Does your AHJ do copyright protection?
Ours must consider it the job of the Building Department. Here’s why.
I did a set of plans for a client, and the design was based on a set of stock plans he purchased. We enlarged it, changed some of the main floor arrangement, re-did the arrangements of the walkout lower and upstairs floors, added an attached garage, boomed out one side with a den/office and porch, and more.
The clients decided to do the house because they saw another version of it going up elsewhere in the area. Using the plans I prepared, they went through plans review, obtained a building permit, and began construction.
At about foundation completion time, my client gets a letter in the mail from the building inspector, advising him that his copying of this other house is a violation of some type, that his permit is thus cancelled, and that he must stop all work. This was the result of the other property owner complaining.
No phone call, no site visit, just the letter.
My client settled the matter the day after receiving the letter, by delivering to Mr Inspector, a copy of the license document he received from the plans seller. It is one of those licenses that says, “your are hereby permitted to build one house only, using these plans.”
Pretty dopey, if you ask me, for an AHJ to fire off a letter like that, based on a verbal complaint like the one received.
This same Mr Inspector, a few years back, when complained to by a property owner that a house across the street was going to be taller that permitted by subdivision covenants, was sitting over its setback line, and improperly sited as regards to a steep downslope, refused any action, saying it was not his job to enforce covenants.
I suppose he has learned to play CYA.
Ours is a small town. You cannot set foot in public without running into someone you know. On the same day my client settled this matter with Mr Inspector by delivering the license doc, I ran into Mr I. when I was at the town hall on some business. Just a big grin and the usual “hello,” from him. Same on two occasions, since. Never a word about it.
Replies
Well. I have some objections with how both of my AHJ make plans available to any TD&H for download to scale. This is, ostensibly, to allow subs to get plans for publicly-bid projects. But, I know of at least three examples where residential plans were downloaded to be reued (one became briefly infamous for insisting the new house already had all of its wet stamps, including the site plan for the wrong site).
Now, if the access is restricted to AEC professionals, that's one thing.
For transparency of the regulatory process (something I also feel strongly about), then "briefing size" documents, with appropriate watermarks (ludicrous;y easy to append in Adobe) applied, would suit.
But, I am highly biased about this. Both on the commercial and the residential side of things.
Try as I might I cannot figure out what AHJ stands for. Just call me stupid, but call me anyway. Please enlighten this poor old curmugen. Thanks----WW 57
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Thanks for the information. WW 57
There is a technical difference between subdivision convenants and copyright infringements.
The covenant is a contract, and it is enforceable only in a civil court because both parties to the contract submitted to its terms voluntarily. A public official (other than a civil court judge) has no business--and no authority--to interfere in a private contract dispute.
Copyright infringement, however, is a criminal offense, and as such is the business of the appropriate authorities...which, OTOH, do not comprise building inspectors. If memory serves, infringing copyright laws is among the relatively few criminal acts falling under federal jurisdiction in the United States. So the FBI would have the responsibility for enforcement, not the BI.
At most, he should have referred the complaining HO to the FBI. Attempting to abuse his very local, very limited authority in the way he did should get his silly arse fired.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not brought
low by this? For thine evil pales before that which
foolish men call Justice....
That was a really good post.You nailed it!
Interesting thread.
About the copyright for a house design. This is something I have thought alot for a while.Given all the houses built in North America i'm sure more than a few are identical and drawn by others. So how much has to be altered to a plan to make it not "substantially identical".
Or maybe reword this to: If I draw a plan and someone in the next city draws one that is almost identical and some one notices it, and starts some kind of action. How do you prove the plan was not stolen? Do you keep all original rough drawings, client corespondance, permit alterations ?I drew up a house for a neighbour who's house burnt. Given the low amount of insurance coverage, we had to keep things scaled down. I think I did a very good job in making a nice layout given limited sq footage. also it was the best plan he saw and liked. My drawing got turned over to the engineer for permit drawings and a stamp for the foundation. Who owns the copyright to that home plan and how do I know they arn't going to resell the plan to others?As for you original question I think he overstepped his bounds. In Canada with this new privacy act, he probably would have got his butt kicked.
That was a really good post.
You nailed it!
Thank you.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Yes, you did.
"The covenant is a contract, and it is enforceable only in a civil court because both parties to the contract submitted to its terms voluntarily. A public official (other than a civil court judge) has no business--and no authority--to interfere in a private contract dispute."
Thats exactly right . He had no business getting involved.
Secondly the plans were changed so it didnt really matter .
Hate to say it but thats one dumb inspector .
Tim
The way they deal with that here is you need a lot specific plan sealed by an architect or engineer. Whether he wants to seal plans he didn't draw is up to him. In my addition I copied details from another plan, drew up the elevations by hand and floor plans on 3D Architect. The engineer added a few of his stock details, reviewed my plan, dropped it on his big copier with his logo on it and sealed it.
It took a couple trips downtown to get all the details they wanted but it went through.
You can have mastered plans but you need to be the person/corporation who submitted the master to build off of them.
Now OTOH when I built my pool, where the plans did not need an engineer stamp, they would not let me use someone else's master but I could make a line for line copy on typing bond, with a pencil I borrowed from the receptionist when she gave me the paper, right there in the lobby and it sailed through. 20 minutes drawing and a cup of coffee later and I had a permit. Seemed funny to me.
Whether he wants to seal plans he didn't draw is up to him.
True - but it (plan-stamping) is illegal in some states, including ours.
If plan-stamping is not OK in NJ, that would make the use of the big stock-plans houses, such as Donald Gardner or Mascord, well nigh impossible.
Wouldn't it?
In my township, the AHJ requires a seal on drawings for anything greater that some minimum size, and the seal must be that of a NY architect or engineer. There are many townships in rural parts of the state that do not require that.
