I’m designing a dome house for someone. I know how to price the service, assuming I retain the copyright and can use elements (whole or in part) of my design on other houses and with other customers. The good news is this guy loves the results beyond expectations. So much so that he wants to make sure his house remains unique. The problem I have is how to make that guarantee and what to charge for taking the design out of my bag of tricks.
So is there any guidance on how to address what makes this unique, as opposed to elements that are part of every house? And where to begin on putting a reasonable price tag on uniqueness?
Thanks for any insights. Jim
Replies
Jim,
I don't think you will ever get a satsifactory answer. Some architechs copywrite their designs so that they can't be used by others.
What will make this designe unique? real tough because you will most likely use components of the design again. to OVER simplify, what makes any home design "unique".
I have personal views of data ownership that shouldn't be brought into this discussion, but i couldn't help saying that.
How many homes of "this" design did you expect to sell? that number times the cost of design? because those are the costs you would not have to be incurring. But if that number is too large, then most likely no sale.
What about limiting an area you won't build a duplicate (eg 50 mile radius) and then douple/triple design cost. how'ed I come up with that. I reached around and pulled .... Seriously though, how many of these do you think you would put into a 50 mile radius?
On uniqueness. you go to a desgner to meet your needs. otherwise why not a plan service or tract house. Your dome homes are unique to begin with. that's why people will often go to an architech/designer in the first place.
all that drivel probably didn't help
bobl Volo Non Voleo Joe's cheat sheet
It's all good discussion and will help me work through the issue. Thanks for the time.
Dome design is a specialty, of course. There's a pretty quick information flow, so when one unique element or style is introduced, everyone else into these structures knows about it pretty quick. So domes take on more of a national scale (within the dome community) than a local scale. i.e. I'm as likely to see and know the details of a dome house in HI as I am in my state or down the road. So it goes beyond the 50 mi concept pretty fast be/c (as I learned to my great surprise) ones that are built with any uniqueness get a fair amt of attention whether they seek it or not. By way of a bad analogy, I'd guess he doesn't ever want to be invited to an HGTV "party" and see someone wearing the same dress, if you know what I mean.
I agree that "uniqueness" is a quagmire (just ask Apple v Microsoft a few years back). He realizes that it's not just the shape, or just the design of the cutouts that define his as unique. But putting a finger on what does define its uniqueness is proving a bit clumsy for me.
The only case I know of this is the FLW Taliesan designs, which are guaranteed to be built once and retired. (Trust me, I'm not making any design comparisons--just mentioning that business practice.) But I don't know how they decide when different is different, and that's the crux of my dilemma.
cloud... uniqueness is an abstract...
what will make his house unique from yours is :
size
site
orientation
fenestration
trim
color
texture
and deck & patio areas..
i bet if you tried.. you couldn't duplicate your house on his lot with his tastes and his budget.. and the given is that it has to have a dome shape... everyone has to accept that...
with the usual caveat:
but hey, whadda i no ?
Mike Smith
Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
to add to the list:
number of doors/windows
size door/windows
realtionship of doors/windowsbobl Volo Non Voleo Joe's cheat sheet
Wasn't sure if I was clear, so at the risk of redundancy. He's paying me for a design. It's not at all like mine or any other that I know of. Unless otherwise agreed, I'd be free to execute this design for any number of other clients. I can reasonably assess the market and guess that some people might inquire about it. I've seen that happen with other unique designs ("can I have your floorplan be/c I want one just like that"). On the second and third iterations, I'd have a larger profit be/c I've already figured out a number of the complexities of the design.
He wants something extra--assurances that I won't replicate it. Is that assurance worth an extra fee? Why might it be worth extra? Well, because that non-duplicate clause would preclude me from developing a portfolio of designs from which a new client could one as their starting point, and I'd lose the economies that come with having done it before. If that's not worth extra, then every client should ask for it for every house. There'd be no reason not to. If it is worth extra, then how much and what guidelines for determining sameness?
He'll want an assurance whether there was a surcharge or not. So I face the issue of defining uniqueness regardless of the fee, I'm afraid.
cloud... since this is impossible to define .. let him define it... let his lawyer define it..if he wants.. once it is defined, youwill know what limitations this puts on yur future uses of the design...
also ... the legal onus is on him , since he wrote the contract.. and you can still review it...and strike out or modify anything you don't like..
i wouldn't waste minute #1 trying to define this.. you will never hit the mark.. whereas.. he, just going thru the exercise will realize some of teh absurdity of his quest.. or at least the restraints he is asking you to put on yourself..
let him define the terms..
you could also go to the AIBD and ask this question.. or one of the forums for the software users...
Mike Smith
Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I'm with Mike on this. It sounds like asking the preacher to write a contract that he will gaurantee good weather for the day of the wedding next June 15.
