I was the Architect of Record for a gut renovation. The Owner sold the building. Then that Owner flipped it and the current Owner called and asked for some advice.
I gladly gave it to him, hoping we would continue on the project.
I received a call asking for CAD files. Clearly he had hired another Architect. I questioned him and he told me he had hired another firm, who happens to be an acquaintance with a very good friend as an Associate. I wasn't even given the opportunity to make a proposal.
I have no obligations to turn my CAD files to the new Owner.
But out of Professionalism, should I?
Are there any legal, ethical reasons not to?
presumably you were paid already for the drawings you have ... did the person who paid you retain rights to the drawings? do you know if he sold or transferred those rights to the downstream owners?
if not, estimate what it would cost the new owner to have the other architect recreate these files ... then propose that he either a) hire you to participate in the project in a meaninful manner; or b) pay you 80-95% of what you estimate it will cost him to have somebody else create these drawings.
while I understand why you're pissed, if the project goes forward without your participation, the drawings you have aren't of any further value to you ... try to negotiate something ... it's better than nothing.
just charge a very minor and honest clerical fee for handling the transfer of drawings, or even free. Honestly the reputation of being an unhelpful architect or difficult is much harder to overcome than the fee would pay. Who knows, when they get sick of their architec t maybe they'll call you.
Why may I ask did you assume you should get the commission anyways if you didnt know this client previously?
I will say again something I've said many times before on this forum ... there's a very fine line between "being of service" and "servitude". servitude = slavery and slavery = working for free.
We are under no obligation to work for free - although we can do so if we wish. However, the essence of professionalism is getting paid fairly for the value you provide. The essence of a client is someone who pays for the services received -- all others are freeloaders. I like to get paid for the work and the value I provide to my clients.
If nosduh hands over these drawings without compensation, the client is receiving value for free. nosduh may - or may not - feel there would be marketing value in providing those drawings, although his post would seem to indicate that he doesn't see much value there.
Do you think your grocer is an a**hole because he won't let you walk out of his store with a loaf of bread without paying for it? nosdu doesn't need to be an a**hole if he chooses to withhold the drawings ... all he has to do is deliver the message in a tactful, professional manner. the new client then is free to make whatever decision he wants to make.
nosduh - if you do decide to tranfer the files (with - or without - compensation) be sure to obtain an indemnification from the new client the looks something like this:
DELIVERY OF ELECTRONIC FILES
In accepting and utilizing any drawings, reports and data on any form of electronic media generated and furnished by the Consultant, the Client agrees that all such electronic files are instruments of service of the Consultant, who shall be deemed the author, and shall retain all common law, statutory law and other rights, without limitation, including copyrights.
The Client agrees not to reuse these electronic files, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than for the Project. The Client agrees not to transfer these electronic files to others without the prior written consent of the Consultant. The Client further agrees to waive all claims against the Consultant resulting in any way from any unauthorized changes to or reuse of the electronic files for any other project by anyone other than the Consultant.
The Client and the Consultant agree that any electronic files furnished by either party shall conform to the specifications listed in Exhibit ___. Any changes to the electronic specifications by either the Client or the Consultant are subject to review and acceptance by the other party. If the Consultant is required to expend additional effort to incorporate changes to the electronic file specifications made by the Client, these efforts shall be compensated for as Additional Services.
Electronic files furnished by either party shall be subject to an acceptance period of _____ (____) days during which the receiving party agrees to perform appropriate acceptance tests. The party furnishing the electronic files shall correct any discrepancies or errors detected and reported within the acceptance period. After the acceptance period, the electronic files shall be deemed to be accepted and neither party shall have any obligation to correct errors or maintain electronic files.
The Client is aware that differences may exist between the electronic files delivered and the printed hard-copy construction documents. In the event of a conflict between the signed construction documents prepared by the Consultant and electronic files, the signed or sealed hard-copy construction documents shall govern.
In addition, the Client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant, its officers, directors, employees and subconsultants (collectively, Consultant) against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, arising from any changes made by anyone other than the Consultant or from any reuse of the electronic files without the prior written consent of the Consultant.
