I've been asked to do a minor adjustment to a 2 year old 9,000 sqf house in San Diego that basically only involves moving a wall to make a bedroom larger. Due to the angle it does change the front elevation and will need neighborhood review board approval. The actual job on my side is minimal on my side but involves some recalculations for the structural engineer as the roof line will somewhat change. The biggest part of the job will be to recreate the elevations for the review.
The original architect fell ill in Covid and is not interested in remodeling work and would not be able to do this himself until next year earliest, so in reality construction could probably not commence until summer 23, hence the need for another architect. The original architect made a point to the owner that his drawings are copyrightedHouse is architecturally elaborate with many mission style features. I was forwarded the drawings in pdf by the owner, which looks like AutoCAD (architect is elder).
My problem is that I'm uncertain how copyright rules apply to remodeling. Obviously I can't use his drawings and he naturally owns the design of the house, by my drawings (I'm using ArchiCad) will eventually looking more or less identical to his as they are done in CAD as well. In all fairness, as I do have his drawings I will use them for dimensions and then verify in field, but I am not planning to pretend they don't exist as they in my view are as-builts for the new construction. It's not that I am copying his design as I'm only doing changes to something existing, not creating a copy. Still, I feel this is a greyzone and I have not yet done a remodel on such a new and big house where there was existing drawings.
I guess my question is, to what extent would it be acceptable to use his drawings as help in my own work? The remodel applies to less than a percent of the existing house so it seems insane to redo everything needed for permits when there are existing drawings that relates to untouched areas?
SneakyPete
Mar 7, 22 4:35 pm
Don't copy his drawings. Draw your own. Bingo Bango. (I am not a lawyer)
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 4:48 pm
Yes, I wouldn't copy his drawings. I only have the pdfs, so I would redraw everything in ArchiCad. However, his drawings are straight forward so mine will more or less look the same, and I'm kind of worried he could claim they were a copy.
ivanmillya
Mar 7, 22 4:53 pm
If you're doing a renovation, it should be fairly obvious what's "existing" vs "proposed". My office always distinguishes via proper hatching and notation, as well as existing, demo, and proposed drawings. As far as I know, this is fairly standard practice in residential (and commercial? Idk) architecture.
Chad Miller
Mar 7, 22 5:14 pm
How are you able to work on a 9,000 sf house and not be licensed? Is this a CA exception? Everywhere I've worked you needed to be licensed to do any work on a home over 3,500 sf.
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 6:06 pm
If you are referring to my user name that one is about 10 years old. :)
Everyday Architect
Mar 7, 22 6:51 pm
You can edit your username in your settings. Not saying you need to ... just pointing out the possibility.
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 8:42 pm
Thanks, didn't realize but probably a good idea. :)
Everyday Architect
Mar 7, 22 5:21 pm
Long answer: Get the original contract between the owner and the other architect to see what rights were granted to the owner for using the copyrighted drawings for their house. Typical contract language is to grant a license to the owner for things like alterations, maintenance, adding to a project, etc. This would theoretically allow you to reproduce applicable portions of the copyrighted drawings to do the remodel you're describing. Might also be a good idea to get the owner to indemnify you against any copyright infringement claims the original architect may make against you.
Short answer: Just do it and don't pretend like it's your design or anything. So don't put this on the front page of your website etc. and say, "I did this deisgn!" Also, if it isn't obvious, you shouldn't use the original design for another client or project.
Also, I'm not a lawyer so don't listen to me when it comes to legal matters.
bowling_ball
Mar 7, 22 5:38 pm
I'm not so sure that the previous architect owns the copyright to the actual, physical house. They own the copyright to the DRAWINGS of the house. Those are not the same thing. I would have zero hesitation in this scenario. FFS my office probably does 60 renovations a year and our insurer has never said a thing. This is common stuff.
Chad Miller
Mar 7, 22 5:48 pm
My understanding is that an architect owns both the drawings and the design of a structure. The owner of a structure doesn't actually owner the design of said structure either. Obviously it's nearly impossible to show in court that architect X copied a design from architect Y instead of being influenced by it.
bowling_ball
Mar 7, 22 6:29 pm
I'm in Canada where I know IP law is different, however none of what you said contradicts what I wrote, really. Copyright ownership is of design and drawings, not the structure itself necessarily. Which would not preclude one from altering the structure, which is not the copyrighted item. In any case, if this were an actual thing, why does nobody get sued over renovations? Maybe it's just never been tested in court but who knows? I'm definitely going to do some Google lawyering tonight
Everyday Architect
Mar 7, 22 6:47 pm
I don't think I said the architect would own a copyright on the physical building itself. At least I didn't intent that.
