I was getting some copies made of some plans. I noticed a warning sign about copying copyrighted plans…something like $100,000 fine and life imprisionment.
Anyways, that got me to wondering…how does on go about copyrighting their plans? Do you have to submit them somewhere, or do you just put the copyright symbol on them somewhere and state your claim?
blue
Learn the specific guidelines for location, spacing, and clearance for optimal safety.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
You don't have to do ANYTHING. All creative works are automatically have copyright protection.
Don't even need to put a notice on it.
HOWEVER, you abilities to collect damages are limited unless they are registered.
I think the cost is $35, but it might have going up. Simple form and a copy of the orginal to the copyright office.
Yes, as Bill said, any "work of authorship" has an inherent copyright when written. It's always worthwhile to add an explicit copyright notice, though (which needs to have either the copyright symbol or (C) or the word "copyright", the year date, and your name).
For something of non-trivial value you can register the copyright with the Library of Congress for a relatively nominal fee.
However, none of this is going to get the government to enforce your copyright for you -- except in very unusual cases you must enforce it yourself through civil lawsuit. (Though is cases of minor, possibly unintentional violation a "cease and desist" letter will suffice, especially if it demands that the violator somehow post a notice that the work he copied had a copyright, and he complies.)
Failure to enforce your copyright (as violations become known to you) can result in loss of your copyright (though this is a very murky area of law).
http://www.copyright.gov/
In the last 5 - 10 years there's been some cracking down on this. I don't know about 'life imprisonment,' but the fines can be steep.
Whoever makes the plans is in ownership of the rights. It's meant to keep people from duplicating already purchased designs, or to punish unscrupulous people from building plans they never purchased. Difficult to prove sometimes, but it's bitten people.
Don't know if having an additional warning has any legal bearing, but it's probably good practice anyway.
There is a story told at one of the trade shows I've been to over the years. A builder who did his own design work found out that a subcontrctor - framer - who had built a certaain unique house for the builder was in the proess of buildding the same house acrosss town witha mirror revere change. the lecturer did not ssaay exacctly how it turned out in detail, but he laimed that the settlelment paaid for a rather nice vaacation on the beaach for his whole famiy
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
You should take a drive around your island. Maybe you'll discover another trip to Ireland. :)
Edited 6/2/2006 11:56 am ET by draftguy
When I hire an arch or engineering consultant, it's in the contract that I own what's produced, and I get it in printed format as well as CAD file on disk. I get resistance to the 2nd part quite often; but as of yet have not had to back down.
I have heard from a consultant friend that AUTOCAD has come up with a read-only style (similar to pdf, but it's a CAD file). I have to watch out for that so the file I get can be manupulated after the fact.
In fact, that future manipulation potential is where much of the resistance comes from, and consultants argue it from a liability standpoint. However I can't see how the orig consultnt could be held liable for some sort of failure due to something added on after the fact by a 3rd party.
Interesting thread...this comes up quite often at work.Ithaca, NY "10 square miles, surrounded by reality"
It comes up here once or twice a year, with all sorts of opinions thrown in with the facts.it always comes down to that the designer owns the copywrite automaticly, but to assure that he can control and protect it, he is wise to use both contract and register the planset. That is what makes it easier to protect in court.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
My thinking on this topic is at the same place as yours. If I engage an architect or engineer, I own the rights, and must get the work electronically. If that is not agreeable, then I look elsewhere.
The liability concern is a bit thin. Something designed for a specific situation would involve professional liability. If it were used in a different situation, even without manipulation, I think any reasonable person would find it difficult to construe liability. By the way, most drawings carry all kinds of disclaimers even for the intended purpose. Lastly, most filings of drawings are in the form of reproducibles, stamped and signed by the professional. Thus difficult to see the carry over of liability to an unauthorized use, which would assumably not be stamped and signed.