Under no circumstances shall delivery of electronic files for use by the Client be deemed a sale by the Consultant, and the Consultant makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. In no event shall the Consultant be liable for indirect or consequential damages as a result of the Client's use or reuse of the electronic files.
i had a similar situation several years ago with a health club. it changed hands, the new owner called me and asked me if i had the cad files, i said yes, and he asked me if i could e-mail them to them. i said no, and he said why, and i said they are mine and do i have a good reason to give them for free, and he said maybe for future work, and i said maybe he should pay me now, and when maybe happens, we'll discount maybe some as built maybees. he said, he could not understand why i am not cultivating a working relationship, and i said what working relationship. i have never heard of them after asking $1,500.
his speech pattern was like asking me something i was oblige to provide, then he switched to a rotten carrot and after that he tried to undervalue "couple of plans."
he knew what he was after. free plans. but he underestimated i knew that also.
He's not asking for plans - Hes asking for a copy of the plans. In the old days, they came by the office, picked up the roll and brought it to the reposervice, paid the repo service for the copies, brought you back the plans, and maybe you all went out for lunch and hookers and got to know each other.
we have people call our office all the time seeking 'free advice'. My boss spends an hour on the phone with them telling them what they should do...we never hear from them again.
WTF?
I also have a client right now who doesnt want to pay us (over $10,000) that he owes us and he wants the drawings. I am going to tell him to fuck off
I've never worked for, with, or heard of a firm that gives out CAD files for free. Never ever ever.
All the time I get requests for Cad files from sub contractors, non-clients, old girlfriends, etc. Depending on the project at most I'll email them a scanned Tiff file of the sheet with a big "For Reference Only / Not for Construction" note on it.
The last thing you ever want to do is give away your work to another architect that has lower fees or is a "buddy" of some client you will never do work with anyway.
the owing money part is bad, true but giving generalized advice is just being nice. And it gives you an oppurtunity to research them - who they are, how much they may make, are they connected, do they have financing - and vary your level of engagement accordingly - like spend 3 min versus 3 hours. Unfortunatly the whole charging for advice and billable hours mentality is something we picked up in quest to become lawyers, this occured somewhere in the 70's and 80's when we stopped wanting to be doctors, now were slowly becoming data handlers - maybe we should just act like architects. Tell him the files are concidered working documents only but you'll be happy to send some plots to the local printer shop and he can pick them up there. Be sure to include your title block on the drawings as they'll end up being copied and viewed many many times.
You already gave him free advice - though you have not mentioned if that was a five minute phone conversation or two hours spent walking through the building with him while he took notes.
evilp, your comment about "taking the role of drawings to the repro service" drove it home for me: this guy isn't asking for a copy of the plans, he's asking for electronic CAD files. It is a completely different scenario, right?
give him the cad files...but put everything on one layer and explode all the hatches first...and maybe embed some porn in the file somewhere so the poor intern who opens the files freaks out. not very professional...but somewhat amusing
At my last firm, we actually were told to remove the title block and other identifying information from drawings that we were sending to anybody we didn't have a contract with. The bosses were paranoid about any potential liability stemming from use of the drawings.
first off hire a very attractive sounding clerical person to answer the phone. make sure when you hire this person that they can sweetly but very firmly deliver the point that drawings and all other "created" information are the legal property of architects architects and associates. This allows then, if the begging party attempts for you to be able to hide behind that statute. You can always blame it on the business manager
also anyone worth their salt would be wise enough to copy quizzical's post regarding the handover of electronic files...brilliant
on a side note, I was searching through some registration questions once, and I remember there was a case study like this once. I completely forgot what the correction answer was though.
They cant sue you if you dont work for them. Theres no assumption of factuality in having another person's For permit, or for construction drawings. They are not as builts and even if they were it would be hard to be found culpable because since you were not contracted to do the design work you had know way of avoiding trouble for this client. Then you could sue them for the time plus damages it took to defend yourself.
Also - I'm working on some drawings that were created from drawing files first created by a major residential architect in my city ( Poz - that guy who sat next to me actualy started this job in 2003!) then it went to another high profile architect in town, then I got there files a few months ago - all are passed with a transmittal like Quizzical's. And at each step the cad file is altered and made unique to that firm upon alteration.
