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?

 

[jhnblgr]

Would have to see the contact to see how it was worded. If they were paid for their services as per contract then they have no real leg to stand on.

In the US design build is really only legal for government projects and not residential.

The only time I ever make such statements as the architect did is when I have not been paid for the work. If anyone has ever asked I tell them straight up so I think there is 1 of 2 viable possibilities the work was done on the promise of getting the job or outstanding bills.

I have learned from my experience with Architects that they have zero ethics, one time one gave a verbal authorization to work on a report for them and the report was released they told me sometimes you don’t get paid, they took my work and brought another engineer onboard and built exactly my report said.

 

[XR250]

Regardless, I feel like the Arch. is being petty and should let them use the drawings. It is just good business.

 

[jhnblgr]

Agreed, also legally the contracts should have been independent since it is illegal for engineering companies to do construction under the same entity. Hence why they typically have two different company names one for engineering and the other for construction. There needs to be a major overhaul of the architecture programs since many are only providing interior design services and misleading the clients.

 

[phamENG]

In the US design build is really only legal for government projects and not residential.

Huh? It happens all the time. Hire a contractor, they design (or hire a designer to design) the house, and they build it. Doesn't get much more design-build than that.

@XR250 - it could be that the contract dictated that it could only be used if they built it. Wouldn't be surprised - profit margins are a good bit higher on that side of the business, so I could see using the design side as a loss leader. If that's the case, I wouldn't touch it. They have warned you not proceed using their intellectual property, and if you do they may well sue you and your client. It may not go anywhere, but then again it might. Either way, it's probably not worth the headache.

 

[jhnblgr]

Huh? It happens all the time. Hire a contractor, they design (or hire a designer to design) the house, and they build it. Doesn't get much more design-build than that.

@XR250 - it could be that the contract dictated that it could only be used if they built it. Wouldn't be surprised - profit margins are a good bit higher on that side of the business, so I could see using the design side as a loss leader. If that's the case, I wouldn't touch it. They have warned you not proceed using their intellectual property, and if you do they may well sue you and your client. It may not go anywhere, but then again it might. Either way, it's probably not worth the headache.

Just because it happens doesn’t mean it’s legal. The reason is due to ethical conflicts of interest. The way around this is a 3 way contract but this still isn’t technically a design build since the contract is under different business.

 

[XR250]

Well considering I am 4k in on the 5k job, I hope they can work it out. I imagine they will. Hopefully the Arch. realizes they are being petty and in the long run, it is better if they release the drawings.
Also, just because something says it is "copyrighted" does that actually mean anything? Is there a legal process that must be followed to actually copyright something?

 

[jhnblgr]

The client has a 1 use permission to use the drawings they have asked to be prepared for by the architect. They are protected from duplication for another project.

It all comes down to the contact in place, and acceptance of contact with typical requires monetary exchange.

The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act at Twenty: Has Full Protection Made a Difference?

Even though our copyright statutes were silent about architecture until 1990, it was well established that plans, blueprints and models were copyrightable writings under the 1909 Act's category of "drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character," and then as "pictorial...

digitalcommons.law.uga.edu

 

[MintJulep]

Is there a legal process that must be followed to actually copyright something?

Yes.

You write "Copyrighted" on the document, along with your name, or company name. You don't actually even need to do that.

 

[JJ_Roy]

Also, just because something says it is "copyrighted" does that actually mean anything? Is there a legal process that must be followed to actually copyright something?

Here's a link to a doc issued by the US Copyright Office that outlines the copyright registration of architectural works.

 

[disoswam]

I think only the lawyers win if the architect sues to protect her copyright. I'm pretty sure the architect holds the copyright unless the contract specifically states her customer is buying the copyright. I try to avoid copyright infringement and always ask permission. If someone copies my engineering the only thing I try to protect is my signature and stamp.

 

[jhnblgr]

From https://aiacalifornia.org/learn-grow-practice/practices/copyright-law/

To qualify for copyright protection, architectural works must possess a sufficient degree of originality and creativity. The design should reflect the architect’s unique expression and not be merely functional or utilitarian. However, copyright protection does not extend to standard building elements or commonly used design features.

 

[XR250]

I think only the lawyers win if the architect sues to protect her copyright. I'm pretty sure the architect holds the copyright unless the contract specifically states her customer is buying the copyright. I try to avoid copyright infringement and always ask permission. If someone copies my engineering the only thing I try to protect is my signature and stamp.

Unless it is explicitly written on the drawings or in the contract that the drawings can only be used if the "build" part of the design-build contract is followed thru, then the customer should be able to use them for that project if they have paid for them.