>If I engage an architect or engineer, I own the rights, and must get the work electronically. If that is not agreeable, then I look elsewhere.Have you ever engaged one and had them agree to this? How many have said yes versus no? Does anyone here know an arch/eng who will reassign ownership rights? I don't know any that have or would, and it's certainly not the norm, nor part of any standard contract. While you may want it, or think you deserve it, it is atypical and fraught with potential downsides for the original author. For further information on the Copyright Act of 1990:http://www.aepronet.org/pn/vol5-no2.html"Design professionals should undertake every precaution to see that ownership of copyright in the architectural work remains in their hands. The initial owner of the copyright is the author. The author is the person or entity who controls and directs creation of the original work. A firm will be deemed the author of a work if it is a 'work made for hire.' A work made for hire is one prepared by an employee within the scope of employment or by an independent contractor under a written contract indicating the work is considered a 'work for hire.' The exclusive rights of a copyright owner can only be transferred by a written agreement."Note that if you wish to, or manage to, claim ownership of the copyright, then the original author is giving up more than just that set of drawings. They are also giving up the right to prepare derivative works, while granting you that right. That "give up" can mean giving away a big chunk of potential future work.Lastly, while you can discount the liability issue, you might want to note that professionals in the field take it seriously. Professional groups actively warn designers to include in their contracts clauses that indemnify them from liability arising from unauthorized use. While common sense suggests that one shouldn't be liable in such a case, common sense often doesn't preclude the filing of lawsuits, nor preclude one from having to spend money to defend oneself against such a claim:http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2002/Holland11.aspx"The problem with allowing the owner to reuse your documents, besides the obvious fact that you are giving your work away for free, is that you lose control over how the documents are interpreted and used. This puts you at significant risk since you will not be able to make necessary revisions and changes to the documents that may be necessary before the can be used successfully on the new project. The liability exposure from such reuse should be carefully considered before you agree to permit it, and before agreeing to permit such reuse, it is advisable to negotiate specific disclaimers on the reuse and indemnification from the owner."
Thanks. With all due respect, the place for information on the Copyright Act is the Copyright Act. The aepronet info. appears to be an interpretation. Interpretations can be self serving.
The extract from the irmi.com article says something about giving away free. Paying a professional fee doesn't sound free to me.
In any case, all this is in the spirit of debate and discussion. Thanks for your input.
In this discussion one needs to note that there are various options between the two extremes of only getting a copy and owning the copyright. The "copy right" is right to copy, and as has been discussed this belongs to the author (whether individual or organization) unless granted to someone else via contract.But the copyright owner can grant to another individual a limited right to copy, and can grant or not grant any specific rights such as the right to make modifications, the right to use the work elsewhere, etc.If you obtain more than minimal rights from the copyright owner (or, as copyright owner, grant them), you should carefully examine what specific rights are granted by the contract. If the entire copyright is transferred then the original owner no longer has the right to sell copies or make derivitive works.As an example, the free-lance author of a magazine article will typically sell "first serial" rights to the magazine, giving the magazine rights to publish first (with the author agreeing to not allow publication elsewhere), but retaining for the author the right to any future publications.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
Hey Strey,
About that CAD file you want in electronic form - Auto CAD has a .dxf file format which can be read, and dimensions and revisions annotated onto the drawings, but no modifications can be made to the actual drawings. Basically you can view it and add comments but that is it. The DXF viewer from Auto Desk (makers of Auto CAD and many other CAD programs) is available free online. Sometimes what designers and architects will do is save to DXF instead of .dwg. hoping to keep other people from "ripping them off".
If you are wanting a "CAD" file on disk make sure you specify what type of a file format you want. The standard Auto CAD file format which can be manipulated and modified (not just "viewed" ) is the .dwg format.
This .dwg format is used by many CAD, CAM and CNC programs.
When I send architects or clients any of our designs or drawings I'm always careful on what I send out. PDF's are good but not fool proof as far as keeping people from reusing drawings. Adobe Illustrator can be used to "break out" a .pdf form into a .dwg form (unless the .pdf drawing was scanned on a fax machine).
Even the DXF files can have too much info that should be stripped out and purged before the drawings are copied to disk or file.
Hope this sheds a little light on the subject and lets you know what to specify format wise.
Have a good one,
Cork in Chicago
PS - Just remembered the new AutoCAD 2007 is supposed to be able to import .pdf files and many other file formats and then open and modify these drawings. Got that info from an instructor at night school who just got back from Orlando Florida after attending a class put on by AutoDesk.
Edited 6/5/2006 12:27 am ET by Cork in Chicago
that AUTOCAD has come up with a read-only style (similar to pdf, but it's a CAD file). I have to watch out for that so the file I get can be manupulated after the fact.
That's probably DWF ([autocad]Drawing Web Format[ed])--which Autodesk is pushing around like sliced bread, first bicycles, and Revit.
The AEC industry spends a great deal of time and friction on this issue, and to no definitive (or very satisfactory) end. I can tell you from personal experience at work that a competent CAD driver can "reverse engineer" almost anything (and some of the items sent to me by consultants certaily required it <sigh>).