And zoolander - the firms that passed these files are 2 of the largest in Chicago - I dout they got that large standing together to make a quick grand on some files.
in a professional liability seminar I attended some years ago, we covered a case study in which an architect was on a business development visit to a college campus where he had never worked. walking across the campus with the college's president, the architect was told the campus' swimming pool seemed to have developed a leak and the president wanted to know if the problem could be fixed. the architect naturally said something like "well -- I really couldn't say anything about the problem without the pool being drained so I could look at it."
so, the college president told facilities to drain the pool ... they cranked open the valve ... the neighbors downstream were flooded ... the neighbors sued the college ... the college sued the architect -- AND WON -- because he told them to drain the pool and didn't take the time to consider fully the implications of his request.
true story!
it's a bitch being a professional ... we're held to a seemingly unrealistic standard of care simply because of our training and license. don't stick your head in the sand and assume it can't happen to you ... it can.
and by the way - you said the architect was on a business development trip to the campus? My guess is there had to be some working relationship with college or at least vendors to the college. In addition, I doubt the story is true or at least some key pieces of fact are missing. A "floods" worth of water does no pool I've ever seen hold.
"dude" -- it addresses the question of giving up the files for free and then having the new client file a claim because he relied on the information as being correct and it wasn't.
architects are not liable for improper mantainance, or in the case of the drawing files - improper usage, alterations etc from the stamped drawings approved when it was first erected.
from the AIA and CNA insurance article regaring electronic tranfer of instruments of service
"Transfer of information by electronic media increases concerns that should exist whenever design professionals share intellectual property created for a project. With any transfer of electronic information, it should be made clear that a hard copy (kept in the design professional's archives) retains control over variances or changes that might be introduced in the transfer or reuse process"
not saying anything about the point you're trying to get across, comb -- which is you best be on your job 24-7 when you are acting in your professional capacity -- but i would have to see some documentation on that case...either it's false in its entirety, it's false in part, or the architect had like the world's worst f--king attorney.
now: to the question at hand. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROFESSIONAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, OR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO TRANSFER CAD FILES TO ANOTHER ARCHITECT. i don't usually get all CAPS and all, but.
NEVER set the precedent of providing an instrument of service for free. advice, yeah, maybe. be helpful. but somebody takes YOUR advice for free and then goes off and hires another architect? dude, that owner's SOL.
analyze this situation. you give this guy the cad files, for free, 'cause you're a nice guy.
the BEST thing that happens is that the files work and are accurate, the client saves money, his new architect saves time, and your sainted name never passes anyone's lips when everyone's sitting around slapping each other on the back when the job is done.
the WORST thing that happens is your files are messed up (let's say they're off measurement-wise from the built product), the new architect bitches to the owner, the owner says that YOU owe him the cost that the new architect's gonna charge to fix the files (and it'll be a lot), you say hell no, i was just being nice, didn't you read my disclaimer? and then the client says, hey man -- you're AIA, the drawings are supposed to be 100% complete and final...and hey, meet my lawyer. then you cough up because you're scared shitless.
don't even sell the guy the files. return his call if you want to, tell him that your policy is to retain CAD files, and since this other architect is so great, let him go do field measurements like everyone else. he gets pushy, give him a paper copy of the set. no CAD files, though.
exactly J - a nominal cerical fee only if the client already didnt have them. In most cases we send them to former clients then they pass the service instruments on to whomever for whatever, us safely knowing that the paper copy governs. Maybe they will sue, but people sue for anything and everything. If iyour afraid of that than dont send them.
theres also the one thing no lawyer or schools ever going to tell you or teach - you lay down in shit, you'll smell like shit. Do you trust this person? Do you like them? Would they sue you? Are they Greek?
Man, architects are amazing: a discussion on whether we should get paid for our intellectual property turns into a fear session on being sued.
The proper discussion here should be copyright law. As stated in the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, architects have copyright ownership of the design, the building itself, and also the drawings as "pictorial " or "graphic " works. So it's one thing to sell (or give away) reproductions of originals (eg: a record company sells you a CD of musical work) and quite another to sell (or give away) modifiable originals (eg: the record company sells you the original studio tapes or digital files). The second is much more valuable as judged by the marketplace. So noduh, yea, you can give them the CAD files if you want to play "nice", but just be aware of the value of what you are giving away.
Well, the value would be the time it takes to field measure the building and draw it up? Or that portion? Correct me if Im wrong but its not like our cad files are the master copies for digital reproductions whose sales are measured in millions, or that anyones a digitally remastered copy of my addition to the laudrymat. Sheesh, another discussion on architects and our business model resorting to comparisons to another industry that has nothing to do with our own. I hate to say it but I think the closest thing to architecture is General Contracting. We may not want to admit it but thats our industry. We are the GC's of the design world, cordinating lots of subs/consultants.