Here, you can buy a plan from, say, CoolHousePlans.com, get them reviewed and annotated and sealed by a willing pro, and get a permit. Next town over, you don't even need the seal.
What would you do, if a client wanted you to draw her plans for a house that was featured in an article in Fine Homebuilding, the plans for it are available for sale, and the only change she wants is to have the mudroom expanded into the garage, with a doggie bathtub in it?
In many parts of the country, that property owner could buy the plans for about $1000, describe her desired changes to a builder, and get the house done.
What would it take to do it in NJ, working with you?
And what role would the AHJ have in ensuring that the copyright holder for the original design is protected?
View Image
"A stripe is just as real as a dadgummed flower."
Gene Davis 1920-1985
The best I can figure, the only thing our AHJ is protecting is the engineer's seal, not the actual author of the plan.
If you have a new seal on a stolen plan it seems to be OK with them.
Is there an engineer's union?
I sounds like the inspector is both well informed, and trying very hard to do a good job.
Ownership of plans typically remains with the architect, and the planning department relies upon the architect's stamp in order to approve the drawings. The building department is also counting on the architects' expertise to resolve any issues that might arise.
When a plan is re-used, it is udes without permission. In effect, the archichtects' stamp is being used fraudulently, as the architect is not involved in the project. The submitted documents are, in effect, false.
I am sure you have seen those fast-food chains that have a multitude of identical restaurants. What most folks fail to realize is that the franchise gets to buy the plans separately for each and every building.
As for 'copywright,' you really can't assert ownership of a buildings' design. The guy across the street can usually make an exact copy, as long as he has an architects' stamp on the plans. Only specific features - the McDonalds' golden arches are a good example - can be protected as trademarks.
Now, for the second issue: Again, he is correct. The town has no role in enforcing neighborhood covenants. The city has it's jurisdiction, which has no connection whatever with what contracts you enter with other parties (such as the HOA). Such contracts are enforced by the courts, not the building department.
I had that problem with the prints being from my friend house, went to the developer offer him a $100 for permission use his print. "sure" he type me a letter and that was it
This should have been directed to renosteinke "I sounds like the inspector is both well informed, and trying very hard to do a good job."Bolderhash!I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that he had any authority to so anything about this. Probably the most that he could legally do is to contact the arch and gives him a head up. Most likely he opened himself and the city to lawsuites.Even if he had authority he acted without any proof. At most he had a suspicion. He had no knowledge of the relationship between this builder and the arch. It would be if he heard that a truck loaded with truss had been stolen and saw a truck that he did not reconize delivering a load of trusses and tried to arrest the builder for receiving stolen goods.And even if he had authority and has evidence it was not of an urgententsy for his to issue a stop work order. He should have gotten a corut order where he would have had to so that he had reasonable evidence.
.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Edited 7/20/2009 8:24 am by BillHartmann
If it gets past plan review I doubt anything will happen without some other complaint. I am sure the inspector does not care where the plan came from. If it meets code and you build to plan the inspector should be happy. That is all his job is.
In that earlier neighborhood spat, one of the issues was a setback variance, never asked for, and never approved.
I believe it is the job of BIs and their departments to deal with setbacks. Our guy said it was not. At least then.
Interestingly, before that incident which included a setback issue among the other things, plans were OK'd routinely and permits issued, for which no site plans were included.
You could take in your set of non-site-specific plans, a stock set straight from Donald Gardner, and as long as the planset exhibited a NY pro's seal, you got your permit.
Furthermore, the set submitted was a copy set, not one with a red stamp on each page. The copy set shows the stamp in black photocopier ink, saying loud and clear, "if this stamp is not red, this is an illegal set of plans."
As part of the evolving nature of building compliance hereabouts, plansets must now include a site plan, with the building footprint clearly shown as to how it relates to setbacks, easements, and all the other things that matter.
How about that!
The requirement for documents in our jurisdiction, to get a permit, have grown each year over the past ten, as more holes get patched when something falls through, so that now things are gettin' purty per-fesh-un-ul lookin', permit-app-wise. Except that now, ain't nobody building nothin', except for doing copies of each other's houses.
On this issue, he did a fine job of covering his own butt. And, if he had phoned to inquire into the matter, instead of just blindly blasting off with the letter, he would have realized there was no issue at all. No letters to write, no butts to cover, everybody happy. Instead, the client of mine who stood accused, and me, who did the plans, both feel insulted.
View Image
"A stripe is just as real as a dadgummed flower."
Gene Davis 1920-1985
Edited 7/19/2009 9:16 pm ET by Gene_Davis
"On this issue, he did a fine job of covering his own butt. "How did he cover his butt.I think that he not only dropped his pants, but left them in the next county over.He opened himself and the city up to lawsuites. I seriously seriously doubt that he had any authority to act in that matter and if even if he did he had not proof.
.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
As for 'copywright,' you really can't assert ownership of a buildings' design.
Sorry, but you've been misinformed about that.
The original designer of anything new and unique--building, graphic, trademark, colour, pattern, software, industrial design, packaging, whatever--owns copyright in the design as soon as it is created. In the U.S. there used to be a requirement that the designer either (a) register his claim to copyright with the US government, or (b) publish the design with his claim to copyright printed therein. Copyright was recognised as effective on the date of registration or publication, whichever came first.
That was changed in the last modernisation of copyright law in the U.S., to bring the law there more into line with most of the rest of the world. Now, copyright is assumed to exist upon the act of creation and anyone challenging it has the burden of proof upon him.
Copyright may be sold outright by the original holder; certain limited rights to use of the design may also be sold piecemeal, such as a 'one-time use' license. For instance, when I sell an article to Fine Homebuilding, Taunton buys only the right to first publication; once they've published it, I can re-sell it to anyone else I want, or republish it anywhere I like.
The guy across the street can usually make an exact copy, as long as he has an architects' stamp on the plans.