Here's AIBD
http://www.aibd.org/disc_frm.htm
Excellence is its own reward!
Some architects copyright their designs so that they can't be used by others.
They don't have to - the copyright (under US law) is inherently the architect/designer's unless he/she wishes to transfer it for a fee - that's the question. Basically the owner has to state what constitutes 'unique' and the architect has to evaluate whether or not that can be given up for a fee.
This comes up more than you would think. It could be handled by a fee (or not) and contractual language agreeing not to construct work that is 'substantially similar.' In the event that the owner chose to proceed against the architect/designer for violating this agreement, the burden of proof would be on the owner to show that a later design was 'substantially similar' in an arbitration or court proceeding. Defining 'substantially similar' by the use of specific elements in a specific way in advance could severely limit the architect/designer's work.T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
I umderstand that you don't have to specificlly register a work (anything) with the copywrite office to own the copywrite, but doing so will likely make things easier ina court.
In my old life I had to deal with "rights" on occasion and have a knowledge of them. and understand that that is a speciality in itself.
I brought up copyright in an attempt to address aspecific implementation, specific rendering. How many plans for a cape cod house are there? i would imagine lots. But there is something that makes each unique but substantially the same. Otherwise there is a fortune in violations on cape cod style homes.
Beyound being exactly the same, to me, all/most houses of style are substantailly the same. yes, argumentative
I believe in this case it goes beyound being substantially the same, but in being specifficly the same. argumentivly you could say cloud couldn't build another dome house. that is NOT what he wants or i think his client wants (hopefully)
Someone said the client should be asked for the difinition of uniqueness. that is probably a good suggestionbobl Volo Non Voleo Joe's cheat sheet
>you could say cloud couldn't build another dome house
God forbid, be/c I can't design straight stuff. (Some say I can't think straight either.)
Thanks for all the comments. They're helping me sort it out, though no conclusion yet.
Someone said the client should be asked for the definition of uniqueness
I said it, but only to determine only in an informational manner what the client is seeking. Should we let an ego-driven client (wanting 'the unique design' to yourself is all ego) define the remainder of our design career? I don't think so.
I say, if they insist on a provision like this, agree to something like 'substantially similar' where the burden of proof, and the will to proceed against the designer, is on the owner. If they define what makes their house unique in a formal agreement CH will find himself out of the dome design business. SHGLaw - you around to comment?
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
Edited 4/25/2002 8:36:14 AM ET by Jeff Clarke
Edited 4/25/2002 8:37:12 AM ET by Jeff Clarke
i think we agree
bobl Volo Non Voleo Joe's cheat sheet
Man, there's a lot of issues here. First off, many people consider architecture as the grandest of the arts. Good architechture has the ability to lift our spirits similar to the way a beautiful piece of music, or the grace of a world class athelete, or fine literature...whitnessing nature in harmony...other things that don't spring to mind...
And, many people consider artists as more of a conduit than a creator.
So, without going too far into it, I'd say this - if you designed a beautiful home, that in itself is unique. And if in fact it is special, has the ability to raise a single person's spirit, is it possible it could lift many other's spirits as well? Should you allow some monetary compensation from that first customer limit how many others experience this piece of art?
On many different levels I hope you'll consider this carefully before allowing one person (not even the artist) to determine who can, and cannot, have this experience.
Edited 4/25/2002 10:46:19 AM ET by jim blodgett
Jeff, you said, "Should we let a...........client....................... define the remainder of our design career?"
Good point. My answer to that is, "No." I have a body of work, some of which share design elements-- it might be described as 'my style'. I don't use those design elements all the time, but I guess people buy my stuff- in part- because of 'my style'. If a new client comes along and wants a near exact copy of a piece I've built before, I expect to be free to build it again. I'm not giving up my distinctive motifs, emblems, and style for anybody.
But I'm a furniture guy, and as Smith says, Hey, whadda I know? Slainte.
http://www.RichardJonesFurniture.com
Edited 4/25/2002 11:33:53 AM ET by Sgian Dubh
Cloud,
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that your work is yours, unless otherwise contractually stated. If your client wants assurances that he will never see another home like his, then it is up to you whether you want to agree to that, and I would say it should be worth more. As an analogy, when a photographer snapped pics of my wedding I paid for the photos, but the negatives belonged to him unless I was willing to pay an additional (exorbitant) fee. If you do decide to agree, I would have a good lawyer of my own state what "substantially similar" means - you need to protect yourself, even from a good client.
I look forward to seeing the pics of this house - I very much enjoyed the pics of yours. I really wish I could afford to build a home, much less one of such non-traditional design.
>> ... and I would say it should be worth more.
A lot more. It's like bidding on a job you don't want. I'd ask for
enough to retire on. Either he will lose interest or you won't have
to worry about ever building the same design again.