As a person who works for a GC, YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY GET MONEY FROM THE ASSHOLE BEFORE SENDING HIM ANYTHING! DO NOT BE A NICE GUY, YOU WILL BE FUCKED, AND IT WILL HURT!
since drawings usually don't match up perfectly with the finished building, they should probably invest in doing field measurements anyhow. having a set of original drawings might just end up giving them more headaches than it's worth. good field measurements are almost always worth the effort.
hey, people have been selling away their intellectual property for years. in the dawn days of rock and roll, everyone got f'd over at least once by selling their first great song for like $50 or a cheap bottle of hooch or something like that. so it's not like it doesn't happen. but unless SPECIFICALLY agreed, yes, the architect owns the intellectual property.
there is a certain subset of people out there -- they do cluster up towards the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum -- who think they can get whatever they want, for whatever they want, simply by asking and then demanding. like the kid in middle school who first asks you for 35 cents to buy a star crunch -- and then just tells you to give it over. it worked until i hit my growth spurt.
Jeez, evilp, I was just making an analogy, not saying that they're the same fields or the money amounts are the same. Everyone on this forum takes everything so friggin' literally (and, btw, the issue of whether to be paid for copyrighted music or not is pretty much THE question in that industry, too). I was pointing out that this stuff we're discussing is our intellectual property, that we should value it and assert our rights to it, whether it's the Bilbao museum or a stupid laundrymat: the law is very clearly stated, and it can be our friend in this case, and it all comes down to questions of legality in the end (at least as far as what's being discussed here). Admit whatever the hell you want, but you're just dragging down the value of what you do by that kind of thinking.
I would contact the office that the client has hired and negociate with them. If they need the drawings, they either pay someone to produce them or they pay you...
the conversation has wandered pretty far from the original question, so i'd like to clear things up some.
my first question is: was nosduh's project was ever completed? if not, there is no issue of any of the drawings in any way qualifying as as-builts, or even a suggestion of what was built, since the work wasn't complete. if your project was not completed, you have NO obligation to turn over cad files, print copies, or anything else and it might be irresponsible to do so. in fact, i wouldn't even turn over the product of any field measuring/existing conditions info that you may have gathered as part of doing your work because you don't want to be held responsible for it.
on the other hand, if the project WAS completed, i don't see any problem with offering the new owner copies of as-built drawings, as long as they are confirmed as-builts, not just the cds. you could choose to give them free or charge some nominal amount for them. some disclaimer about how they can be used should go with them.
i still wouldn't give them autocad files. we've only shared autocad files in the past if 1) we know and have a very positive relationship with the other archs and THEY are the ones to ask, or 2) the previous owner's agreeement establishes that they own the files in addition to the drawings and that they agree that they have effectively transferred these files with the building sale.
Actually, Steven, turns out the conversation did not stray that far from the original question. Nosduh asked whether he had any obligations to turn over CAD files, and legally he does not because he has copyright ownership of them - although he might decide to do so in the end for other reasons as he sees fit. But the legal issue of being sued, which I sort of dismissed before, does in fact come into play in any transfer of electronic drawings. The issue is pretty complex, as much in architecture is, but this site gives a pretty good overview.
But you are muddling the issue, not clarifying it, by placing a distinction between completed and uncompleted projects: the law makes no such distiction. In other words, if the owner says to nosduh "well, I need you to give me these CAD files to have as-builts that my new architect can use", well, tough shit, nasduh still owns the electronic files whether the project was completed or not, and can negotiate the terms under which he hands them over (unless, of course, his original contract with the owner specifically stated that he would hand transfer CAD files and he has already received compensation for them).
Be a good guy or an a**
I was the Architect of Record for a gut renovation. The Owner sold the building. Then that Owner flipped it and the current Owner called and asked for some advice.
I gladly gave it to him, hoping we would continue on the project.
I received a call asking for CAD files. Clearly he had hired another Architect. I questioned him and he told me he had hired another firm, who happens to be an acquaintance with a very good friend as an Associate. I wasn't even given the opportunity to make a proposal.
I have no obligations to turn my CAD files to the new Owner.
But out of Professionalism, should I?