As to building design, the designer--whether an architect, engineer, builder, or the homeowner himself--owns the design as soon as he has created it, and anyone who builds a building that is substantially identical to that design without permission of the designer has infringed his copyright and may be prosecuted under federal law. It matters not whether the thief built it from plans that were photocopied illegally, or if he built if from plans he drew himself while using the original building as a model.
And if an architect (or engineer) stamps plans that he did not draw, and the provenance and copyright of which he does not know, he deserves to have his license and stamp revoked.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
We can leave all that hair splitting for another time. Suffice it to say that very few buildings have much that can be defended as 'unique,' which really interferes with any assertion of copyright. "Professional Ethics" codes spend a lot of time on this topic. There's also plenty of case law. Professional pride aside, there's really very little difference between most buildings - especially when the designer falls back on CAD programs and gets his details from a handbook.
In any event, you missed my point - which was that the OP was in error when he thought his issues had anything to do with copyright protection. Rather, the inspector's concern was over whether the plans had the necessary review by a professional.
"Rather, the inspector's concern was over whether the plans had the necessary review by a professional."You are really reaching and making assumptions there.
Gene's area is not one where they strive to enforce professional onduct.
If you read the detaails Gene posted, it is clear that this guys concern was trying to make a omplaint go away without giving any thought to consequences or to whether his own conduct was professional in any way.I'm fully agreeiong with Hartman that the guy openned the possibility of suit against himself and the muniipality he works for
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
You are correct in that I missed your point, but I thought a quickie in the basic principles of intellectual property might be illustrative for all. It's something I've had to learn more about than most people (due to the nature of the work I do/have done/used to do), and it's been interesting to watch the changes to it over the years.
In answer to some of your other concerns, see my post to Piffin below.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
" infringed his copyright and may be prosecuted under federal law."Fact is, there is almost none of that. Most copywrite protetion happens in civil court when the owner of the design sues and wins reompense plus penalties
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
" infringed his copyright and may be prosecuted under federal law."
Fact is, there is almost none of that. Most copywrite protetion happens in civil court when the owner of the design sues and wins reompense plus penalties
Commercial copyright infringement--known commonly as 'piracy'--is actively prosecuted by the Feds; that being the case the FBI is the AHJ, not some local BI. If somebody were buying plans from a stock plan company, then photocopying them in bulk and selling them for $59.95 at WalMart, the FBI would definitely be required to take an interest.
But you are correct as to infringement by plagerism, wherein a person copies an original design, makes minor, non-substantive modifications to it (or doesn't), and then claims that it is his own original work. That sort of thing is not prosecuted by the government; it winds up with one individual suing another in civil court, as you said, and lawyers love it that way. There are lots of billable hours in a case like that; some of the hearings go on for over a year.
Plagerism cases are fascinating; what constitutes 'substantive difference'--which is what you must demonstrate exists to claim that your design is a new and original one, even though it bears a strong resemblance to someone else's earlier design--varies somewhat from one type of art form to another. And sometimes from one case to another....
In music, the notes of the melody can be exactly the same as another tune, but if the rhythym, meter, mode, and harmonies make that melody almost unrecognisable...you could still wind up losing a plagerism suit. Or not. It depends....
Take a listen to the version of Begin the Bégine in the movie 'De-Lovely'. For reasons having to do with the story line, the arranger put Porter's lively Latin hit into a minor key, slowed it way down, and messed with the rhythms a tad. I learned to play that tune on the piano when I was only 9 years old, and I almost didn't recognise it when it came up in the movie.
So: Is it the same tune? Legally, yes. Why? Because there is no substantive difference, even though there are many stylistic differences.
Take this principle into house design. I design a house for a client as part of a bid, and submit the plans to him. I own the copyright on that design; it says so right on the prints. Lets say the house has a footprint of 32 x 30, is 2½ stories including walk-out basement, has a gambrel with four dormers in the lower roof, and below that has a curved porch roof running over two full-length decks on the main floor.
The floor plans show two bathrooms (basement level and main floor)three bedrooms upstairs, and a galley kitchen and undivided dining room/library/living room on the main floor. In the basement there is a den, a laundry room, one of the two bathrooms, and a workshop. Top-plate height-above-floor is 8 feet throughout; on the main floor the plans call for exposed 3x8 rough-hewn joists over a 6x8 rough-hewn beam at mid-span.
To shoehorn all this into that tiny footprint (12 feet of the 32-foot depth is eaten up by those two six-foot-wide decks), I have stacked the two stairways, and run them parallel to the joists across the 20-foot width, but because of that support beam halfway back, the stairs have to be much steeper than usual (9½" rise X 7½" run) and a note is appended specifying the code exception which applies under Appendix A.
Now, my potential client looks over the estimate and two days later tells me that his budget won't cover the cost of me building this house for him. I bill him for the estimate and design time...but not for the design fee which would give him the right to build that house. He pays the bill, and returns the prints, which I file.
A year later, I am driving a back road nearby and notice a big new house that has just been completed. It has a real-estate agent's sign out front, and because it looks very familiar to me, I decide to make an appointment with the agent to see the inside.
Inside, I find that this 42x60 house has a walk-out basement, a main floor and an upper storey in a gambrel roof, two bathrooms, three bedrooms, a galley kitchen, an open-plan dining/library/living space, a basement den, laundry room, and shop. The main floor has 10 foot ceilings, and shows rough-hewn exposed joists over a support beam, but instead of the second-storey floorboards making the ceiling, there is gyprock with faux stucco paint between each joist.
Although all the rooms are bigger, the arrangement of the rooms is the same as on my plan. Consequently, the stairways are stacked, run parallel to the joists, and are much steeper than usual to make that 10' rise in the 13 feet available.
The exterior of the house is finished in Canexel vertical double-V siding (instead of cedar ranch siding run horizontally); the dormers are sided instead of stuccoed; and the porch roof is steeper, but is still curved where it meets the lower gambrel.
