Over on the /r/legaladvice thread on Reddit, user StrangeHomeBuilder asked for some help with a question about intellectual property rights and architecture. Basically, the redditor’s house burnt down due to an electrical fire, which also destroyed all their personal belongings. They had bought the house, which is in “cookie cutter suburbia in California”, brand new, did a few semi-custom adjustments, and “actually had a great time with the home builder.”
After the fire, the homeowner reached out to the homebuilder to see about acquiring the original blueprints for the home or, at least, for the model. They also wanted to see if the original homebuilder would rebuild it for them. Eventually, the homebuilders responded saying they weren’t set up to rebuild and also couldn’t provide blueprints since they were their intellectual property.
The homeowner then went ahead with a “local reputable homebuilder”, attempting to recreate the original home through a combination of cell phone and Facebook photos, as well as by mimicking a neighbor’s home. The original homebuilders caught wind of this due to the home being in an homeowner association. They sent a cease and desist letter with a threat to sue. The homeowner is unclear if there was a clause in the original contractor specifying that you’re not permitted to rebuild the same design on the same property, since it “burnt to a crisp”.
The redditor wants to know his legal standing. As user tomdarch pointed out, “Fashion and architecture are commonly cited as fields where there is little protection for the design/style itself. As soon as runway photos are up online, knockoff factories are copying the designs. Generally, as long as they don't put a Fendi or Louis Vuitton logo on the garment, they can copy the color, fabric, cut, locations and numbers of buttons, etc. Architecture, particularly conventional houses, is described as being very much the same.”
Have you ever dealt with a situation like this? Check out the full thread here and let us know your thoughts below.
9 Comments
You could pay a designer (much cheaper than architect) to re-design the house for you. It can mirrored and built almost identically to how it was before without "infringing" on intellectual property. If the designer worked with you to make enough changes to the exterior so you could make the case in court that it is a unique design created by (designers name here) As far as I am concerned you could make the case that every home ever built post 1900s is in some way infringing on an architects intellectual property. Nothing is original anymore and treating it that way can be damaging to home buyers/owners. Specifically HOA will try and put any kind of clause protecting the original design of the neighborhood, so in some places you'd have no choice but to build the exact same home. Weather they would let you just mirror the old one is how big of an asshole the HOA wants to be.
Maybe a good excuse to bring back Brian Newman, Archinect Sessions' Legal Correspondent? Although back in Episode #14 he did already review "who owns architectural designs" and break "down some copyright law basics."
We've sued successfully before based on copyright. Won substantial compensation, too.
A couple of months ago, a City inspector gave us the heads-up that another firm has copied one of our buildings for elsewhere on the same plot of land. Currently under construction. We are considering suing over this one as well. We believe they obtained the drawings from the land owner and voila, finished design for Phase 2.
And most recently, after completing SD on a condo development, the owners told us they were taking our drawings to tender. Our lawyer put a stop to that right away.
We have rights but we seem to give them up way too easily. Unfortunately it can get quite expensive to go that route.
in this case it sounds like the owner is starting a new set of plans from scratch, but it will look like the old house. if they didn't take the original drawings, it should be ok right?
Every article Ive read about intellectual propery rights says you cannot get away with changing a certain percentage of the plan. Also, the person that did the design doesnt have to have registered the plan in order to sue. Some online plan sites make a substantial portion of their income suing the people who "modifiy the plans, the builders, and the clients. I have had several clients offer me jobs doing this Fortunately I was able to show them how the plan they liked would not fit their site.
The only suggestion I have is to ask them how much it would cost to let you proceed. Otherwise you need to start with a new design.
Curious as to how the plans are the builder's intellectual property. Did they purchase exclusive rights from the architect? Why would the builder not be interested in building this project? There is more to this story than we have been told.
The owner has already paid for the use of the intellectual property and would be using it to restore what was lost. It is not a new construction on a different site.
My interpretation is that the owner has every right to the plans for this specific purpose, and that the builder (or architect) has no right to deny them or their use even if the owner recovers them from public records.
As to legal standing, that is obviously for a court to decide.
The Architect typically owns the design and the drawings are an instrument of service. Contracts will often define deviations from this typically when working with home builders based in part by what the builder may want for the use and control of a design. The Architect may allow reuse for different locations or may restrict their use for a single project site.
In this case it would depend on what the contract between the Builder and the Architect agreement stated. If the Architect gave up rights and control to the Builder then the Builder may control the issue.
I have had clients come to me asking for drawings of a home in a development project for our client builder. Usually, the homeowners are asking for a set of drawings to enable them to do a remodel or an addition to the home. We typically will ask the Builder if they have any objections to the release of drawings even if our contract with the Builder did not restrict the design use in any way.
We would then provide these drawings with restrictions for their use solely as information and only for the use by the current homeowner for the specific site. We also caution them that the drawings show design intent, but should not be considered as as-built drawings as things occur in the field during construction that may deviate from the drawings. These drawings would also be noted as not for construction and not intended as being submitted for permitting.
In this case where reconstruction of a design due to the loss in the fire there should be no legal standing to prevent the home owner from rebuilding the original design so long as it meets current codes. If the Architect has the drawings, he should be able to release them for their information use.
However, understand that there still would be the need of preparing new Construction Drawings which need to be submitted to the Building Department for permitting, as the Building Department will see it as a new project. The drawings would need to be stamped and signed by the Architect and/or Structural & MEP Engineers involved. Likely the Home Owner would need to contract for these new services. Insurance I would think might cover some of these costs.
Even when our Builder Clients may want to build a previous design for a different site or sometimes a later phase, it would require new drawings from us and they cannot just submit previous versions of our work without our approval or agreement as there may be new code issues to consider as well as the increase in our liability and associated insurance costs to us as the Architect of Record.
What caused the fire? It could be a design error, an installation error, or an electrical component failure. Hard to believe the home designer (nowhere does it say 'architect') and builder aren't doing whatever it takes to make the homeowners whole.
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.