Are there any legal, ethical reasons not to?
hell nah. Those DWGs are your legal property. He'd better pay you for them if he wants them.
presumably you were paid already for the drawings you have ... did the person who paid you retain rights to the drawings? do you know if he sold or transferred those rights to the downstream owners?
if not, estimate what it would cost the new owner to have the other architect recreate these files ... then propose that he either a) hire you to participate in the project in a meaninful manner; or b) pay you 80-95% of what you estimate it will cost him to have somebody else create these drawings.
while I understand why you're pissed, if the project goes forward without your participation, the drawings you have aren't of any further value to you ... try to negotiate something ... it's better than nothing.
just charge a very minor and honest clerical fee for handling the transfer of drawings, or even free. Honestly the reputation of being an unhelpful architect or difficult is much harder to overcome than the fee would pay. Who knows, when they get sick of their architec t maybe they'll call you.
Why may I ask did you assume you should get the commission anyways if you didnt know this client previously?
WE DONT WORK FOR FREE. DONT LET YOUR CLIENTS FUCK YOU OVER. IF THEY WANT THE DRAWINGS, MAKE EM PAY.
DONT BE NICE!!!!!!!!!
Theyre not his client, and theyre not fucking him over. The first rule of successful networking = Be Helpful.
I agree with evil. If you need $80 that bad, call your mother. She'd love to hear from you anyway.
I will say again something I've said many times before on this forum ... there's a very fine line between "being of service" and "servitude". servitude = slavery and slavery = working for free.
We are under no obligation to work for free - although we can do so if we wish. However, the essence of professionalism is getting paid fairly for the value you provide. The essence of a client is someone who pays for the services received -- all others are freeloaders. I like to get paid for the work and the value I provide to my clients.
If nosduh hands over these drawings without compensation, the client is receiving value for free. nosduh may - or may not - feel there would be marketing value in providing those drawings, although his post would seem to indicate that he doesn't see much value there.
Do you think your grocer is an a**hole because he won't let you walk out of his store with a loaf of bread without paying for it? nosdu doesn't need to be an a**hole if he chooses to withhold the drawings ... all he has to do is deliver the message in a tactful, professional manner. the new client then is free to make whatever decision he wants to make.
saying "no" does not make anybody an a**hole.
nosduh - if you do decide to tranfer the files (with - or without - compensation) be sure to obtain an indemnification from the new client the looks something like this:
DELIVERY OF ELECTRONIC FILES
In accepting and utilizing any drawings, reports and data on any form of electronic media generated and furnished by the Consultant, the Client agrees that all such electronic files are instruments of service of the Consultant, who shall be deemed the author, and shall retain all common law, statutory law and other rights, without limitation, including copyrights.
The Client agrees not to reuse these electronic files, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than for the Project. The Client agrees not to transfer these electronic files to others without the prior written consent of the Consultant. The Client further agrees to waive all claims against the Consultant resulting in any way from any unauthorized changes to or reuse of the electronic files for any other project by anyone other than the Consultant.
The Client and the Consultant agree that any electronic files furnished by either party shall conform to the specifications listed in Exhibit ___. Any changes to the electronic specifications by either the Client or the Consultant are subject to review and acceptance by the other party. If the Consultant is required to expend additional effort to incorporate changes to the electronic file specifications made by the Client, these efforts shall be compensated for as Additional Services.
Electronic files furnished by either party shall be subject to an acceptance period of _____ (____) days during which the receiving party agrees to perform appropriate acceptance tests. The party furnishing the electronic files shall correct any discrepancies or errors detected and reported within the acceptance period. After the acceptance period, the electronic files shall be deemed to be accepted and neither party shall have any obligation to correct errors or maintain electronic files.
The Client is aware that differences may exist between the electronic files delivered and the printed hard-copy construction documents. In the event of a conflict between the signed construction documents prepared by the Consultant and electronic files, the signed or sealed hard-copy construction documents shall govern.
In addition, the Client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant, its officers, directors, employees and subconsultants (collectively, Consultant) against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, arising from any changes made by anyone other than the Consultant or from any reuse of the electronic files without the prior written consent of the Consultant.
Under no circumstances shall delivery of electronic files for use by the Client be deemed a sale by the Consultant, and the Consultant makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. In no event shall the Consultant be liable for indirect or consequential damages as a result of the Client's use or reuse of the electronic files.
dont give out your .dwgs....... figure out a payment and that is either based from what is owed or what it would take to redo them....