I go to the town hall, pull the permit file, and see a set of hand-drawn plans on 11x17 graph paper, which have been stamped by a local archy (who obviously did not draw them)...and also note that the GC is the owner...who is my erstwhile client of the previous year.
So, who do I sue? The archy? The former client? The BI? All three?
And do I win? Or not?
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I bet you lose. If you could win that case there is a guy somewhere who invented the 4 br split foyer plan (3 up one down) that was everywhere in PG County Md in the 70s who is a billionaire.
I am sure if you look at the plan details there are different things but the basic floor plan is identical for thousands of homes from a dozen builders.
In Florida the engineer/architect is going to be getting most of the design detail from state handouts anyway. I was really a little underwhelmed by the process when I saw it. I sure didn't see much "engineering" going on. I used a "corner slider" with the corner of the building being carried by a poured beam 5' out from the corner. I was expecting some load calculations. What I saw was he dug around on a very cluttered desk and came out with a stack of details from the state of approved rebar schedules. He copied the one that seemed to look right onto my plan and off we went.
the basic floor plan is identical for thousands of homes from a dozen builders. True...and as somebody else said, everything doable has already been done already....
Sure, every conceivable arrangement of rooms has probably already been tried and built by somebody over the course of the millenia since we moved outta caves. But it's the unique and fuctional combination of elements that qualifies a design as 'new and original.' In my example, there is one element that gives the game away: the staircase.
In my original design, the house had a 32x30 footprint with a 20x32 interior (BTW, this house actually exists; I designed and built it in '95). To fit all the rooms required into that small interior space I had no choice but to run the staircase from front to back; there is no other way to arrange the rooms and staircase without cutting the living room in half or eliminating the main-floor bathroom.
And because the specs call for exposed joists sitting on an exposed beam at mid-span (rather than trusses to span 20') , the staircase run can't be more than half the depth of the house (~10 feet, minus framing and interior finish)...because it can't cut the beam. So it had to be much steeper than standard.
However!
In the (hypothetical) stolen version of my design, I had the imaginary thief bump the footprint up to 42 x 60, which gave him more than enough room to use a standard pitch staircase...but he didn't. He just copied my design even though he had no functional reason for doing so. To me, that's the key element that would 'win' this moot-court case.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
If you are so certain, sue the guy. You had better just hope his lawyer can't find a plan anywhere on the globe with those design elements that predates yours. Like Reno says, it is hard to find anything that someone else has not tried.
had better just hope his lawyer can't find a plan anywhere on the globe with those design elements that predates yours.
Nope, copyright does not work that way--but patents do, there's an entire "prior art" aspect to patent law.
If I draw a plan (and when I do, ASCII 0169 is on there somewhere, along with a declaration of rights), and some one uses an exact copy of that plan without my specific permission, then they have violated my rights.
Now, if they redraw a copy of my plan, and make "substantial changes," 26% is the quantitative test, then it's their plan, not mine. I can ask them to include "inspired by" but I cannot compel that. If I "lift" a craftsman plan to make a modern version, it always has more than 26% changed content--bathrooms and closets will do that--but, I also always give the "inspired by" credit as well.
That way, if an unscrupulous builder starts knocking them off 1 in 6 in a subdivision, and his drafter fails to even remove the "inspired by" it looks really really bad in the pretrial discovery phase. That is, unless they cribbed the plan off a City permit web page, like happened to a previous employer of mine. I put a company watermark in, but there's an argument over whether or not deletion records are data available to supoena on not <sigh>.
The plans in the plan books have copyrights, you have to look carefully sometimes. If you buy a set, you are paying permission to have a set of copyrighted materials, typically for a single, specific use. Some of the big tract builders include copyright info on their drawings. Many use drawings with an AIBD "stamp" on them, and that stamp often has all sorts of copyright attached (occasionally ignored by the tract builder).
Been to this game one too many times. Even the really hard business of licensing off a floor plan for multiple use by a builder--ranks right up there with roller-skating amongst ungulates . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
ranks right up there with roller-skating amongst ungulates . .
Gotta hand it to yah CapnMac sometimes I gotta get out the dictionary....
Ungulates (meaning roughly "being pawed" or "hoofed animal") are several groups of mammals, most of which use the tips of their toes, usually hoofed, to sustain their whole body weight while moving. They make up several orders of mammals, of which six to eight survive. There is some dispute as to whether Ungulata are a cladistic (evolution-based) group, or merely a phenetic group or folk taxon (similar, but not necessarily related), because not all ungulates appear as closely related as once believed. Ungulata was considered an order which has been split into Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, Tubulidentata, Hyracoidea, Sirenia, and Proboscidea. Members of the orders Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, and Cetacea are called the 'true ungulates' to distinguish them from 'subungulates' (paenungulata) which include members from the Proboscidea, Sirenia, Hyracoidea, and Tubulidentata orders.[1]
Commonly known examples of ungulates living today are the horse, zebra, donkey, cattle/bison, rhinoceros, camel, hippopotamus, goat, pig, sheep, giraffe, okapi, moose, deer, tapir, antelope, and gazelle.
sometimes I gotta get out the dictionary
Wrll, I occasionally get grief for referring to FL drivers on 95 as a "buffalo herd" as some sort of slander against the noble bison . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Ah....but you are aware there are no buffalo in Norrth American. The animal is properly called the American bison.
Know that 'cuz the first grader last year pointed that out....
'cuz the first grader last year pointed that out
Well, not to disparage the wizdom of first graders, but, I'll guess they never tried to drive the speed limit on 95 in Florida, either <G>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Well you never know.....at that age they can't reach the brake, so.....
But there's a 7 yr old in Quebec who drove his family in a CRV at 40 mph....
and parents stupid enough to put it on utube.