My point is that they own a copyright on the drawings, but usually grant a license to the owner to use those drawings to construct the building, and to use those drawings to help maintain it, add to it, alter it, etc. AIA Owner-Architect Agreements for example have the following:
"The Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations under this Agreement, ..." (AIA B101-2017, Section 7.3)
Basically, the owner should be able to use the drawings to remodel their building. This would include another architect the owner may hire being able to recreate or copy portions of the drawings needed to remodel the building. At least that's my take on it.
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 6:58 pm
Thanks, that's an excellent point.
bowling_ball
Mar 7, 22 8:40 pm
EA, thanks for explaining what I struggled with. I may or may not have partaken of the greenery earlier.
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 6:04 pm
Blip
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 6:05 pm
Blip 2
Non Sequitur
Mar 7, 22 6:07 pm
Blip thrice?
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 6:28 pm
I was being thick trying to respond and it became a comment instead of a reply, and you can't delete.
atelier nobody
Mar 7, 22 7:35 pm
Have you tried asking the original architect for the CAD files?
I have spent most of my career doing more additions and remodels than new buildings and, in my experience, the original architects have almost always been happy to share their CAD files as long as A) the owner had paid them for the work (NB: if the owner hasn't paid the previous architect(s), this is a good way to find that out before you do any free work for them) and often, but not always, B) some form of document was signed that both protected the original architect's intellectual property and protected them from any liability for the new work.
(I'm actually old enough to remember when the sharing of documents was done by having the original architect run a set of screened sepias from the original mylars/vellums, on which we would then very meticulously use sepia eradicator to erase just the area we were altering and draw right over.)
OnwardsAndUpwards
Mar 7, 22 9:42 pm
I actually called him today, but he is for some reason not able to work on this for the next 12 months due to workload, but on the other sound annoyed that someone else would instead of waiting for him. There is no dispute between him and the owner, more so perhaps a bit hurt pride that the owner would want a change on his design. (Don't want to complicate things by posting an image of his drawing, but the bedroom in question is oddly elongated and tight and could easily have been more square due to open space on the side with room to expand
.) He is if I might say so a bit pretentious and we never arrived at a point where I felt it would have been productive to ask whether he was willing to share his files.
Hi all and thanks in advance for any advice.
I've been asked to do a minor adjustment to a 2 year old 9,000 sqf house in San Diego that basically only involves moving a wall to make a bedroom larger. Due to the angle it does change the front elevation and will need neighborhood review board approval. The actual job on my side is minimal on my side but involves some recalculations for the structural engineer as the roof line will somewhat change. The biggest part of the job will be to recreate the elevations for the review.
The original architect fell ill in Covid and is not interested in remodeling work and would not be able to do this himself until next year earliest, so in reality construction could probably not commence until summer 23, hence the need for another architect. The original architect made a point to the owner that his drawings are copyrightedHouse is architecturally elaborate with many mission style features. I was forwarded the drawings in pdf by the owner, which looks like AutoCAD (architect is elder).
My problem is that I'm uncertain how copyright rules apply to remodeling. Obviously I can't use his drawings and he naturally owns the design of the house, by my drawings (I'm using ArchiCad) will eventually looking more or less identical to his as they are done in CAD as well. In all fairness, as I do have his drawings I will use them for dimensions and then verify in field, but I am not planning to pretend they don't exist as they in my view are as-builts for the new construction. It's not that I am copying his design as I'm only doing changes to something existing, not creating a copy. Still, I feel this is a greyzone and I have not yet done a remodel on such a new and big house where there was existing drawings.
I guess my question is, to what extent would it be acceptable to use his drawings as help in my own work? The remodel applies to less than a percent of the existing house so it seems insane to redo everything needed for permits when there are existing drawings that relates to untouched areas?