.dwgs take time and knowledge to create...... if they hired another firm then have them do the .dwgs and see what they would charge....
i had a similar situation several years ago with a health club. it changed hands, the new owner called me and asked me if i had the cad files, i said yes, and he asked me if i could e-mail them to them. i said no, and he said why, and i said they are mine and do i have a good reason to give them for free, and he said maybe for future work, and i said maybe he should pay me now, and when maybe happens, we'll discount maybe some as built maybees. he said, he could not understand why i am not cultivating a working relationship, and i said what working relationship. i have never heard of them after asking $1,500.
his speech pattern was like asking me something i was oblige to provide, then he switched to a rotten carrot and after that he tried to undervalue "couple of plans."
he knew what he was after. free plans. but he underestimated i knew that also.
He's not asking for plans - Hes asking for a copy of the plans. In the old days, they came by the office, picked up the roll and brought it to the reposervice, paid the repo service for the copies, brought you back the plans, and maybe you all went out for lunch and hookers and got to know each other.
your first mistake, and i can't get why no one has pointed it out, is that you gave free advice...get paid for your work/advice.
other than that, i'd say, be an asterik!
we have people call our office all the time seeking 'free advice'. My boss spends an hour on the phone with them telling them what they should do...we never hear from them again.
WTF?
I also have a client right now who doesnt want to pay us (over $10,000) that he owes us and he wants the drawings. I am going to tell him to fuck off
i suspect cleints treatment of architects goes back to philip johnson's quote about architects being "high class whores" (or something like that).
I've never worked for, with, or heard of a firm that gives out CAD files for free. Never ever ever.
All the time I get requests for Cad files from sub contractors, non-clients, old girlfriends, etc. Depending on the project at most I'll email them a scanned Tiff file of the sheet with a big "For Reference Only / Not for Construction" note on it.
The last thing you ever want to do is give away your work to another architect that has lower fees or is a "buddy" of some client you will never do work with anyway.
Tell this new "client" to piss up a rope.
the owing money part is bad, true but giving generalized advice is just being nice. And it gives you an oppurtunity to research them - who they are, how much they may make, are they connected, do they have financing - and vary your level of engagement accordingly - like spend 3 min versus 3 hours. Unfortunatly the whole charging for advice and billable hours mentality is something we picked up in quest to become lawyers, this occured somewhere in the 70's and 80's when we stopped wanting to be doctors, now were slowly becoming data handlers - maybe we should just act like architects. Tell him the files are concidered working documents only but you'll be happy to send some plots to the local printer shop and he can pick them up there. Be sure to include your title block on the drawings as they'll end up being copied and viewed many many times.
You already gave him free advice - though you have not mentioned if that was a five minute phone conversation or two hours spent walking through the building with him while he took notes.
evilp, your comment about "taking the role of drawings to the repro service" drove it home for me: this guy isn't asking for a copy of the plans, he's asking for electronic CAD files. It is a completely different scenario, right?
give him the cad files...but put everything on one layer and explode all the hatches first...and maybe embed some porn in the file somewhere so the poor intern who opens the files freaks out. not very professional...but somewhat amusing
At my last firm, we actually were told to remove the title block and other identifying information from drawings that we were sending to anybody we didn't have a contract with. The bosses were paranoid about any potential liability stemming from use of the drawings.
All this niceness makes me sick.
If everyone stood together on this, the profession would be the better for it.
But oh no, there is always some slimey greaseball willing to whore himself to get a job.
We didnt study years to get paid nothing
first off hire a very attractive sounding clerical person to answer the phone. make sure when you hire this person that they can sweetly but very firmly deliver the point that drawings and all other "created" information are the legal property of architects architects and associates. This allows then, if the begging party attempts for you to be able to hide behind that statute. You can always blame it on the business manager
also anyone worth their salt would be wise enough to copy quizzical's post regarding the handover of electronic files...brilliant
on a side note, I was searching through some registration questions once, and I remember there was a case study like this once. I completely forgot what the correction answer was though.
They cant sue you if you dont work for them. Theres no assumption of factuality in having another person's For permit, or for construction drawings. They are not as builts and even if they were it would be hard to be found culpable because since you were not contracted to do the design work you had know way of avoiding trouble for this client. Then you could sue them for the time plus damages it took to defend yourself.
Also - I'm working on some drawings that were created from drawing files first created by a major residential architect in my city ( Poz - that guy who sat next to me actualy started this job in 2003!) then it went to another high profile architect in town, then I got there files a few months ago - all are passed with a transmittal like Quizzical's. And at each step the cad file is altered and made unique to that firm upon alteration.
The advice about removing our firm's title block came directly from our professional liability insurance company.
