The copyright goes to the architect/designer.

Ya Right....but we work for free....not even for food!

Is your name (or company name) on it?

Did you sign and seal the drawings?

All sheets in all sets created by your office should have a copyright. Not sheets where you drop in consultant stuff though...

if you produce it, it is copyrighted automatically. you can then sue for damages.

if you take the time and trouble to register the work with the federal patent & trade office, you're then able to sue for treble damages.

you don't need to use the copyright symbol or have any verbiage indicating the copyright.

If your not an architect....does the same hold true...? Like if your a weekend designer...with a client base....and someone comes along and uses your work but doesn't pay you for the right to use your work... this is where things get messy.

el jeffe, only treble? No bass? i kid.

You copyright your drawings and images... REGARDLESS. Ok?

If you work for a firm and your produce designs and drawing for a client the copyright belongs to the Firm. And you are the "work for hire".
If your are an individual producing the work you are the legal owner of the works. Licensed architect or not. The client has no ownership of the works. And may not be allowed to even distribute, copy or modify your work without your consent.

Ownership can be transferred. For a price of course

You cannot sue for infringement if the works are not registered.

Protect your work. Place a copyright symbol, the date and your name on all your work. Not essential. But good practice.

I had a client breach my contract and a small renovation. If I hadn't been aware of my rights they may have never paid the remaining contract. Once I informed them them had modified and distributed my work without my authorization. They paid.


Copyright laws are powerful tool to assure you from being robbed of your property. Understand them. Don't be afraid to let it be known the work belongs to you.

If the person takes your drawings and has someone modify them slightly where dothe Copyright Laws Stand? Such as taking a wood frame masonry veneer building and changing it to a wood frame clapboard sided building. Keeping the same window door locations
and the same elevations of the building.

Let's say you did a custom designed residence for a client. And it had masonry veneer. Then client or someone else went and built another copy of that design in another state. But this time they used wood siding and that is the only change. It's a violation. If They used your drawings as the basis for a new building then it is copyright infringement. They basically copied your design. regardless of minor changes. Especially, If you have proof they used your documents to do it. There are documented cases of infringement about that very act of copied work. If you drawings were labeled protected, and you filed for a registered copyright protection prior to the infringing act, you could potentially win alot of money. Some cases are harder to prove and make it difficult to pursue legal action. Basically your design and contract with the client gives them permission to build one copy of that design. Just like software. It's not to be distributed or copied.

I remember a case of an architect preparing drawings for a builder of a row of townhouses. That builder went on to build hundreds of the townhouses. It was a violation the contract and the builder was held liable for all the additional copies. He was ordered to pay the the architect's fee for every set of townhouses that were built, several hundred thousand dollars. Part of getting the case to stick was they had to prove the builder was aware that he was only permitted to build one set of the townhouses.

Do a web search. "copyright infringement"


Check out
http://www.aepronet.org/pn/vol5-no2.html

It is interesting stuff

But there have also been cases where architects' drawings have been changed very minimally - for example by mirroring the plan or by changing elements of one facade - and courts have found that this constitutes enough of a difference that what was built was not the architect's design. It's very rare that architects get judgments in their favor in copyright cases. One of the firms I interned in had a client who told them that they'd changed their minds about building, and then used the DD drawings to build the house in another state. The firm sued, and one of the client's contractor's subs even testified that he was given drawings with the title block razor-bladed out, but the court found that the final project "differed substantially" from the original so there was no copyright infringement. Essentially the differences amounted to the addition of a couple of decks, a kitchen peninsula, and a big Palladian window in the dining room that weren't in the original drawings. Otherwise it was identical.

What I'm more interested in....when the client goes South on you. Takes your preliminary drawing, gives it to someone else and has them do the construction documents for the project you designed, with minor finish modifications to the project. This is a one time build out.

Well, there used to be a part of the AIA code of conduct that said that one architect could not start up work on a project that another architect began unless the first architect gave a signed statement that said that the client's account was paid up and that the first architect agreed to release the drawings. This was rescinded around 1975. These days the AIA's position on this is that the second architect is only required to credit the first architect in any situation that results in publicity or awards, and in any marketing materials, etc.

Ordinarily in this situation the first architect will get the client to sign something releasing him of all liability related to the project in the future, and will spell out how he will transfer the drawings to the second architect.

Although the first architect could refuse to release any drawings or other information about the project, in practice most architects do release drawings in this situation. Some will not provide actual CAD files and will just give paper copies or pdf files, but in my experience most architects will provide the CAD drawings if everyone is civil and clear about their intentions.

If you were contracted to go the next step after preliminary drawings and they breached it by just going and having someone else finish them. To me they used your drawings without authorization or consent. If you didn't give them any notice that they weren't allowed to do that, you might want to include that in future drawings and contracts. Basically, thats what happened to me. I did a few reiterations and the client basically rejected all of them. Communication broke down. Trying to get them to decide was getting harder. I let it go for too long without talking. Eventually, I was notified that they had used my drawings to get a building permit. I went down to the building permit office and got a copy of the permit drawings. I contacted the builder. He confirmed my design was used as per my drawings. He had scribbled a bunch of details on my drawing to complete what was needed to obtain the permit. I told the builder how the design process was not complete and that he had no right to use my drawings. I left it at that. The client called me a week later to see why I called his builder. I explained he had breached my contract by letting the builder finish and use my drawings without my consent and he had committed a copyright violation. A few weeks later a check for the remainder of my contract showed up in the mailbox. I might not have won in a court, but I got what I feel I was owed