Something like the "duck hunters" here in Sask.
Fundamentally, men are stupid.
If you are so certain, sue the guy.
If he actually existed, I probably would have. I do not suffer theft gladly.
But as I pointed out, although I did actually design and build the house I described, the other events in that post are pure invention, offered solely for the sake of illustrating a point.
You had better just hope his lawyer can't find a plan anywhere on the globe with those design elements that predates yours.
And there, of course, is the rub. It is possible I am not the first one to have designed a house with those basic design elements...but it is fairly unlikely that anyone before me has used all the elements I did in the same design. There are soooooo many little things that go into making up a house design, right down to the details of the framing. Which is why lawyers who are competent to argue these cases get paid the big bucks: it's their job to convince the jury which of those details are substantive, and which are merely fluff....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I got to know mostly what I know being a BI about this topic.
You realize before a permit is granted its supposed to have a plan review of a full set of documents to recieve an award of a building permit ?
The papers you found filed as a plan would not pass here . At all.
Ive seen people try. I even seen people copy the floor plan of a house off the internet and bring it in as their plan. Ive seen drawings brought in on notebook paper.
They have to have someone to sue if it doesnt work and it wasnt going to be me . So lemme see a stamp on a full set of plans before I consider spending time on a review .
You have to protect the guy who buys it not the guy thats building it .
Tim
Edited 7/22/2009 6:57 am by Mooney
In '95 I obtained a permit to build the house I described above on my hand-drawn plans, which were never stamped at all. All the BI really cared about was the site plan for septic field setbacks and total footprint.
However, that was before a provincially-mandated municipal merger. Now that we're a capital-c City rather than a parish, the 'urbanism' department (nice choice of word for a very rural community) is getting infected by that big-city civil-servant mentality. They have not been (so far) particularly persnickety about what passes for plans in the BI's office as long as they look professional, but one of these days I fully expect to get my plans tossed back at me for lack of a stamp.
However, there is a clause in the NBC which says something to the effect that structural design work must be done by an engineer or architect or other person practised in such work (which last would include me). There is no requirement whatever as to who may perform non-structural design work, so I can see at least a couple of ways of crossing that bridge if they try to shut the toll gates....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Theres a few ways around it.
If plans are bought , Mechanical reviewed by the state agencies. They will do that most people dont know . What I required with a homeowner doing their own mechanical or part thereof. Saved me from holding their hand with instructions. State of Arkansas has really nice review boards. Trusses are stamped. Some people dont know that . Stick built roofs have to have a stamped set of plans . Although we have charts its not supposed to be the ahj job. Put the blame on someone else at every oportunity. Normally the ones getting paid . Im alright with foot print plans depending on who it is building it but that never gets mentioned. Homeowner or shaky builder might just have compaction tests to turn in. I didnt treat them all the same but I tried to treat them fairly if that makes since . Some of that is in the authority and thats why some BIs are different than others you meet on your jobs . Thats so much of the job that doesnt get talked about .
I can honestly says this on an every day feild run; Some tradesmen you didnt have to look but of course it got looked at quickly. Nothing different from job to job but the same quality day in and day out . Some I swear made a game of trying to hide stuff from me or didnt care . Shaky outfits of all trades I inspected every single day. After a BI spends 4 times the inspection you get enough of it. Its not hard to tack on a grocery list if they want to play that way. On someone you dont know how they swing then I was really cautious until they earned respect. Then Im looking at every pipe joint , counting nailing paterns , etc.
If a BI signs off then he better be able to cover his butt. One bad job could put him out of work and theres plenty trying to do just that to you . Ive said before that a BI worries every single night about a family burning up in their own house . Its not to nice of an image to be called back out to see a sinking foundation taking the brick with it or a bowed ceiling . I felt fortunate I came to work with a trained eye for straight , level and plumb.
Way too much pressure for the pay and thats 99 percent of their problem. People with that much pressure normally make at least twice what they make . I was healing up from heart surgery .
Well, I'm not in there everyday, thank Bog; usually once or twice a year at most. (This year I haven't been in at all.) But I never get more than one or two small 'requested changes' to drawings I submit, and in a town this small, they know full well I'm not a member of any professional corporation and I ain't got no stamp. So they kinda forget to ask....
But they also know I build to code or better; I work from the NBC framing tables 99% of the time, and if I spec something that's not in the tables, I have an engineer bud run the calcs for me and sign off on it.
But I think what they like about my drawings is that they are uncluttered and idiot-easy to read, and I always submit more detail than they ask for. All we're required to submit for a new construction is site footprint plan, septic system siting plan, floor plan(s), front and side elevation. I'll give them all that, and then supply separate electrical and plumbing roughs and details or sections of each floor, roof, wall type, exterior trim and finish elements, and whatever else isn't obvious from the plans and elevations.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
First, it depends on whether or not you did the work prior to, or after, December 1990. Works before that time are ineligible for copyright.
Second, the test is whether or not there are original design elements included (yes) and whether the elements are functionally required. If so (such as in a stairway) those design elements in the work are not protected.
Also, the test is whether 'an average lay observer' would be able to detect the infringement - always an interesting concept.
The location is significant too considering state law. For instance, in NJ anyone can design a house for themselves or an immediate close family member so long as the structure is a primary residence for that individual. Beyond that you have to be an architect to practice architectural work - so the question would also entail the legality of the practice, or, to put it another way, is it an 'architectural work' if done illegally by a non-architect? - Although the act is not limited to the coverage of professionals.