To my thinking, it's largely a self-correcting non (mostly) issue. Ok, client is some sort of sleezeball, and hauls my, oh, strip center plans off to knock off another exact copy without paying me. He can go right ahead. The City is going to make him provide all the site information to go with the plans, or no permit. If he goes out of town, oh, oops, they need different stamped drawings (oh, and that pesky site plan, too; oh, and this is a coastal county, so you need engineer's stamps to show 120mph . . . )
Now, where you are in dicier territory is in mass residential work. I've been to the game the once. Super for the builder I sold plans to, took a set with him to the new builder he hired on with. Builder's lawyers were rather smug behind their 26% change presumption. That is, until I pointed out that they had yet to change the specific address on the titleblock, or even to strike out the "specific permission" statement on the plans. It was a very expensive way to break even.
With all the "lawyering" that goes into making plans any more, I sure wish I could get paid like a lawyer for the effort . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Sorry about adding that "life imprisionment" embellishment. There was some sort of jail time but it was much less signifcant than the 100k.
Thanks for all the info. I know I can count on this forum!
blue
It's been well over 10 years but we had a couple of copyright cases in my old firm. The "owners" of the designs couldn't get enough from them to buy a pot of coffee by the time they got done with the legal and expert fees. Things may have tightened up in the interim, I'm not sure, but I'd bet it's still no cakewalk to collect.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
Yeah, the big cases you read about are big internet cases or record company cases or whatever, and even there they pursue them more for deterrent value than to get any money back. It's going to be hard for a peon to get much money out of such a case unless there's a really egregious violation that continues even after you give warning.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
Who owns the copyright when you engage an architect or engineer to design something? It seems to me that the party that pays for the work done (drawings/plans) owns the rights, based on the principle of "work for hire". On the other hand, I have heard that architects and engineers claim the copyright. Comments?
it's inrelletual property.A oomp model would be the woftware you use on your PC. You don't own it, you are only grantd a liense to usse it on one mahine according to the terms of your agreement with the distubutor/developer when you loaded the programs. The client likewise rents the creative power of the design professional and has the rights to use the proceeds from the relationship for the job at hand, but the ownership rights belong to the creator.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Yes, it's IP, but that doesn't equate to the saem thing as a software license. A software license is that because it's explicitely stated as such in the legal agreement you agree to by using it.Typically, with work for hire, the client owns the final product.For instance, I'm a graphic designer. If client hires me to create a logo for them, they own the final logo. I retain rights to all work files.I can explicitely state in my contract that I retain ownership of the copyright, though you tend to get less clients with that stipulation. ;o)These days, copyright laws are being bent more and more to favour the bigger media companies. Disney and the RIAA benefit, the rest of us, not so much.A good defense if you create IP is to simply have a decent contract that explicitely outlines the copyright ownership of the work produced.Take wedding photographers, for instance. They often explicitely state that they retain ALL copyright ownership. If you want a copy of the photo, you need to pay them to make another copy for you. I rarely agree to those types of arrangements as a customer, though.If we hire an architect, I'd certainly agree to not being able to resell the work. But I'm not about to go back to the architect and pay every time I want another copy of the plans for my contractor.
The touchy point is "hire". If you hire an archy and pay him an hourly wage to produce an entire design, then that most likely falls under "work for hire". If, however, he contracts to deliver plans for XX dollars, and there's no substantial hourly (or salary) component, then it's pretty much not "work for hire". Mushier if there's a fixed fee plus a substantial hourly component.Net-net is that it's by far the best approach to spell it out in a contract.The least mushy situation is if you're a regular employee and produce work as a result of that regular employment, during your regular hours (ie, not at night and not on coffee break), and as an expected part of your job. That is almost certainly "work for hire".BTW, with "work for hire" the client owns the copyright and ALL of your work (related to that job). You cannot use that work elsewhere without permission of the copyright owner (your client).
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
"If we hire an architect, I'd certainly agree to not being able to resell the work. But I'm not about to go back to the architect and pay every time I want another copy of the plans for my contractor."Correct. You can reproduce drawings as much as you want, as long as it's to build what was agreed upon. But if you moved to another state and wanted to recreate your prior house exactly, then you'd need to pay the designer for the right to build it again. Unless you had a previous contract that gave you additional rights/copyright control.Part of the reason for harsher crackdowns is the issue of liability. If you do the drawings, you're liable for any problems with the design. And it's for the lifetime of the building now. I don't pretend to understand the all legal gymnastics but, theoretically, the designer could still be liable for a building constructed without their permission or knowledge. Harsher copyright controls help to keep this from happening.
Edited 6/2/2006 11:15 am ET by draftguy
Typical deliverables in an Architectural scope of work include "reproducables", i.e. mylars or velum plots of the plans, with the implied consent that the purchaser can copy these, at will as they see fit, for this project and only this project. I have never heard of anyone being charged for additional copies, except for the cost of making the copies. IF you have no means to make copies, the you have to pay someone to provide that service for you. The cost of making multiple sets of copies of commercial design can add up real fast. If I perform my design services for you, give you a set of reproducible prints and a few (agreed upon number)courtesy copies and you want me to continue make additional sets at my expense, the term "pound sand" comes to mind. You don't have to pay them for more copies, you have to make them yourself.
