Small Project Design

Expand all | Collapse all

Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

  • 1.  Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 10-15-2014 05:31 PM
    Just another reason for Architects to become Contractors and flood the banking and insurance industry with our qualifications.

    -------------------------------------------
    William Grant AIA
    AD Graphics
    Missoula MT
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 10-16-2014 06:03 PM
    @William Grant
    Good advice. I encourage every building savvy architect to do so.
    I got mine in 1996.
    Mary Graham
    AR12527
    CGC058238
    CCC1328075


    -------------------------------------------
    Mary Graham
    Pompano Beach FL
    -------------------------------------------




  • 3.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-10-2014 06:48 PM
    Thanks for all of your advice and shared experience. After two months of discussion, my client and I were not able to reach agreement regarding the third party agent, fee and schedule.

    Today, I registered the schematic design with the U.S. Copyright  Office and notified my former client and the town permit officials of my action.

    I'm not exactly clear what the results of my action will be or if I actually own the exclusive right to the design since I was paid a fee for the service. I'd appreciate any advice.

    Thanks.

    -------------------------------------------
    Robert Reinhardt AIA
    sole proprietor
    Reinhardt Architects
    Garrett Park MD
    -------------------------------------------




  • 4.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-11-2014 05:45 PM
    Robert,

    As I understand your situation, you had an agreement in place for the schematic design phase.  I would imagine your agreement clearly stated your rights to ownership of your intellectual property.  Unless you specifically relinquished them in writing, I would believe that your rights to your intellectual property would still be in effect even if they are not clearly stated in a signed agreement.  Whether you are paid a fee or not typically has no bearing on your rights to ownership of your intellectual property, only an effect on a client's ability to use your intellectual property for their benefit.

    Best wishes.  This is an unfortunate situation.

    -------------------------------------------
    Gregory Nagel AIA NCARB
    Principal Architect
    Nagel Architects
    Elm Grove WI
    -------------------------------------------




  • 5.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-11-2014 09:47 PM
    Robert,

    Sorry it didn't work out.  I believe you own the copyright outright by virtue of your stamp, but it always helps to have a note on your drawing title blocks (according to a legal seminar I attended).

    We use the following:
    "COPYRIGHT ADAM J TROTT ARCHITECT.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    NO PORTION OF THIS DRAWING MAY BE REPRODUCED, STORED OR TRANSMITTED
    BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE ARCHITECT".

    I believe the relevant issue that gives you this power is that you have professional liability on this work.  Therefore, you have power over the use of it.  Someone else cannot assign your liability onto a project without your explicit approval. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Adam Trott AIA
    Owner
    Adam J. Trott Architect
    Erie PA
    -------------------------------------------




  • 6.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-12-2014 07:09 PM
    Hello all,
    I just attended a lecture on protecting intellectual property given by a lawyer who specializes in this area.  He said he has always wondered why architects don't copyright their work more often.  It costs only $50 to register drawings or images at www.copyright.gov. Multiple drawings and images can be uploaded in one batch ie PDF"s, JPEG's, etc. Hard-copies can be registered via snail-mail.  He literally said we should  "Copyright early and copyright often!". Register drawings even when "In Progress" if copies are being distributed to Owners, Contractors or Consultants. Even without registering, one should place their name, the "C" within a circle, and the year of the creation in the title block of every drawing. Registering officially is really the only way to be sure to have full legal copyright protection.

    'hope this is helpful to my peers.

    Meanwhile, the speaker also covered the need to have everyone who works on your projects to sign a "Work for Hire" agreement in order to protect your rights to the work.  Otherwise no matter how small or casual a person's contribution to your work has been, they can claim up to one half of the ownership of the work.  Something I never knew before and something to check into further. This may require a lawyer to draw up some language.  Perhaps this can be covered in an office policy manual to cover employees - I'm not completely clear on this.

    Regards,
    Robert


    -------------------------------------------
    Robert Larsen AIA
    Principal
    Robert R. Larsen, A.I.A.
    Denver CO
    -------------------------------------------




  • 7.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-13-2014 06:03 PM
    As a follow up to my comments below re "Works for Hire" - see Wickipedia for a rather in-depth discussion of this subject.
    Robert Larsen

    -------------------------------------------
    Robert Larsen AIA
    Principal
    Robert R. Larsen, A.I.A.
    Denver CO
    -------------------------------------------




  • 8.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-12-2014 10:59 AM

    Ownership, copyright and instruments of service --- a fundamental element of practice and the contract principles, as reflected in AIA documents, is that the services of the Architect are in fact services. The clients pays for the service - the client does not own the service. The Architect retains possession of his/her intellectual property when duly copyrighted. Moreover, the documents which record decisions made as part of providing the services are in fact "instruments of service."  Clients no more own your design or your ideas than you own a football team because you buy a ticket to watch them play.