Jeff
Edited 7/21/2009 1:11 am ET by Jeff_Clarke
Copywrite protection is a federal statute, so this makes no sense -"The location is significant too considering state law. For instance, in NJ anyone can design a house for themselves or an immediate close family member so long as the structure is a primary residence for that individual. Beyond that you have to be an architect to practice architectural work - so the question would also entail the legality of the practice, or, to put it another way, is it an 'architectural work' if done illegally by a non-architect? - Although the act is not limited to the coverage of professionals."How is the interpretation and enforcement of a federal statute dependent on local practices? Can state licensing affect whether or how federal drug laws are applied?no.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
What I wrote isn't well-written (sorry) but the point I was trying to make is that there are specific areas of the act like "architectural works" which (while they apply to non-professionals) was intended to cover works completed by architectural firms (more so than your uncle Bernie on the back of a napkin).
Jeff
IIRC copyright covers creative works. So rebar schedules probably would not be covered. But soem arrange that provide the same strenght with 1/3 the rebar might be patentable.And I think that things like stairs might be covered, in some cases. I am visioning exterior stairs there the arranges of multiple stairs and flight are used as part of the decorative looks.And I don't see what stat laws have to do with this. Copying someone else work is copying someone else work. It is a wrong if it is an individiual as a pro.The only difference is how the wound party goes after them..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
I agree with the poster who said the only way this gets to be a "federal case" is if this is a massive abuse of copyright and even then I bet it has to involve counterfeit engineer stamps or something similar.
You will end up in civil court where the guy with the best lawyer and most tolerance for legal bills, wins, pretty much independent of the facts.
I am reminded of the indigent single mom in the mobile home who was sued for multimillions by RIAA for uploading songs to the internet.
They ended up settling for all the money she had in the world and called it even.
...whether the elements are functionally required. If so (such as in a stairway) those design elements in the work are not protected.
I think it's important to get the right interpretation of 'functionally required.'
In a multi-storey house, a stairway of some sort is functionally required, so the use of a stairway qua stairway isn't protected as original design. However, the use of an unusual stairway design (which falls outside the normal code requirements and must be justified by reference to the residential exceptions appendices in Chapter 9) as an element functionally necessary to accomplish the rest of the design would be protected, because the ensemble of elements is inseparable.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Agreed. About the stairway, that is. Not on impersonating an attorney ;o)
Edited 7/21/2009 11:11 pm ET by Jeff_Clarke
I very most carefully didn't impersonate an attorney; I just made noises like one and then shut up and let them make an invalid assumption based on what they expected.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
"So, who do I sue? The archy? The former client? The BI? All three?And do I win? Or not?"That's for the courts to decide, after you put your dime in the slot
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
That's for the courts to decide, after you put your dime in the slot
It's a hypothetical case, anyway; the theft never occurred. Although many years ago I had a money-market firm steal one of my graphic designs by jumping from my typesetting shop to another and giving them a prospectus I had produced for them and telling them to copy it. I dunned them for the design fee--$500 I think it was at the time--and they demurred. Then my 'legal department' (me, using a six-syllable hyphenated vaguely British-sounding name with 'esq.' appended) sent them a politely nasty letter on fancy letterhead (which I produced in my shop, natch) quoting a couple of semi-applicable statutes...and they paid by return mail.
Anyway. Think of this discussion as a 'moot court' and put in yer own two-cents towards that dime. Yer opinion is as good (or better) than a few judges I've met....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
"Then my 'legal department' (me, using a six-syllable hyphenated vaguely British-sounding name with 'esq.' appended) sent them a politely nasty letter on fancy letterhead (which I produced in my shop, natch) quoting a couple of semi-applicable statutes..."
Is that legal?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Just barely.
Any company can set up its own legal department by simply printing up some special company stationery, and anyone can work in it; he doesn't have to be a lawyer.
And in N. America, 'esquire' is not a legal title, so anybody can call himself one. The fact that lawyers in the U.S. have adopted 'esq.' as a signature gizmo does not mean they have the exclusive use of it, nor that someone signing themselves 'esq.' is a licensed attorney.
Finally, in the United States (this is not true everywhere) you can call yourself any name you like, anytime you want, as long as you don't use a false identity to commit a crime or avoid prosecution for one.
Besides, this happened 35 years ago in New York City; if any crimes had been committed, the statute of limitations would have long since run its course....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Finally, in the United States (this is not true everywhere) you can call yourself any name you like, anytime you want, as long as you don't use a false identity to commit a crime or avoid prosecution for one.
That's not entirely correct. One cannot legally call oneself an "engineer" unless one is licensed, for example. Same with Doctor, attorney, pharmacist, etc.
Uh oh. Dr. J is in serious trouble now!
One cannot legally call oneself an "engineer" unless one is licensed, for example. Same with Doctor, attorney, pharmacist, etc.
I said 'you can call yourself any name you like', not by any title. Certain professional titles are, as you point out, restricted to use by people who have obtained certification and/or licensing in those professions from government-recognised institutions or agencies. This is fairly common practise worldwide.
In some countries, you need the permission of the government to change your name, no matter what the circumstances. But in the U.S. you may call yourself 'Evelyne St. Luscious' or 'Harvey Bumscratcher' or 'E. Barrett Roswell III' without asking anyone's permission, just as long as you have no criminal intent in so doing.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
you need the permission of the government to change your name, no matter what the circumstances. But in the U.S. you may call yourself 'Evelyne St. Luscious' or 'Harvey Bumscratcher' or 'E. Barrett Roswell III' without asking anyone's permission, just as long as you have no criminal intent in so doing.
And, an important "and," no one in one's local jurisdiction is also already using that name.
One may not decide to take up that Mayor's or the Burgher's name, for instance, even with provable lack of mens rea.
One might, for whatever reason, take up using the name Ike Clanton or Morgan Earp, but it might be better if one were reenacting historical events in Tuscon, A.T. There are quite a number of folks using names of actual people serving in the US conflict of 1860-64 for historical purposes.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I suppose we ought to have specified under what circumstances one uses the nom de plume or nom de guerre.