If you pay me to design a Bank for you on Main Street and you take the Main Street plans and build a Bank on Oak Street in addition to the one on Main Street, and pay me nothing to do so, you will find yourself the subject of litigation. If you relocate the Main Street job to Oak Street, you have no problem, unless re-siting requires my design be modified, at which time I would provide you with a proposal for the increased scope of work.
Do not confuse Trademark protection with intellectual property of a design done "for hire" and copyright protection. Two different animals. A logo is a something that would be protected by a Trademark, and as such could never be (legally) used by anyone else, incuding the designer, without the "expressed, written consent of the owner".
Edited 6/5/2006 12:55 pm by Tim
Can you offer your thoughts on ownership of architectural or engineering drawings, particularly if the client was insistent on ownership being theirs?
"..thoughts on ownership of architectural or engineering drawings.."
I am no lawyer, so these are just my thoughts.
In the present, where drawings "exist" as prints and files, any discussion concerning ownership of such, needs to establish definitions of drawings.
In my profession I produce designs for mechanical building systems. My employer produces architectural designs, which sometimes include my designs as a sub-product. Transmittal of the end product, which is standard and customary (S&C) to mean and include (unless contracted otherwise and agreed upon in advance): hard copy reproducible prints, reproductions of those prints (if in the scope of deliverables) and an electronically reproducible files in the form of a PDF or PLT files. AutoCAD, and other electronic design development files (Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, etc.) are not transmitted, transfered or in any way released to the customer.
So by what is considered S&C, in my market, drawings are defined as: reproducible documents, that are signed, sealed, dated or otherwise officilally issued for bid and/or construction, for use in and for the named, specific project only. Specific contracts refer to the product as "contruction documents, suitable for reproduction", and not "designs" or "drawings". The CD's also include specifications, and addenda as might be required.
Then, the term ownership has to be defined as well. In the S&C example I used above, the customer is granted conditional use of the drawings/design, in the form of Contruction Documents, but I (and my company) as the design professional, "own" the responsibility of the design, its operation, function code compliance, etc. We also "own" any ideas or unique concepts created or derived in the project design development. The customer is not allowed to copy, share, distribute, reproduce or modify the design beyond the original specific project. The customer is not allowed to use the design on a similar project or a different project (again, unless specifically agreed to otherwise, i.e. expressed written consent given).
The client/customer does not "own" anything, but they have the right to use the design/drawings to construct their project. They can keep their copies or throw them away. If a prior agreement to this affect is made during the contract negotiations, a customer can have a "one and only" or exclusive design, in which the designer agrees not to replicate key or featured elements in any of their future works.
"..particularly if the client was insistent on ownership being theirs"
Insistence means nothing unless agreed upon in a Contract. I would have to ask: Ownership to what end? To be able to represent the design as their own personal work because they "bought" it? (Absolutely not, never) To be able to build mutliple buildings from a single set of CDs? (maybe) or To be able to take it and modify it and resell it (Absolutely not, never)? There is no single answer.
The bottomline is that the customer/client never "owns" an architectureal or engineering design created on their behalf, they only have the right to use that design to construct their building/home.
Yes, trademark protection is about use of the TM, but we're talking about copyright, the right to reproduce intellectual property. Whether that's a logo, a photo, or a blueprint doesn't really matter by default.And, as we've all seen, it varies from industry to industry.Typically, a design firm will hand over all Copyright rights to a logo to the client. The client can reproduce to their heart's content. Sometimes the firm also hands over the production files. Sometimes not. For things like illustration, it will depend on the specific contract. For things like photography, often the copyright is retained by the photographer and only a license granted to the end user for specfic usage. Musicians often hand over all their rights to the recording label. Bottom line, it really depends on the contract you have signed with the party providing you with the intellectual property you've paid for.
"..it really depends on the contract you have signed with the party providing you with the intellectual property you've paid for.."
In the non-art design world, as in architects and engineers, the "purchase" is for the service of applying your expertise, training, experience and state-granted license(s) to facilitation of creating a safe, comfortable and well functioning environment in which to conduct your business, school, life, etc. The phsyical product, i.e. drawings and/or specifications, is simply a record of and a graphical represntation of that service. In as much as the product is a service, there is no transfer of "ownership" for a service. There is, in realy, no ownership of a service.
For instance, I'm a graphic designer. If client hires me to create a logo for them, they own the final logo. I retain rights to all work files.