    Bone up on the fundamentals of AIA contracts and the profound implications of instruments of service - these principles and legal standings serve us well.

    Full disclosure - I am not an attorney, nor do I profess to be an attorney, nor do I in any way represent my services as legal or other such services. Having said that, as an Architect in private practice for 30+ years I have dealt with literally many hundreds of contracts and contract negotiations.  Hold fast to your intellectual property, "copyright everything," and don't sign away these most important aspects of your work and practice. That has been my experience, and it has served me well in the practice of architecture.

    Thanks.
    -------------------------------------------
    Scott Braley FAIA
    CEO
    Braley Consulting & Training
    Atlanta GA
    -------------------------------------------




  • 9.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-13-2014 06:37 PM
    One aspect that seems to be lost in this discussion is the license (express or implied) that we give our clients to use our intellectual property. A copyright may be useful for preventing OTHER people from using our designs, or the wanton replication of a design by a developer, but our own clients (assuming that they have paid our fees) will unlikely be able to be prevented from using the design on that site. (Not represented to be legal advice, of course. Check with an attorney.) Additionally, that license may be fully assignable to someone else if they purchase the property and the design has not yet been built, if there is no explicit non-assignment provision in our contract.

    Another aspect that troubles me is the assumption by most architects that their design is necessarily copyrightable. What can be actually protected by copyright for a particular project may be far less than imagined, if it exists at all. The copyright case I referenced earlier makes clear the difficulties in claiming a design copyright for designs using historic styles, as well as conceptual designs mostly based on function and utility. Most of the residential architecture I see around here probably is not even worth the $50 to register, because there is nothing copyrightable in the design. The "protectable elements" are non-existent.

    Somehow, architects and architecture managed to get by for many hundreds of years without the Architectural Copyright Act. Is the profession really significantly better off (and making significantly more money) now that we have even more grounds available for a lawsuit against someone using what we believe is "our" design? (Which we really cribbed off of bits of ideas compiled from our predecessors, anyway.) I like good design, but if the profession believes that the artistic component is our primary, and highly proprietary, contribution to the built environment, we are doomed. Just my opinion, of course....
    -------------------------------------------
    Richard Morrison
    Architect-Interior Designer
    Redwood City CA
    -------------------------------------------




  • 10.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-14-2014 05:50 PM
    I agree with Richard Morrison in a number of points.

    First, normally we are granting a license of use to our clients for the particular project.  

    Also, copyright of a particular design suggests that the design is unique.  Given the vast number of plans created and built, claiming a house design unique, becomes at some point, to use a musical comparison, like getting a copyright for the blues.

    I think we have a better case for claiming the uniqueness of the imagery we create than the proportion and arrangement of the rooms in the image.  So if someone were to take your drawings and put their name on it, I think you'd be in the catbird seat.

    I still put a claim of copyright on my drawings.  I think it is just street smarts.  The point of any deterrent it to enter the mind of a potential adversary and cause the following thought to arise:  "Not today."

    Out of a few hundred clients not all are my best friends but maybe two were out and out dishonest and despicable.


    -------------------------------------------
    Donald Wardlaw AIA
    More Than Construction, Inc.
    Oakland CA
    -------------------------------------------




  • 11.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-12-2014 07:55 PM
    In Sep. 25, 2009, the AIA published the 4th in a series on copyright entitled "Copyright or Copy Wrong" that explains "instruments of Service" and that they are property of the Architect whether work was completed or not.
    The drawings do not have to have the "copyright notice" (ie: Copyright 2008 John H. Smith) on the drawings, but it helps greatly, if you have to go to court.  This would cover use of your drawings.
    This same 4th document also explains protection for architectural design.  The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 (AWCPA) extended copyright to architectural design itself.  I am not sure how it would protect the actual design if you copied the structure and details.
    You may want to obtain the entire series that started in July 18, 2008, published in "AIArchitect This Week" and written by Gregory Hancks, AIA, AIA Associate General Counsel.
    -------------------------------------------
    D. Cook AIA
    Tipp City OH
    -------------------------------------------




  • 12.  RE: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies

    Posted 11-11-2014 05:46 PM

    You might want to look at this case: Zalewski v. CICERO BUILDER DEV., INC., Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2014. (You can find it on Google Scholar.) It illustrates the difficulty of claiming a copyright in a design based on an historic style. (Not all copying is "wrongul" copying.)

    -------------------------------------------
    Richard Morrison
    Architect-Interior Designer
    Redwood City CA
    -------------------------------------------