And zoolander - the firms that passed these files are 2 of the largest in Chicago - I dout they got that large standing together to make a quick grand on some files.
you remove the title block from your cad files not your paper sets. Once theyre published theyre published, removing the titleblock does nothing.
they CAN sue you if you don't work for them.
in a professional liability seminar I attended some years ago, we covered a case study in which an architect was on a business development visit to a college campus where he had never worked. walking across the campus with the college's president, the architect was told the campus' swimming pool seemed to have developed a leak and the president wanted to know if the problem could be fixed. the architect naturally said something like "well -- I really couldn't say anything about the problem without the pool being drained so I could look at it."
so, the college president told facilities to drain the pool ... they cranked open the valve ... the neighbors downstream were flooded ... the neighbors sued the college ... the college sued the architect -- AND WON -- because he told them to drain the pool and didn't take the time to consider fully the implications of his request.
true story!
it's a bitch being a professional ... we're held to a seemingly unrealistic standard of care simply because of our training and license. don't stick your head in the sand and assume it can't happen to you ... it can.
dude - that has nothing to do with the acad files versus paper copies of permit or construction docs
and by the way - you said the architect was on a business development trip to the campus? My guess is there had to be some working relationship with college or at least vendors to the college. In addition, I doubt the story is true or at least some key pieces of fact are missing. A "floods" worth of water does no pool I've ever seen hold.
"dude" -- it addresses the question of giving up the files for free and then having the new client file a claim because he relied on the information as being correct and it wasn't.
you don't have to get paid to incur liability.
architects are not liable for improper mantainance, or in the case of the drawing files - improper usage, alterations etc from the stamped drawings approved when it was first erected.
from the AIA and CNA insurance article regaring electronic tranfer of instruments of service
"Transfer of information by electronic media increases concerns that should exist whenever design professionals share intellectual property created for a project. With any transfer of electronic information, it should be made clear that a hard copy (kept in the design professional's archives) retains control over variances or changes that might be introduced in the transfer or reuse process"
not saying anything about the point you're trying to get across, comb -- which is you best be on your job 24-7 when you are acting in your professional capacity -- but i would have to see some documentation on that case...either it's false in its entirety, it's false in part, or the architect had like the world's worst f--king attorney.
now: to the question at hand. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROFESSIONAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, OR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO TRANSFER CAD FILES TO ANOTHER ARCHITECT. i don't usually get all CAPS and all, but.
NEVER set the precedent of providing an instrument of service for free. advice, yeah, maybe. be helpful. but somebody takes YOUR advice for free and then goes off and hires another architect? dude, that owner's SOL.
analyze this situation. you give this guy the cad files, for free, 'cause you're a nice guy.
the BEST thing that happens is that the files work and are accurate, the client saves money, his new architect saves time, and your sainted name never passes anyone's lips when everyone's sitting around slapping each other on the back when the job is done.
the WORST thing that happens is your files are messed up (let's say they're off measurement-wise from the built product), the new architect bitches to the owner, the owner says that YOU owe him the cost that the new architect's gonna charge to fix the files (and it'll be a lot), you say hell no, i was just being nice, didn't you read my disclaimer? and then the client says, hey man -- you're AIA, the drawings are supposed to be 100% complete and final...and hey, meet my lawyer. then you cough up because you're scared shitless.
don't even sell the guy the files. return his call if you want to, tell him that your policy is to retain CAD files, and since this other architect is so great, let him go do field measurements like everyone else. he gets pushy, give him a paper copy of the set. no CAD files, though.
exactly J - a nominal cerical fee only if the client already didnt have them. In most cases we send them to former clients then they pass the service instruments on to whomever for whatever, us safely knowing that the paper copy governs. Maybe they will sue, but people sue for anything and everything. If iyour afraid of that than dont send them.
theres also the one thing no lawyer or schools ever going to tell you or teach - you lay down in shit, you'll smell like shit. Do you trust this person? Do you like them? Would they sue you? Are they Greek?
J/K Greeks
Man, architects are amazing: a discussion on whether we should get paid for our intellectual property turns into a fear session on being sued.
The proper discussion here should be copyright law. As stated in the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, architects have copyright ownership of the design, the building itself, and also the drawings as "pictorial " or "graphic " works. So it's one thing to sell (or give away) reproductions of originals (eg: a record company sells you a CD of musical work) and quite another to sell (or give away) modifiable originals (eg: the record company sells you the original studio tapes or digital files). The second is much more valuable as judged by the marketplace. So noduh, yea, you can give them the CAD files if you want to play "nice", but just be aware of the value of what you are giving away.
