Using Copyrighted Arch. Drawings

[XR250]

A homeowner contacted me about providing engineering services for their renovation. They sent me an electronic copy of their architectural plans. As it turns out, the architect is also a design/build contractor. The homeowners ultimately decided it was too expensive to use their services and chose to act as their own general contractor.
Unaware of the nature of their relationship, I reached out to the architect with a question. She responded firmly, stating that neither I nor the homeowners are permitted to use her drawings for construction or as backgrounds for my engineering work, as they are copyrighted.
While I respect her position, I’m wondering: am I legally obligated to comply with her restriction? I’m essentially using screenshots of the plans, scaling them, and layering my engineering work over them.
I understand this touches on intellectual property issues. However, the architect has already been paid for her work. Does that change anything?

 

[MintJulep]

neither I nor the homeowners are permitted to use her drawings for construction or as backgrounds for my engineering work, as they are copyrighted.

I don't think copyright offers protection against "use".

Copyright exists to protect against copying the original content.

Construction or background info gathering isn't copying the content; it's using the drawings for their interested purpose.

It's like a painter saying "you're not allowed to look at my painting."

The contract might be more restrictive.

Regardless, the prospect of getting drawn into a legal dispute = "no thanks" to the project.

 

[phamENG]

Any time I’ve seen any close to a true design build in residential work it was some of the most unethical work I had ever seen.

That's less a function of the design/build nature of the work, and more a function of some sleezebag with a stamp. There's zero functional difference between a government design/build project and a private one. The potential ethical pitfalls exist in both. While I agree we should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, but at some point we need to recognize a practicable limit - I can think of potential appearance of conflict of interest in every job where I get paid, particularly if there's any chance of repeat business with that client. If I ever tell an architect something that he/she doesn't want to hear, or make a build more expensive than they think it should be, I'm risking a loss of financial gain in the future. That's all this situation is. If I'm hired by the builder, and I tell them something they don't like they might fire me or not hire me again. That's not a conflict of interest - that's doing business, and it's an inherent risk whenever I do my job. Whether or not I behave ethically has nothing to do with who hired me, it has to do with me.

This is, of course, different from something like taking a job at the city to review plans and reviewing things I signed. That's a clear conflict. Getting elected to city council and voting on a proposal that my firm put forward - clear conflict. Doing my job for fair wage and profit? NOT a conflict of interest.