Don't copy his drawings. Draw your own. Bingo Bango. (I am not a lawyer)
Yes, I wouldn't copy his drawings. I only have the pdfs, so I would redraw everything in ArchiCad. However, his drawings are straight forward so mine will more or less look the same, and I'm kind of worried he could claim they were a copy.
If you're doing a renovation, it should be fairly obvious what's "existing" vs "proposed". My office always distinguishes via proper hatching and notation, as well as existing, demo, and proposed drawings. As far as I know, this is fairly standard practice in residential (and commercial? Idk) architecture.
How are you able to work on a 9,000 sf house and not be licensed? Is this a CA exception? Everywhere I've worked you needed to be licensed to do any work on a home over 3,500 sf.
If you are referring to my user name that one is about 10 years old. :)
You can edit your username in your settings. Not saying you need to ... just pointing out the possibility.
Thanks, didn't realize but probably a good idea. :)
Long answer: Get the original contract between the owner and the other architect to see what rights were granted to the owner for using the copyrighted drawings for their house. Typical contract language is to grant a license to the owner for things like alterations, maintenance, adding to a project, etc. This would theoretically allow you to reproduce applicable portions of the copyrighted drawings to do the remodel you're describing. Might also be a good idea to get the owner to indemnify you against any copyright infringement claims the original architect may make against you.
Short answer: Just do it and don't pretend like it's your design or anything. So don't put this on the front page of your website etc. and say, "I did this deisgn!" Also, if it isn't obvious, you shouldn't use the original design for another client or project.
Also, I'm not a lawyer so don't listen to me when it comes to legal matters.
I'm not so sure that the previous architect owns the copyright to the actual, physical house. They own the copyright to the DRAWINGS of the house. Those are not the same thing. I would have zero hesitation in this scenario. FFS my office probably does 60 renovations a year and our insurer has never said a thing. This is common stuff.
My understanding is that an architect owns both the drawings and the design of a structure. The owner of a structure doesn't actually owner the design of said structure either. Obviously it's nearly impossible to show in court that architect X copied a design from architect Y instead of being influenced by it.
I'm in Canada where I know IP law is different, however none of what you said contradicts what I wrote, really. Copyright ownership is of design and drawings, not the structure itself necessarily. Which would not preclude one from altering the structure, which is not the copyrighted item. In any case, if this were an actual thing, why does nobody get sued over renovations? Maybe it's just never been tested in court but who knows? I'm definitely going to do some Google lawyering tonight
I don't think I said the architect would own a copyright on the physical building itself. At least I didn't intent that.
My point is that they own a copyright on the drawings, but usually grant a license to the owner to use those drawings to construct the building, and to use those drawings to help maintain it, add to it, alter it, etc. AIA Owner-Architect Agreements for example have the following:
"The Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations under this Agreement, ..." (AIA B101-2017, Section 7.3)
Basically, the owner should be able to use the drawings to remodel their building. This would include another architect the owner may hire being able to recreate or copy portions of the drawings needed to remodel the building. At least that's my take on it.
Thanks, that's an excellent point.
EA, thanks for explaining what I struggled with. I may or may not have partaken of the greenery earlier.
Blip
Blip 2
Blip thrice?
I was being thick trying to respond and it became a comment instead of a reply, and you can't delete.
Have you tried asking the original architect for the CAD files?
I have spent most of my career doing more additions and remodels than new buildings and, in my experience, the original architects have almost always been happy to share their CAD files as long as A) the owner had paid them for the work (NB: if the owner hasn't paid the previous architect(s), this is a good way to find that out before you do any free work for them) and often, but not always, B) some form of document was signed that both protected the original architect's intellectual property and protected them from any liability for the new work.
(I'm actually old enough to remember when the sharing of documents was done by having the original architect run a set of screened sepias from the original mylars/vellums, on which we would then very meticulously use sepia eradicator to erase just the area we were altering and draw right over.)
I actually called him today, but he is for some reason not able to work on this for the next 12 months due to workload, but on the other sound annoyed that someone else would instead of waiting for him. There is no dispute between him and the owner, more so perhaps a bit hurt pride that the owner would want a change on his design. (Don't want to complicate things by posting an image of his drawing, but the bedroom in question is oddly elongated and tight and could easily have been more square due to open space on the side with room to expand .) He is if I might say so a bit pretentious and we never arrived at a point where I felt it would have been productive to ask whether he was willing to share his files.