The difference is that you are hired to create a product which the customer will then copyright as a corporate identity.
You cannot sell that identity to another customer.
How would you feel if you entered a design in a contest, and someone who saw the entries copied your design, then sold it to a private company as a logo for big $$$?
I'm not sure what you are arguing.Whether it gets registerd as a TM has no bearing on this discussion.My point is that there should always be a contract between the service provider and the client that outlines the details of any (if any) copyright ownership.Sans contract, yes, you default to what the law states, typically (outside of work for hire) being the orignal creator of the work automatically owns the copyright.The contract clarifies things like reproducing final printed materials and the like and, a such is a good thing to have.
Not argueing....just noting the difference between "commercial art" and "architecture".
When you are hired to create a logo.....and present the client with 5-10 versions for them to pick a final one, they might own that final one, but who owns the un-picked logos?
You do.......even though they were created while you were "hired" by the client.
Edit.....your point about a contract is a good one.....when in doubt, write it out.
Edited 6/14/2006 11:27 am ET by pickings
"You do.......even though they were created while you were "hired" by the client."Right. We're in complete agreement. ;o)
Very articulated answer professor.......as always....good job.
If it's "work for hire" it's owned by the person hiring, unless there's a contract to the contrary.But an archy can say in their contract that they're just selling you a COPY of the design, and not the copyright (ie, right to copy).And there are murky issues as to when someone is "hired" vs being "consulted" or whatever.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
>>"If it's "work for hire" it's owned by the person hiring, unless there's a contract to the contrary.
What you state is technically correct, but in practical terms off track. For a work to be a "work for hire" the person performing the work must be an employee (under the law of agency) or there must be a written contract stating that the work is a work for hire (along with other requirements). So if the person performing the work is not an employee but an independent contractor, the "default" is that the person performing the work owns the copyright.
If you want a work for hire from, say, an architect, make sure your written contract specifically states the work is a "work for hire."
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
Edited 6/4/2006 12:58 am ET by philarenewal
philarenewal and DanH - thanks for your thoughts, which are helpful. One of the many good things about our system of commerce is that people can enter in to mutually agreed business contracts. True, there is a range of alternatives between the two extremes. I think it is useful to have an appreciation of what one is getting in to, so that unpleasant surprises down the road are eliminated or minimized. Perhaps aware and knowledgeable people can find a set of terms that address legitimate concerns of all parties.
Alright what about this scenerio; If you draw up a design for a home fairly specific and ask a designer to recreate it into a buildable working set of plans who is the owner of said plans.
ANDYSZ2I MAY DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOUR SAYING BUT I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT.
Remodeler/Punchout
Curiously, both of you. One work is a derivative of the other.Derivative works can occur in both patent and copyright law. Though this case is fairly straight-forward, some cases get pretty hairy.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
My vote - "you" own it.
Wrong.
As a designer I would tell you to draw it yourself if you want to own it.
Preliminary design layout (which is what at best a client will provide), particularilly by "homeowners" are full of mistakes and impossibilities. They draw rooms over stairways, do not take into account any codes or materials limitations etc.
It is still the skill, knowledge, and experience of the archy that translates their wishes into a set of plans that can actually be built correctly.
>>>>Preliminary design layout (which is what at best a client will provide), particularilly by "homeowners" are full of mistakes and impossibilities. They draw rooms over stairways, do not take into account any codes or materials limitations etcI particularly love when they are proud to have drawn their own floor plans "to scale". I think the quote is typically "so this should be pretty easy for you because I've already got it mostly figured out. Then, you get to burst thier bubble when you show them that thier walls, which are always drawn as single lines, actually have a thickness, and as such, their plans don't work at all.As far as the copyright thing, the company I work for won a court battle related to that once, before I worked there. I guess a client called irate, because tehy sold his exact plans to someone else. After some investigation, it turns out that the painter from the project stole a copy of the plans and sold them to someone else.My boss won the court battle, I think the suit was for like 7,000. The laywer called with "good news and bad news". Teh good news was that they won the case, the bad news was that the layer was owed another 1,000.
you show them that thier walls, which are always drawn as single lines, actually have a thickness, and as such, their plans don't work at all.
Yeah.......or that their 12" wide doorways, and 2' wide halls won't meet code. Also always love their stairs (for a home that has a 10' ceil) that only use 4' or 5 ' of total run..........gotta luv em.
Best trick....for initial meeting, take one of your more complex sets of plans, so when they tell you how much work they have already done, show em the plans, and let them see how much further YOU have to go.