In purely social circumstances, I cannot see how the state has any interest in what I call myself. For instance, I call myself 'Dinosaur' right here and now...and have been doing so for quite a few years. Even Quebec, which is highly regulatorily constipated about most things, doesn't care about that.
However, once one bumps into the gubmint at any level--licensing, payroll taxes, documentary ID, yadda-yadda--it isn't hard to understand how officialdom might want to keep track of who they're really dealing with. I suspect that might be the source of the brouhahas to which woodturner referred....
I know at least one person who performed an informal name-change on himself over the course of twenty-odd years (by simply using the new name more and more until it had, for all intents and purposes, replaced his birth name), and succeeded, without any hootin' or hollerin' at all, in obtaining a US Passport in his assumed name. All he had to do was submit an affadavit from himself and one other person who'd known him under both names (for at least five years).
'course, that was thirty-some years back; I kinda doubt that would work today what with DHS and all....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
At least in Florida, if you are using a "fictitious name" for business purposes you need to register it. There is no guarantee that nobody else is using that name. I have been "Blue Light" for many years. I'm just sorry I didn't register bluelight.com when it was still available. Eddie Lampbert might have bought it from me.
As long as your nom de plume isn't Archie Techt I'm fine ... ;o)
chuckles and grins
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Jeff, would you please respond to the questions I raised in my earlier post?
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=122484.6
View Image
"A stripe is just as real as a dadgummed flower."
Gene Davis 1920-1985
If plan-stamping is not OK in NJ, that would make the use of the big stock-plans houses, such as Donald Gardner or Mascord, well nigh impossible.
Not necessarily, because an individual HO can purchase plans and sign them, claiming to have done them on their own - as noted this is permitted for single family for one's self or immediate family member. The reception that they get will vary a bit from municipality to municipality in terms of whether such plans would be 'accepted' as being done by the HO. A builder could not purchase such plans and have them stamped by an architect without violating the law.
In my township, the AHJ requires a seal on drawings for anything greater that some minimum size, and the seal must be that of a NY architect or engineer. There are many townships in rural parts of the state that do not require that.
Here, you can buy a plan from, say, CoolHousePlans.com, get them reviewed and annotated and sealed by a willing pro, and get a permit. Next town over, you don't even need the seal.
See above.
What would you do, if a client wanted you to draw her plans for a house that was featured in an article in Fine Homebuilding, the plans for it are available for sale, and the only change she wants is to have the mudroom expanded into the garage, with a doggie bathtub in it?
In many parts of the country, that property owner could buy the plans for about $1000, describe her desired changes to a builder, and get the house done.
What would it take to do it in NJ, working with you?
Plans in what form? We don't use paper any more ;o). I would use the paper plan as a reference, review for code compliance under IRC 2006NJE, adapt to the site and draw from scratch. Use of my seal represents "these plans were prepared under my direct supervision" - I could not say that for an electronic copy of someone else's plan, now could I? Not with any integrity.
And what role would the AHJ have in ensuring that the copyright holder for the original design is protected?
As stated above by others - absolutely none.
Jeff
I said 'you can call yourself any name you like', not by any title.
OK. I understand your point now - no need to argue sematics about name and title.
But in the U.S. you may call yourself 'Evelyne St. Luscious' or 'Harvey Bumscratcher' or 'E. Barrett Roswell III' without asking anyone's permission, just as long as you have no criminal intent in so doing.
Interesting, did not know that. I'm also wondering what is behind cases where someone is charged with using an alias, even for non-criminal reasons. There have been some cases where teachers have been charged with using an alias - a woman not using her married name, for example - but that could be more of a contract and policy issue with the school, or maybe the laws vary in different municipalities.
I do think there is a good chance of success in your hypothetical case. I've met and read several stories of suits that prevailed in court for this sort of thing, enough to make me confident that Reinostake's position is way out there in lala land.
My own personal introduction to this theme came in a friendly way back in the mid seventies. I was mostly doing roofs then and just getting into other crafts. one of my builders did two houses a year, sometimes spec and occasionally a custom.
He had done a basic ranch and I did the roof, a wood stove and surrond, and his interior trim work on it. That gave me plenty of time to analyse the place. He and I got along well too and spent time together socially.
So when he was having a hard time selling that house, he asked me if I had any opinions why. I said there was nothing wrong with it, but that I would have improved it to make things flow better re traffic and light, to make it a more comfortable house. I scketched those ideas out on a napkin, he agreed and a couple months later, he asked me if I minded if he used those ideas on a house. I was surprised that he asked, and that was when he explained copywrite laws and general sense of respect for my design.
He didn't offer cash for the design and I didn't ask. Was impressed that he thought my ideas were good enough to make use of. End result was that this house was succesfull enough ( sold fast) that he built three of them with minor changes in surface treatments or reversal of floorplan.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I am sure you have seen those fast-food chains that have a multitude of identical restaurants. What most folks fail to realize is that the franchise gets to buy the plans separately for each and every building.
Yep, built five identical-sized (chain has 7 different sizes in three families of features and 5 groups of drive-throughs) chain restaurants for a single franchise owner. One location went through five seperate site plans, three submitted to the County--Franchise Owner wanted to only pay for the last one.
Was really fun in CS, we had to go through the entire anti-development rigamarole they have--have to enjoy "shall deny" applications. The other four locations were easier, but only a little; that one location three plus two full times was not nice.
All of those were online in various forms. The three-times-lucky version caused a great deal of confusion with the Fire Marshal, though.
Still waiting to see how things shake out. Texas now has a state requirement of three inspections (pre-foundation; pre-drywall; pre-COO). but not all 254 Counties have Building departments or the like. So, some places, the required inspections, like any wet stamp requirements are at the leisure of the builder and banker involved.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
The enforcer was VERY much out of line. First, he has no authority to uphold copywright law, and second, even if he did, he had to make an assumption that the complainers were right that the design was stolen.. There was no hearing to establish facts. He simply acted out of hand.As he admitted by concurring with Gene's client when shown evidence of his erroroneous ways
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
As for 'copywright,' you really can't assert ownership of a buildings' design.
