My BIL had an office built for his insurance business. He worked with an architect/builder and created a plan he was pleased with. One of his tenants is a lawyer. A visiting lawyer came to the building the other day and told him that she had her office in a building exactly like his. Sure enough, BIL drove across the city and there was “his” building. The interior was different but the outside was the same. He’s a little upset.
I don’t know of any releases he may have signed, he’s checking into that. But who is right here, BIL or builder? Who owns a design that a client has paid for?
Replies
The designer owns the design. Some cases have been succesfully fought in court but it's a hard go. Somebody's gonna lose sleep over this ione, it sounds like.
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin, I was pretty sure that the designer/architect owns a design. That's what I told my sister when she told me the story. But I wanted to get some more educated opinions. What better place than Breaktime?
An attorney. See if the same archy drew both buildings...may someone pirated the plans.Do it right, or do it twice.
It's not pirated, the same guy built both buildings. And, to make it more interesting, they both attend the same church...
I see now, the archy builder got paid to design it for your BIL first, then replicated the design on another building for another customer.
Unless your BIL bought exclusive rights to that design specifically, he has no case against the designer. This has been discussed on several architectural forums..
Excellence is its own reward!
It seems to me that for a big builder who has twenty or thirty designs and builds them hundreds of times in different subdivisions across the country, it is worth the effort to protect that design with a lawsuit.
For a single instance, though, it is more difficult to establish the value of having it duplicated and the legal costs are harder to re-coup. But for attorneys who think of andf act out lawsuits every day...They might just pursue this for the fun of it.
A person really needs to be sure they can establish what is unique or creative about their own individual design though. After gabilzions of house built in the world, there are few truly original designs. I have read and heard of designs being protected from theft after lawsuit tho..
Excellence is its own reward!
I can't help on the legalities, but maybe on the perspective.
I had a family member who built a house they had designed. A few years later their neighbor from the place that they moved out of had the same house built not far away by the same builder. They didn't know what was going on until the house was pretty much finished. A year or two later I never heard about it again.
The point is, who cares? Is it hurting anyone. It took someone coming to your office to tell you about it. Leave it alone.
Besides, alot of architects design buildings that are similar to very similar. Which makes sense if you think about it.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Tom
I designed my current house, and told the builder up front that the design was mine -- it drew many positive comments and a handful of offers while under construction. Told him though, that he could rebuild this design, as long as he didn't do it in the same subdivision, and modified the exterior design somewhat from what I have (we're in a small town), and pay me something (his voluntary amount) for the use of my design. He has done two, I have worked with him on some design improvements since I have lived in it for a while, and he has paid me $500 each as a kickback (I actually sent him the first prospect).
Lesson is, if you think the design belongs to you, let it be known from the get-go. All of my prelim drawings had "Copyright 2001 Joe Smith" on them. Don't know if legally that was worth much other than him seeing that I was taking claim on MY design. He did have a cad jockey redraw -- well, reprint, I emailed the .dwg to him -- and at that point the copyright was dropped, but there were enough prelim drawings saved with his and my notations on it, not that I would ever wind up in court over the design, but....
" All of my prelim drawings had "Copyright 2001 Joe Smith" "
All "works of art" are automatically covered by copyright as soon as they are done. You don't have to give any notice of this.
Other than the agreement with Taunton to use this message some one else can't legally copy it.
But the problem is with automatically copyrighted material is that you can only recover any actually loses if someone copies it illegally.
What would be the my loss if someone stole my "work of art"?
But if you file for registration ($25-35 I think) then you can get statutory damages and attorney fees.
From what I have learned in Archy school the Archy owns the design, unless he works for a company in which case the company most likely owns the design. If the client wants to keep the design to himself he needs have that written in the contract and be ready to pay a bit more.
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, Professionals build the Titanic.
gee......I hope they weren't wearing the same outfit too.
Jeff
Buck Construction Pittsburgh,PA
Fine Carpentery.....While U Waite
Standard AIA contract states that the architect owns the documents (design, construction). The design is a little different if the achitect has not copy righted the design but the general view is that even if the architect did not copyright the design, the architect still owns it. You need to see the contract that was signed between the owner and the architect.
I had this same thought cross my mind, as I'm in the process of designing my future house. However I'm not working with an architect per say, but rather a draftsperson from a local lumber yard. Is that the same? The draftsperson isn't interpretting my wants/wishes into a design, but rather following my instructions and simply inputting the design into CAD. I've provided the first scale drawing and made all revisions.
Not that I care too much, but I have spent hours on the design and it is kind of personal.
Any thoughts.
Note that you do not have to copyright a design. It is copyrighted by default. The very act of designing (and documenting) the design grants you the copyright.
