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.
6 Comments
Read the Architectural Works provision of the copyright law as well as the Pictorial works copyrights. Read also the laws/rules of patents and lastly but likely also leastly, the trademark laws.
Architectural works does not ordinarily get patents as a whole. However, patents can be involved with very specific and unique inventions that are in the component side. So it is conceivable for patents to apply. Trademark is almost never involved but if a unique architectural design or something is used as a logo then yes, trademark protections may apply but it's not automatic just like patents. You have to file for it.
Now copyrights are the most applicable form of intellectual property. In architectural works, you have two kinds of copyrights protections. Pictorial works which applies to the drawing itself but a provision of the copyright law that applies to the structure itself. Historically, architects received copyrights only for the pictorial works of the building plans. This additional "Architectural Works" provision expands the coverage of copyright to the built architectural work as well.
These provisions applies also to works designed by designers that are not licensed architects.
You should read these topics in-depth.
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.
Much cheaper.... not always. I'm aspiring to not be that cheap.
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.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?