Anybody have information regarding copyright laws as it pertains to architectural drawings, signed and sealed, and allowing residents to come into the village and either viewing the drawings or leaving with a copy of a sheet or two for reference.
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
copyright laws
- Thread starter rktect 1
- Start date
mark handler
SAWHORSE
You can allow someone to look at them. You can allow someone to take notes and do sketches, but you can not copy them or give them to someone to copy without the designer’s permission. Most building departments do not allow someone to remove the plans from their office, so the later option, of allowing someone to copy it, is a moot issue. To allow someone to take the approved set "for research" is stupid; you are giving someone a nonreplicable government document. You better talk with you city attorney.
Allowing “Old plans” to be copied after the copyright expires, or the designer does, is different. But the new property owner needs to prove that and even then you should send them to a reprographics company for them, not giving them the plans
The drawings and the buildings Architects design are subject to intellectual property protection under the copyright laws of the United States.
By letting people copy the plans you are allowing third parties literally to "steal" the Architects work-product by making unauthorized copies without appropriate compensation.
In the Architectural Works Protection Copyright Act of 1990, Congress for the first time made clear that "architectural works" are subject to copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(8). The Act broadly defines "architectural works" to include "the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings." 17 U.S.C. § 101. The Act goes on to state that the work includes "the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design," but that it does not include "individual standard features." This means that not only the architect's plans (which are typically printed on paper), but also the design as expressed in the building itself, are protected by the copyright laws. An infringer is thus prohibited not only from copying written drawings, but also, in effect, from "reverse-engineering" the design from the building itself.
Most of the provisions of the Copyright Act that apply to writings, photographs and sound recordings apply to "architectural works," as well. The Act does, however, contain a few exceptions to take into account the fact that the only manifestation of an architect's work is likely to be a publicly accessible building, owned and used by someone else. Thus, although a copyright owner generally has the right to preclude a licensee from modifying the work (i.e., making "derivative works") or from defacing the work (as in the case of a painting), the owner of a building retains the right to make additions or alterations to the building, or even to destroy the building, without seeking permission from the architect. 17 U.S.C. § 120(b). Similarly, the public generally has the right to paint pictures or take photographs of the building without infringing the copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 120(a). But not copy the plans.These concessions preserve the owner's right to do with his property what he wishes and the public's right to enjoy a skyline or to view an individual building in photographs or in print without fear of infringement.
Architects often have two main reasons for seeking copyright protection for their work. First, as in the case of the designer of "tract" homes, the architect may wish to prevent his client or third-parties from building unauthorized copies of the house he designed. Second, the architect may wish to prevent his client from using plans that the client has not paid yet for.
As soon as you copy those plans, you are in violation of federal copyright law. It allows people to circumvent the paying the original designer money ("...direct or indirect commercial advantage"). The designer may-not want that person to build that house there. Frank do you really think that you could build any house you want, just because it is in you archives, think again.
The reproduction or distribution done to provide the people a direct commercial advantage, in violation of federal copyright law. That person will not have to heir someone to do as builts. (Commercial advantage).
It's really a moot issue, the courts already decided.
Allowing “Old plans” to be copied after the copyright expires, or the designer does, is different. But the new property owner needs to prove that and even then you should send them to a reprographics company for them, not giving them the plans
The drawings and the buildings Architects design are subject to intellectual property protection under the copyright laws of the United States.
By letting people copy the plans you are allowing third parties literally to "steal" the Architects work-product by making unauthorized copies without appropriate compensation.
In the Architectural Works Protection Copyright Act of 1990, Congress for the first time made clear that "architectural works" are subject to copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(8). The Act broadly defines "architectural works" to include "the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings." 17 U.S.C. § 101. The Act goes on to state that the work includes "the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design," but that it does not include "individual standard features." This means that not only the architect's plans (which are typically printed on paper), but also the design as expressed in the building itself, are protected by the copyright laws. An infringer is thus prohibited not only from copying written drawings, but also, in effect, from "reverse-engineering" the design from the building itself.
Most of the provisions of the Copyright Act that apply to writings, photographs and sound recordings apply to "architectural works," as well. The Act does, however, contain a few exceptions to take into account the fact that the only manifestation of an architect's work is likely to be a publicly accessible building, owned and used by someone else. Thus, although a copyright owner generally has the right to preclude a licensee from modifying the work (i.e., making "derivative works") or from defacing the work (as in the case of a painting), the owner of a building retains the right to make additions or alterations to the building, or even to destroy the building, without seeking permission from the architect. 17 U.S.C. § 120(b). Similarly, the public generally has the right to paint pictures or take photographs of the building without infringing the copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 120(a). But not copy the plans.These concessions preserve the owner's right to do with his property what he wishes and the public's right to enjoy a skyline or to view an individual building in photographs or in print without fear of infringement.