Registering a copyright is a different matter, and is sometimes worth the trouble, sometimes not.
Same goes for Trademarks, although the issues of protection are a bit different.
The legal side is interesting. Who lost out is the tough one to prove. If I employ you to make my ideas work in a house and I give you lots of input as to what I "need" for my home to work for me. and I pay you for the work done to "design" the home. The design is mine and if you want to use it you pay me. How do you split the ideas input?
In your case, you are the designer, he is the pencil. You own your intellectuall property..
Excellence is its own reward!
my question is how much do you need to change a design to make it your own? if i see a house i like but move a few walls and the hall closet is that illegal and or ethical? years ago i had an idea for a computer program for the construction industry and attempted to partner up with a programmer to write my idea. i was told that by simply writing my idea down and dating it, with witnesses for verification, it was copyrighted. but if someone merely changes a couple minor details their copy of my idea is not violating the copyright. like a recipe for chicken soup, if you add an extra half teaspoon of salt you have not violated the copyright. is this information correct?
Now you are getting into the greyish murky waters of copyright law.
Technically, if you take an existing design, change it slightly, that's called a derivative work. The originator has some rights to it, and, provided you had permission to use it, you gain rights as well.
There is no hard-and-fast rule though, and typically, at that point, you are dealing with lawyers to decide what is what.
Here's how I deal with that issue.
If a client brings me a page out of one of those supermarket plan books and wants me to re-design it, I put the red light up where they can see it. "This work is something that somebody else worked to produce and has a right to make money selling it to you. I bring my own set of skills to you in creativity, functionality, and proportion. I'm sure that I can design a house that is better than you are showing me for nearly the same price as it would take to redraft this plans from another designer. If you like his work, buy it. If you want me to work on it for you, let's start fresh. Tell me what you like about it and what you don't like about it."
I have just engaged them in conversation that brings out what kind of taste they have and learn how to satisfy them. I have also steered them away from something that they had doubts about anyway and have kept from stealing another design. .
Excellence is its own reward!
But truthfully,
How many different ways can you design the same freakin' 24' x 42', hi ranch on a 75x100 lot?
Most designs are derivatives of each other and that includes commercial buildings as well. Also, the "squarer" you make the building, the cheaper it is to build. So, they almost invariably wind up with the same look.
The truly innovative designs in residential are few and far between and cost so much to build that there's no fear of them being copied. At least, this is my feeling.
That's what I said in my first post here, I think..
Excellence is its own reward!
Yes, I did see where you said that.
Sorry.
Ownership is a seperate issue.
If the designer led the client to believe he was providing an original design and then sold a reproduction, thats fraud. Regardless of whether he is the original designer or not.
WAHDView Image
Bravo! I do the same thing! Except I tell the new client to bring all their ideas to the table upfront, even going so far as telling them to go buy 10 magazines and cut them up, and bring them to our next meeting. It's a great way to get the conversation started and to learn about how your client communicates.
I'm no lawyer, so this comment isn't worth it's usual two cents, but my understanding is that software programs are a unique case in the copyright world. The "look and feel" (in plainer words, the functionality) of a program is not protected. As long as the copying company creates their similar program independently, there is no infringement. Of course, there's often only one intelligent way to program something, so the code ends up looking structurally similar. So...you'll never prove it was copied.
That's how Microsoft can rip off other companies' product. Apple lost the lawsuit.
Regards,
Tim Ruttan
You are mixing up a number of issues.
"years ago i had an idea for a computer program for the construction industry and attempted to partner up with a programmer to write my idea. i was told that by simply writing my idea down and dating it, with witnesses for verification, it was copyrighted."
You can't copyright an IDEA.
For example how many different "my girl friend ran off with my best friend and took my dog and truck" country and western songs are there. All the same idea, but different expressions of art, different words and music.
You can copyright a completed expression of "art". That art might be the code for a computure program.
You can PATENT a unique technical idea.
"but if someone merely changes a couple minor details their copy of my idea is not violating the copyright. like a recipe for chicken soup"
First recipes are not copyrightable.
But as to what is orginal really looks at the whole, not all of the little bits.
Any copying and then modifying a copyright covers the derivations. One of the examples given on the government web pages is making a statue of a character based on a painting of that character.
I'm glad this generated some discussion. Just one thought regarding the "what's the big deal?" comments. I notice that most of them were using a residential house for the example. This was a commercial building with my BILs agency name built into the facade. One could argue that a commercial building is built to represent a business as a form of advertising/marketing intended to reinforce a positive image in the customer's mind. Would that make it any more of a big deal? Not legally, but philosophically?