RE Still owing $1k..........That's why we need looser pays. You sue someone, then loose the suit, you pay for their defence attorney.........whatever they spent......would put an immediate stop to the BS lawsuits......IMHO....of course.
Don't forget the 18" deep "walk-in closet for the master BR!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Yeah....large closets......w/ shelves for 37 pairs of shoes......yeah.....
Or when they look at the second floor plan for a cape and can't understand why the rooms can't all go all the way to the exterior wall below.........what's headroom????
or that their 12" wide doorways
Well, not so much that, as the doors in intersections that have no room for casing--and the house is to hve such-an-such a style, which means nice, complicated casings; but, that's ok, the door is a 19" wide one, that's standard, isn't it?
Or the 51" wide single entry door 101" tall, that's also inexpensive and "not fancy, we can't afford that . . . ")
Or kid's room closets only 15" deep (on the single-line plan). Hmm, 4' deep bathrooms are another favorite of mine, especially with that 60" tub smushed in at the end--cantilevered over the first floor cathedral-ceilinged "great room."
"Why is the house so tall? {Name} worked all that out; I never imagined a second floor would be so far up there . . . " (yeah, well, those "10' celings" are bit more than the 8'-9-1/4" floor-to-floor height noted, too . . . <sigh>).
My all-time fave was the "slab smaller than the house" plans I was brought. For some reason, the clients had it in their head that the most expensive part of the hose was the slab. So, just about everything overhung the slab in some odd cantilever. Ok, it was half-interesting idea--but I had most of those "boiled out" of me in by the end of sophmoe desing labs. (In case the image is unclear, think of the "pop-outs" on an RV, just not to floor level, but, up to the roof. Oh, and meticulously laid out on engineer's quintelle (1/5") grid paper . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
i can remember in the hand-drafting days when someone would purchase some plans (because they thought it'd be cheaper), then want someone to make some 'small' changes on the sepia drawings. "I just want to move this exterior wall a couple of feet. And change the ceiling heights from 9'-0" to 8'-0", because that's what other houses are like." Getting out the little bottle of eradicator, and then changing every single window, elevation, foundation plan, framing plan, floor plan, section, truss profile, @%$#&%$ . . . all for the pleasure of listening to them b!tch about how much they were charged afterwards.
want someone to make some 'small' changes on the sepia drawings. "I just want to move this exterior wall a couple of feet.
<long shudder>
Sepias might have been nicer than the xeroxed copies with white-out on them I've been handed. Or the 18x24 "teasers" with not one dimension on them ("Well, how much more does the City need anyway, all the furniture's on there . . . ?")
"Here, it has to be 257 sf smaller than what it shows, just take 17" off everything down this side--will that be expensive; how soon until you're finished?" (A VP did that to me one too many times "Well, you're beeing paid here, why would it be extra?"--he went away after I just whited-out the SF and wrote in the target number he wanted . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Getting out the little bottle of eradicator......
Sounds like you've been around awhile.
Actually, changes to sepia stock plans are still done a lot today........but the best is......this should not cost so much......I only wanted to make the house 2' wider and 2' deeper.....then you tell them how much sq ftg they just added @ +/- $120 per.......sticker shock.
Best one ever was when a client was nearly getting beligerant because we kept telling her she couldnt have a 6-0 wide slider with a semicircular transom (HAD to be semicircular) over it under her 9'-0 ceiling. We had diagrams, sketches, math equations, all to no avail. She just diddn't know how to accept that she coldn't get her way on that one. Even writing about it three years after the fact makes me want to have a drink.
She just diddn't know how to accept that she coldn't get her way on that one.
"No, you have to have a subfloor, yes, even though it's all "covered up anyway."
"Yes, you can have a sunken whirlpool tub; you just have to decide how to decorate the bottom of it where is hangs down into the dining room."
"Sure, we can use all 2-0 doors everywhere, but you will not like it, and it's no cheaper."
"Certainly, putting the sink right next to the range and the fridge on the other side of that makes them 'handy,' but you really will not be happy with the results . . . "
"Oh, yes, having the dishwasher in the dining room could be very convenient, but not without a sink nearby . . . "
The Czechs polka that In Heaven there is no Pivo--I must have been in Heaven a whole bunch of times . . .
makes me want to have a drink.
Gee, all I have to do is think about w@rk and I want a drink . . . <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Of course, professional architects don't always get it right, either. My mom's 1960 custom drawn house a case in point. My mom is an artist and isn't into details, so she told the architect generally what she wanted and left it entirely up to him. A big mistake. One of the bedrooms is too small to put in a full sized bed, a second is too small for a queen sized. When the old carpenter who built the place (pretty much by himself) got finished, he told my mom that he could have built the place bigger and cheaper if the archtect has just paid a little attention to the common lengths of lumber. As it was, he said he had to cut every piece of lumber that went into the house. If the architect had specified the the size of the rooms correctly, they would have been bigger and he would not have had to spend the time cutting. After the fact, my mother was not too happy to hear that.