Architects often have two main reasons for seeking copyright protection for their work. First, as in the case of the designer of "tract" homes, the architect may wish to prevent his client or third-parties from building unauthorized copies of the house he designed. Second, the architect may wish to prevent his client from using plans that the client has not paid yet for.
As soon as you copy those plans, you are in violation of federal copyright law. It allows people to circumvent the paying the original designer money ("...direct or indirect commercial advantage"). The designer may-not want that person to build that house there. Frank do you really think that you could build any house you want, just because it is in you archives, think again.
The reproduction or distribution done to provide the people a direct commercial advantage, in violation of federal copyright law. That person will not have to heir someone to do as builts. (Commercial advantage).
It's really a moot issue, the courts already decided.
One more question and thanks for all the info.
I have a set of plans for an addition. The addition has been hand drawn by a non licensed designer on an old set of drawings from a licensed DP of the original house. We did not give him these drawings of the original house, I imagine the homeowner did. Can someone just draw the new addition on the existing home plans? Could someone show remodelling work and additions on someone elses older plans?
I have a set of plans for an addition. The addition has been hand drawn by a non licensed designer on an old set of drawings from a licensed DP of the original house. We did not give him these drawings of the original house, I imagine the homeowner did. Can someone just draw the new addition on the existing home plans? Could someone show remodelling work and additions on someone elses older plans?
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Were the original plans copyrighted?
Are they sealed and signed? do they display your name, contact info, seal and signature?
Is it a fight you are willing to take on? Is it worth it?
Are they sealed and signed? do they display your name, contact info, seal and signature?
Is it a fight you are willing to take on? Is it worth it?
Two separate issues.
1st. I would rather our village did not copy signed and sealed drawings and give them out to residents, contractors or other design proffessionals.
2nd. The set that I mentioned above, I have written a review comment to remove all information such as previous architects names, company names, seals, addresses, license numbers, etc so on and so forth. Bascially the title block where he crossed out in a black marker this information and hand wrote his own name.
1st. I would rather our village did not copy signed and sealed drawings and give them out to residents, contractors or other design proffessionals.
2nd. The set that I mentioned above, I have written a review comment to remove all information such as previous architects names, company names, seals, addresses, license numbers, etc so on and so forth. Bascially the title block where he crossed out in a black marker this information and hand wrote his own name.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY
I am not an attorney
The information I post should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice. You are strongly advised to consult an attorney for advice regarding any matter related to copyright.
The copyright in the work immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work; only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
An appropriate copyright notice should be placed on all design and construction documents. Since another party that willfully intends to infringe a copyright may be likely to remove a title block on a drawing, it may be helpful to also place the notice in a discreet location in the body of the drawing where it cannot be easily removed without visibly altering the image. The two most common forms of copyright notice are:
© 2003 John Dough, Architect
Copyright 2003, Jane Doe Architect, Inc.
While it is not necessary to register an architectural work with the U.S. Copyright Office to retain the copyright in it, registration entitles the copyright holder to additional remedies in the event of infringement.
When Copyright Protection Becomes Public Domain
The data below will let you know when you can safely use a piece of art or music without permission because it is now in public domain after copyright protection expiration, or how long the copyright protection will last.
•Published before 1923 - now in public domain
•Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with a copyright notice © or "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]" - copyright protection lasts 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, now in public domain.
•Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with no notice - now in public domain
•Published from 1964 to 1977 - When published with notice - copyright protection lasts 28 years for first term; automatic extension of 67 years for second term for a total of 95 years.
•Created before 1/1/1978 but not published - copyright notice is irrelevant - copyright protection lasts for the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2002, whichever is greater
•Created before 1/1/1978 and published between 1/1/1978 and 12/31/2002 - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2047, whichever is greater
•Created 1/1/1978 or after - When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts for the life of author and 70 years based on the the longest living author if jointly created or if work of corporate authorship, works for hire, or anonymous and pseudonymous works, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.
I am not an attorney
The information I post should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice. You are strongly advised to consult an attorney for advice regarding any matter related to copyright.