When I designed my house--before I started doing that professionally--and had someone draw the plans, I stipulated that both our names be on the plans so that neither could re-use without the other's permission. If nothing states otherwise, it's the designer's work to use and reuse as (s)he sees fit. I don't make representations that I've built or not-built one similar before--it's just never come up. But I did start a thread here a year ago about one client who wanted a guarantee that I wouldn't reuse the design I did for him--that's a tricky little twist.
And finally, almost every client puts pencil to paper before they've called me, and then inspires modifications as we evolve toward final prints. If each design became the intellectual property of the client, I'd have real trouble keeping track of what elements could ever be used again with whose permission. In reality though, their drawings are their property and my drawings and renderings are mine.
If you look around, there's a reason why commercial buildings have a certain "look" to them. Most financially viable buildings have most of the same elements as part of their design. I can't see how you can make a building unique and financially viable without incorporating these elements.
Now, if you're talking about facades or color schemes, I can see where there might some original elements in the design but again, I'd say that with a few minor changes it could be argued that the design is "different" enough.
my bad bill, i have a tendency to be overly brief with posts so sorry about all the issues at once. also apologize for twisting original thread. relatively new here and don't mean to be rude. please let me know if i am stepping on anyones toes. in truth it was more than just an "idea", it is my method of doing layout on complicated structures. i am sure i'm not the only one who uses this method in the field, the basics of it were taught to me and i have passed it on to others. i have refined it somewhat, and was told that by writing down what i do specifically i am copyrighting my procedure but that changed slightly the copyright is not violated as you state. thanks for the input.
Standard AIA Docs say the architect owns the design - and all parts of it. But copyrights have to be registered (or so my attorney told me recently) not just noted. If the design was copied in whole or in part, AND (a big AND) the designer can prove plagerism, the plagerer is sunk. However, the new building only having copied the facade and not the floor plan, may not count as a "copy" only an inspiration, because, again in theory, the plan generates the facade. In theory, a building is designed from the inside out, not the other way around. If the architect works for the builder, or they form a joint venture, then the ownership is transferred to the builder or the joint venture, which is a legal entity. The reason the client does not own them is because the architect is not "employed" by the client - the relationship between architect and client is contractual.
Sorry - I know this is long-winded, but I just love this stuff. If there's one thing I have learned (the hard way) contracts are our friends! And also "pick your battles". The fight is probably not worth ($$$) it. Get on with it and design the next project.
One last quote to remember - "imitation is the highest form of flattery"!
" But copyrights have to be registered (or so my attorney told me recently) not just noted"
That is not true. However, if it is not registered the legal remedies are limited.
"the plagerer is sunk. However, the new building only having copied the facade and not the floor plan, may not count as a "copy""
Not true. Try copying Minie, but not Mikey and tell Disney that you where only "inspired" by the orginal.
I always thought that simply marking drawings was enough, but you may be right about the copyright issue - I was just passing along what my attorney had said to me when we recently designed a contract. Her point was probably about legal enforcement of the issue, and which way was preferable or more in my favor.
You are misquoting me on the second count, and you miss my point. My comment was with regard to making the case for a copy. The important point was the part about the design theory/practice that "the plan is the generator of form" not the facade.
I would think that the question should be: Whose building was built first? If mine was second and I had paid an architect to design a building for me, then I would expect an origional at full price. If it was a copy of other work, then I would not expect to pay the full design fee. I follow this up with the same thinking as the companies that do the home plan books. Their price is usually $500-$1,000 per home for a copy, not $5,000-$10,000 or more for an origional design.
I have done work for clients and then had others request something on the same line, but they are never exaxct copies. My work is based upon the time involved to build the work, not how much I can "milk" them for thinking its and origional and I have never done it before.
If a builder wants to build more than one of a design, then I'll discount that (I started a thread on pricing that). But if a client chooses a design that suits their family, and they get personal attention in determining its suitability, then I don't see why they should pay less than another family who used the same design. Looking at it from the first client's perspective, I'd be upset if I paid X for the development of a design, and then saw the same thing sold to the next guy for X/2. I'd want them to pay more than me since it's now a proven design!!! :) More to the point, I do custom designs, period. I don't want clients who hope they can save money by choosing something from my portfolio...that feels like it cheapens those designs.
i went throught this couple years ago, around here. If I get five couple from the arch, with my name on them. I owned those five copies. I cannot reproduce. I can give those five copy (not sell) to four other people and build four extra house . also I myself can build that same house over and over as long as I am the builder. and I use the same copy of the print. I do not own the design but I own the five prints.
There is a housing project here with twenty copies of the same house and there is only 21 houses in the project.