"..professional architects don't always get it right.."
Professionals and skilled tradesmen in ALL disciplines have incompetents in their ranks.
Tell your mom sorry she picked a "bad apple".
The best architects are the ones that have spent some time on construction jobs, particularly framing, and are familiar with "construction standards" both in "sizes" and practices.
I have often felt that part of the licensing process should include mandatory time (6 mos to 1 year) spent on a site, not just in the office.
Architecture is after all, the production of a set of pictorial instructions for the fabrication of a building. If one is not familiar with the fabrication process, how can one proceed to create instructions for it?
I work for an Architectural firm and produce mechanical designs in my day job and my wife and I perform design and drafting services out of our home in our "spare" time. Unless contractually agreed to otherwise, my customers get the "design" in the form of reproducible prints and/or plot files. The actual AutoCAD files, my design calculations, etc., are my or my company's property. As with the software, you are granted use of the product, but the code is the property of the developer. In desins, the same applies, MOL, unless otherwise agreed to, in advance.
If one paid billions of $'s for the salaries etc. of software developers at, say, Microsoft, one would expect to "own" the product. However, if one buys a shrink wrapped "single user license", then that is exactly what one buys for a few hundred $'s. Similarly, if one bought a license to use a standard set of drawings, then one has not bought "ownership" of that "design". However, if one pays for the development of the design, via an hourly rate or otherwise mutually agreed basis for fee, then to my way of thinking one owns that product. An example of this is research and development businesses. When an employee of a pharmaceutical or electronics company invents something pursuant to their normal duties, the company typically owns the patent rights. It is doubtful that the employee would prevail in a claim of ownership of rights. It is also the case, that to encourage and motivate innovation, there may be a specific prior agreement in place to share in the rights and the profits, but that is another matter.
BTW, though there is significant similarity between patents and copyrights, the nitty-gritty details of ownership are different, and there are two separate (though overlapping) bodies of case law that apply.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
Thanks, point well-taken. Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer. Just trying to apply fairness and common sense, in the spirit of discussion.
> On the other hand, I have heard that architects and engineers claim the copyright.Absolutely. One thing it does is prevent the client from selling the design over and over so that an architect's work is used a multitude of times without compensation for those other uses. What you're buying is the right to build that design, not the ownership of the design ideas.Another issue is liability. Think if the client sells my work to another person and there are problems with that build...who assumes the liability? The original client certainly isn't in a position to do so, but neither is the arch/engineer who had no business relationship with the second-generation clients. When I design a house, the contract allows that design to be built one time in one place. That's what the client is paying for. If they want the right to sell that design elsewhere, then it'd be an entirely different contract and fee.I don't think payment by project or hour changes the nature of the copyright. I think what changes it is the definition of employment. If I work as an employee for another company, then that firm owns the rights to the product that results. If I'm an independent designer, then I own the product and am really selling a right to use the design. The in-between case is a company contracting with designers to produce stuff for the company to sell. In that case, the contract needs to define ownership.FYI, I don't sell copies of the prints. I provide pdf's and the client/builder can reproduce as necessary. Saves them money and me the headache. But I did have one case recently where the print shop refused to print the drawings for the client until I provided a letter to them affirming that it was ok for him to make copies.
Who owns the copyright when you engage an architect or engineer to design something?
The Architect, He created it.
or the Architectural firm that the individual Architect works for.
Don't know if having an additional warning has any legal bearing, but it's probably good practice anyway.
In court, it allows you to prove that the plaintiff was not ignorant of the law, and was duly warned.
Check out this link for complete info on your question.
http://www.copyright.gov/
As part of my training at work I had to attend a seminar on this. The interesting case mentioned was the AIDS quilt whose photo was reproduced. I'm pretty sure it was registered and there is a fine for EACH copy. So for example, if something was published in a magazine, each issue containing a copy would be subject to fines.
If you fail to register, I seem to recall that your legal recourse is so minimal that you'd pay way more in legal fees to fight it (without the fines, etc.) that it is counter-productive financially.
I think you could do this simply, without an attorney, at a very small expense. I would recommend sending it in a traceable method so you could possess proof you actually sent it in. For patents, we also use a return postcard, specifically detailing what was sent in and it's returned from the USPTO. If the copyright office is a PO Box, choose USPS Express delivery as most other shippers won't deliver to a PO Box. I'm not an expert in this area, but you'll find all your answers at the link and find its very easy to protect your work. Using other copywritten work without permission could be asking for trouble.
