An argument concerning a new pediatric hospital design in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has spurred a lawsuit from SmithGroup against the local firm Pure Architects over an alleged violation of the copyright of an earlier unrealized project. Crain’s business journal is reporting on the disputed Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital project after SmithGroup filed a suit in federal court last week.
In the suit, SmithGroup alleges that the termination of their contract for the new Joan Secchia Children’s Rehabilitation Hospital never resulted in the required payment of licensing and other fees on the part of the hospital. They say that, in the aftermath, the hospital “improperly copied, reproduced, prepared derivative works” before sharing the plans with other architects, “willfully” infringing the copyright to generate new renderings.
Both the firm and the hospital are denying these claims publically. The $60 million project is expected to get underway this spring and be completed in 2026. The court will have to refer to the 1990 Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act in its deliberations. Most similar cases have played out at the state level involving residential designs, meaning a potential ruling could set legal precedents for projects of a similar size and scope (regardless of typology) in future disputes.
“As a Grand Rapids-based architectural firm known for its ethical practices and creative abilities, we would never infringe on the work of others. Our design for this project is approximately 40% smaller in scope than the design solution proposed by SmithGroup, while still meeting all of the mandated design criteria required by the client and the authorities having jurisdiction over this project. Any suggestion of infringement on our part is unfounded,” Pure Architects said in a statement to Crain's.
SmithGroup and its legal representatives have yet to share a public comment on the matter.
3 Comments
More images here: https://www.archpaper.com/2024...
Does it look that similar to warrant a lawsuit? Could the client have shown Pure the previous Smith design and asked them to further develop it?
This lawsuit looks to be, to put it bluntly, bullshit. Smith Group did a massing study, and Pure Architects used a similar massing. Smith Group used colors in the façade, Pure Architects used colors in the façade.
One has never before heard of a *colorful* children's hospital façade in the history of architecture, surely. (Images below from the Crain's article linked in the news item.)
Wow.
Yeah, they look way different.
I wonder if Smith got wind from sources in the client organization that their work was passed on to Pure physically - that is, somehow their working documents ended up with the client and subsequently, the successor architect. Thus, even though the design itself is way different, the argument is that Smith company CAD or Revit files were used at some stage in the new design.
Formal or stylistic similarities have been the subject of lawsuits before - there was a case of a Yale student suing SOM for copying his pleated facade concept. In the end, the court determined that such ideas and their physical manifestations do not constitute copyright violations.
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.