Well, the value would be the time it takes to field measure the building and draw it up? Or that portion? Correct me if Im wrong but its not like our cad files are the master copies for digital reproductions whose sales are measured in millions, or that anyones a digitally remastered copy of my addition to the laudrymat. Sheesh, another discussion on architects and our business model resorting to comparisons to another industry that has nothing to do with our own. I hate to say it but I think the closest thing to architecture is General Contracting. We may not want to admit it but thats our industry. We are the GC's of the design world, cordinating lots of subs/consultants.
As a person who works for a GC, YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY GET MONEY FROM THE ASSHOLE BEFORE SENDING HIM ANYTHING! DO NOT BE A NICE GUY, YOU WILL BE FUCKED, AND IT WILL HURT!
ouch so many disillusioned souls here today
no their Persian
since drawings usually don't match up perfectly with the finished building, they should probably invest in doing field measurements anyhow. having a set of original drawings might just end up giving them more headaches than it's worth. good field measurements are almost always worth the effort.
hey, people have been selling away their intellectual property for years. in the dawn days of rock and roll, everyone got f'd over at least once by selling their first great song for like $50 or a cheap bottle of hooch or something like that. so it's not like it doesn't happen. but unless SPECIFICALLY agreed, yes, the architect owns the intellectual property.
there is a certain subset of people out there -- they do cluster up towards the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum -- who think they can get whatever they want, for whatever they want, simply by asking and then demanding. like the kid in middle school who first asks you for 35 cents to buy a star crunch -- and then just tells you to give it over. it worked until i hit my growth spurt.
Jeez, evilp, I was just making an analogy, not saying that they're the same fields or the money amounts are the same. Everyone on this forum takes everything so friggin' literally (and, btw, the issue of whether to be paid for copyrighted music or not is pretty much THE question in that industry, too). I was pointing out that this stuff we're discussing is our intellectual property, that we should value it and assert our rights to it, whether it's the Bilbao museum or a stupid laundrymat: the law is very clearly stated, and it can be our friend in this case, and it all comes down to questions of legality in the end (at least as far as what's being discussed here). Admit whatever the hell you want, but you're just dragging down the value of what you do by that kind of thinking.
I would contact the office that the client has hired and negociate with them. If they need the drawings, they either pay someone to produce them or they pay you...
the conversation has wandered pretty far from the original question, so i'd like to clear things up some.
my first question is: was nosduh's project was ever completed? if not, there is no issue of any of the drawings in any way qualifying as as-builts, or even a suggestion of what was built, since the work wasn't complete. if your project was not completed, you have NO obligation to turn over cad files, print copies, or anything else and it might be irresponsible to do so. in fact, i wouldn't even turn over the product of any field measuring/existing conditions info that you may have gathered as part of doing your work because you don't want to be held responsible for it.
on the other hand, if the project WAS completed, i don't see any problem with offering the new owner copies of as-built drawings, as long as they are confirmed as-builts, not just the cds. you could choose to give them free or charge some nominal amount for them. some disclaimer about how they can be used should go with them.
i still wouldn't give them autocad files. we've only shared autocad files in the past if 1) we know and have a very positive relationship with the other archs and THEY are the ones to ask, or 2) the previous owner's agreeement establishes that they own the files in addition to the drawings and that they agree that they have effectively transferred these files with the building sale.
and what puddles said is true: even as-builts don't replace field measuring and verification.
Actually, Steven, turns out the conversation did not stray that far from the original question. Nosduh asked whether he had any obligations to turn over CAD files, and legally he does not because he has copyright ownership of them - although he might decide to do so in the end for other reasons as he sees fit. But the legal issue of being sued, which I sort of dismissed before, does in fact come into play in any transfer of electronic drawings. The issue is pretty complex, as much in architecture is, but this site gives a pretty good overview.
But you are muddling the issue, not clarifying it, by placing a distinction between completed and uncompleted projects: the law makes no such distiction. In other words, if the owner says to nosduh "well, I need you to give me these CAD files to have as-builts that my new architect can use", well, tough shit, nasduh still owns the electronic files whether the project was completed or not, and can negotiate the terms under which he hands them over (unless, of course, his original contract with the owner specifically stated that he would hand transfer CAD files and he has already received compensation for them).
woops, link above should be this
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.