As a side note, imore current internet info is considered protected. For that reason, I use a link, but Google recently had an issue with that. I can't remember the outcome and hope I'm in compliance here! Good luck and protect your work well!
P.S. If you go to a copy center and ask them to copy, I've found they refuse and have notices on their machines. Look at the list of disallowed copying like money, social security cards, etc. Interesting reading, but also designed to foil identy scammers. I was surprised at what I saw as prohibited, but not in total disagreement about some things for personal privacy/security issues.
Come on Blue.....that designer has to make a living too. Like you, his work means something, and should be paid for.
Is purchasing extra copies of the plan from the original designer so expensive that you are willing to take the low road and risk it?
It's like hiring an electrician to install your light fixtures, watching him do one, and sending him home so you can "copy him" and do the rest yourself for free.
House Plans are formally copyrighted as of their date of first publication in any print media.
Although the "date of creation" can sometimes be contested, the "publication date" is enforcible in court. Believe me.
It's all overed under Article 17 of US law.
Pickings...you got me all wrong. I was making copies of plans that I had drawn! I'm the designer!
blue
Blue, not meaning to repeat, but please go to the website I posted initially. The minute you put something in tangible form, and can prove it, you currently have the copyright. However, registering it protects your interests in a legal form where you can recover damages in a realistic way that carries much more weight. It is inexpensive, easy to do, and you have greater legal recourse/recovery. Build it into the cost of your design.
This discussion is very interesting. There is some good advice here and some splitting of hairs, that may or may not cut it in court. If the client is providing most of the plan info, and it were me, I'd insist on something in the contract. If you have a great plan you conceived on your own, I'd definitely go the legal copywrite route to protect your personal intellectual property.
Also, if you are at a copy center, they are doing the copy work, and you are the owner - I wonder if just showing your ID would be sufficient? They are not the copyright police, but have to follow certain rules. If it is a D.I.Y. copy project of your work, they have disclaimers on the machine, but likely will not challenge you (or anyone else!). Protect your work! You deserve the credit and any financial profit from it.
I checked that site out gardengirl...thanks.
The plans I drew weren't anything special, just some simple plans for a simple addition. When I saw the sign, I just got curious and it turned out (naturally!) that someone in here knows a lot about it!
Thanks to all!
blue
Sorry Blue........I thought that sounded out of character for you.
My appologies for jumping to the wrong conclusion..........had the same problem over in the "shiney flecks on the stripper" thread.....LOL
PLagerism, or straight out illegal copying plans, is a sore subject for me.......so much of my work has been ripped off in the past.....just last week, got a call from a lady, interested in two of my designs she saw in a mag, "but your square ftg must be off" she said, since she had a local guy draw plans for both of my homes, and he could not come up w/ the same sg ftg as published.
Told her to GO#NACL, and that if she used those plans, she was going to spend so much time in court that we would be on a first name basis.
Pickings, regarding plagerism. How much different does a plan have to be before it's considered "new".
I see hundreds of small ranches that all look alike around here. They must have very similar plans.
blue
regarding plagerism. How much different does a plan have to be before it's considered "new".
From a design stand point.....not much. There are only so many ways you can combine the 5-8 rooms in an average floor plan. If you create working drawings from someone's "graphic" layout and the rooms differ by inches.....it constitutes a new "design".
If however, any of the "new" working drawings created actually contain copies (ie identical in an overlay) of any part of existing working drawings (floor plans, elevations, or even details) you have infringed on the copyright.
In a nutshell........The actual working drawings may not be reproduced in part, or in whole, without contract permission.....The design layout, and exterior facade, can be copied if the copier creates all of his own "working drawings". After all, can anyone truly create a "new" cape cop, or colonial, or victorian?
As designers, we all borrow elements from historical homes, and combine them in new ways to create a "unique" home. But we also create our own new working drawings for that home.
Hopefully this "cleared", rather than "muddied" the waters for you.
It should be made clear, though, that it's not the drawing itself but the underlying creative "work of authorship" that is copyrighted. If you effectively copied a drawing by transferring measurements from one sheet of paper to another you'd be infringing, even if you didn't actually trace or photocopy the drawing.Also, certain architectural details (eg, decorative treatment of a gable end) could be considered "work of authorship" and copying could be an infringement, even substantial changes (size of gable, angle of roof, etc) are made.Other disciplines have worked out standards through court precedent (in music a certain number of notes in sequence is considered evidence of copyright infringement, eg), but the routine copyrighting of archy drawings is new enough (only a couple of decades old, essentially) that there isn't a large body of court precedent.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison