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
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-12-2014 10:59
From: Scott Braley
Subject: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies
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
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-10-2014 18:48
From: Robert Reinhardt
Subject: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies
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
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-16-2014 18:03
From: Mary Graham
Subject: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies
@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
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-15-2014 17:31
From: William Grant
Subject: Replacing a historic home destroyed by fire & insurance comapnies
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
-------------------------------------------