The copyright in the work immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work; only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
An appropriate copyright notice should be placed on all design and construction documents. Since another party that willfully intends to infringe a copyright may be likely to remove a title block on a drawing, it may be helpful to also place the notice in a discreet location in the body of the drawing where it cannot be easily removed without visibly altering the image. The two most common forms of copyright notice are:
© 2003 John Dough, Architect
Copyright 2003, Jane Doe Architect, Inc.
While it is not necessary to register an architectural work with the U.S. Copyright Office to retain the copyright in it, registration entitles the copyright holder to additional remedies in the event of infringement.
When Copyright Protection Becomes Public Domain
The data below will let you know when you can safely use a piece of art or music without permission because it is now in public domain after copyright protection expiration, or how long the copyright protection will last.
•Published before 1923 - now in public domain
•Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with a copyright notice © or "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]" - copyright protection lasts 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, now in public domain.
•Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with no notice - now in public domain
•Published from 1964 to 1977 - When published with notice - copyright protection lasts 28 years for first term; automatic extension of 67 years for second term for a total of 95 years.
•Created before 1/1/1978 but not published - copyright notice is irrelevant - copyright protection lasts for the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2002, whichever is greater
•Created before 1/1/1978 and published between 1/1/1978 and 12/31/2002 - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2047, whichever is greater
•Created 1/1/1978 or after - When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts for the life of author and 70 years based on the the longest living author if jointly created or if work of corporate authorship, works for hire, or anonymous and pseudonymous works, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
No problem
AegisFPE
Silver Member
With regard to an addition, the design drawings, even "record drawings," are not necessarily exact "as-builts." Therefore, trying to marry a new addition on paper may be one thing; trying to join it to what is existing is another. I would expect that while a prudent RDP may use available existing plans for reference, they would be creating their own plans to address the specific conditions at the interface of the existing and new work.
As far as copyright information, when clients have requested readily editable electronic documents, we have reminded them that we maintain whether or not it contains a visible copyright notice, our documents are protected by copyright law pursuant to Title 17 of United States Law; the Berne Convention provides that a copyright is automatic, and does not require formal registration or display of a copyright notice.
As far as copyright information, when clients have requested readily editable electronic documents, we have reminded them that we maintain whether or not it contains a visible copyright notice, our documents are protected by copyright law pursuant to Title 17 of United States Law; the Berne Convention provides that a copyright is automatic, and does not require formal registration or display of a copyright notice.
Yankee
REGISTERED
I take just the opposite tack -- do NOT remove the original title block information, but circle, highlight or bubble and Notate that the present submittal has used the original as a base plan. To take the original information off and use the image is, I believe, not legal.
Ask legal. Plans filed for permit are public records, and will fall under your state (and local) public record laws.rktect 1 said:
In any event you better have a clear legal justification for denying access. I'd bet that enforcing a third party copyright won't cut it in most courts.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Unpublished works are also copyrighted.brudgers said:
The copyright in the work immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work;
The really cool thing about my job is that I am not regulated to enforce just this IRC code minimum. Such as, when I see an DP call out TJI's that don't make the span for the product indicated. I get to tell the DP, "the listed TJI XXXX floor joists don't span the distance shown on the plans, correct accordingly." which I have done. Same with misleading, misrepresentation or incorrect information such as when I tell the DP to correct the listed property address. Etc. I don't do that to dp's because I'm a jerk. I do it for clarity purposes.brudgers said:
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
The documents are open. They can look at them. They can take notes. They made sketches of them. But like a copyrighted book they cannot copy them. Cities do not provide Xeroxes of the code books to anyone that asks.cda said:
Yankee
REGISTERED
And that is a real problem. If it is law, it should be available without a price tag (except the cost of copying)mark handler said:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
I get requests, as the Architect of record, all the time, and after people sign a liability release, I send Stripped cad files, for there use for marketing and TI’s. I do not send them structural civil or mechanical drawings, nor do I send site plans, sections or details.
Most Architects are accommodating, Some charge for the service. But cities cannot give my property out without permission.
Most Architects are accommodating, Some charge for the service. But cities cannot give my property out without permission.
The sense definition of "published" when it comes to copyright includes many things which would be called "unpublished" in common usage.mark handler said:
One way to think about it is that when it comes to copyright, unpublished means sitting in your head. If it's on paper or in an electronic file, it's published for the sake of copyright.
I see. The x through the original DP's was a structural issue, and therefore a good reason to reject the plans. Have you heard that arial fonts are an electrical hazard? Consider requiring Times New Roman with the additional protection of serifs.rktect 1 said: