
i'm waiting for fred sands to file a suit now - that'll be the interesting verdict to read. did the original client suffer any damage?
I would say that the original client DID suffer damage - he hired an architect so that he would have a one of a kind house (he clearly stated that was important to him), and then someone came along and negated the 'value' of that investment. I'd say he should be compensated the design fee he paid the architect (not any fee that went to CA, but the design and documents portion of the work), if it's possible for them to separate that out, by those who negated the 'value' of what he paid for.
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.