Why not? In general, any "design" can be copyrighted - why would a building design be any different?
Because, after several millenia of construction, there's precious little that hasn't been done before.
Other aspects of a building just may qualify for some manner of protection as a 'trademark,' or a 'design patent' may be applied for, but these are matters different from 'copyright.'
You copyright papers, not buildings.
Sure, every college that teaches architecture (or engineering) asserts pretty broad claims as to the ownership of a 'design.' Yet, when it comes down to litigation, it's a lot harder to establish that anything is original, or owned by the claimant. Then, once the claim is substantiated, there is the matter of proving harm; if there's little harm done, then the damages awarded will be minimal. It can be a lot of work for little gain - especially after the lawyers take their bite.
That is merely an opinion that does not stand up in court.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
What do you think led to that opinion? I've seen claims picked apart too many times.
Thise wishing for serious -yet very readable- further education are directed to IICLE (Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education) book "Intellectual Property Law." You'll find my opinions are essentially repeated there.
More to the point, who wants to play courtroom roulette? That jury - assuming you can afford to get that far - is free to decide whatever they please. I invite doubters to spend an afternoon standing outside any courtroom; nearly half who enter will depart, shaking their heads at the 'errors' the judges and juries made.
" I invite doubters to spend an afternoon standing outside any courtroom; nearly half who enter will depart, shaking their heads at the 'errors' the judges and juries made."
Whatever its merits, I don't think your argument is advanced by the above quote. Using this logic there is no point prosecuting people for murder.
Besides that, in civil court, it is a mathematical given that half of the people involved will be disappointed in the outcome!
View Image
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Other aspects of a building just may qualify for some manner of protection as a 'trademark,' or a 'design patent' may be applied for, but these are matters different from 'copyright.'
You copyright papers, not buildings.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but the law seems to disagree.
ANY design reduced to tangible form - writing, a drawing, a building, a painting, etc. - is copyrighted. In the US, one may not legally use another's idea or design without permission.
Whether you can enforce that protection may be another matter entirely. Litigating is always a gamble - the outcome is not predictable. However, architects have had great success defending their designs, and I see no indication that is likely to change anytime soon.
Trademarks and patents have an entirely different application, and would offer limited protection for the design of a building. Keep in mind that with a patent, you are REQUIRED to license it for "reasonable" fees upon request. Not the thing to do it you want to have exclusive use of an idea.
"You copyright papers, not buildings"
Nor is it true that one copywrites papers!
That which is protected is creative designs
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Unlike a patent a design does not have to be unique or novel. Anything "creative" work is copyright able. Include my great thoughts in this message.And derivations based on that design, ie construction of a house from copyrighted designs, is also covered."there's precious little that hasn't been done before."You could make the same claim for almost any drawing or written work.Just a collection of a bunch of words that have been used before..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
If the AHJ is a licensed design professional, then in some states they do have the legal obligation under the states professional licensing laws, to report all such infractions.
In some states, they can also loose their license if they are caught with unlicensed software, or other copyrighted/protected material on a computer. (Even if it is their home computer.)
The reasoning is that the only product design professionals truly produce is intellectual, thus theft of intellectual property is considered an egregious violation by the licensing Boards.
And, if you had done your job right, the letter of authorization should have been submitted with the plan set.
If I do a modified plan set based on one stamped by another professional, I add notes detailing what work is my original, and what was theirs. All part of not stamping work that I didn't have control of during the design phase.
Edited 7/19/2009 10:31 pm ET by Jigs-n-fixtures
There is a hell of a difference between REPORTING to authorities and issuing a stop work order.And even if he had authority he had no proof at most a suspicion.
.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Some followup.
Our local guy (the AHJ) who started this all by reacting to the complaint, and writing the letter that pulled the permit and mandated a stoppage of work, has heard back from his authority at the state level. Some dude with "AIA" after his name.
Mr. AIA had been asked, by our local guy, to comment on the situation. Mr. AIA's response, delivered in writing, was that our local guy had no say in the matter, and that his job was only to see that plans submiited for permits exibit original seals from licensed NY professionals.
View Image
"A stripe is just as real as a dadgummed flower."
Gene Davis 1920-1985
It certainly is NOT the job of a building department to enforce copyright. If they strictly enforced copyright almost none of the houses built in subdivisions today on "standard plans" could be built because most of the time the Architectural firm who originated them is never paid any license fee.
While I am not a Lawyer, I've worked with many on copyright and abuse of authority issues in my other life as a activist. File a lawsuit against the building official for abuse of discression under color of authority. make certain to document that changes were made to the plan and details of the other house. Architectural copyright is still a very gray area in the law.
When does say my house based on Greene & Greene's Spinks house violate copyright (fortunately they are dead...)? I've done two homes based on it, but it was based on the classic American four square house. Where does the claim to ownership of a architectural design begin and end?
There was a lawsuit between two Architects in Beverly Hills recently. One sued the other for copyright infringement of a house. Turns out, he lost on appeal after he had one- the guy suing had copied a traditional Tuscan villa, and so had the guy being sued.
The Building department having reviewed the first set of plans should have denied the second for copyright reasons if that was an issue they were legally capable or obligated to enforce. If the homes were very simular it should have been obvious to them, particularly in a small town. To issue a permit and then once the foundations are in cease work based on this issue is to be careless, reckless, and do serious economic harm due to negligence, something that there is no immunity for. It's time Building officials were subject to the judicial system just like everyone else is.
When you work in government, in any fashion, you tend to get this power-trip condition no matter how small your loser job and personality is. Mr. I seems no difference. be thankful he wasn't an elected official that could have done some serious damage--we leave that to the true a-holes.