Egbert writes: I have paid an architect in full ($7,000) for plans to an addition that measures 18×30 ft. The plan was declined by the zoning board, which later approved a revised plan for a smaller addition of 18×20 ft. When I asked him for the CAD files, the architect refused to give them to me. Kindly advise whether I have the right to own the CAD files? Also, should I be charged less for the smaller plan?
Steve Bliss, of BuildingAdvisor.com, responds: The ownership of architectural plans and CAD files is a common source of misunderstandings between architects and homeowners.
Unfortunately, the architect is under no obligation to give you the CAD files unless you specifically agreed to that in your design agreement. In the standard AIA agreement, the architect retains ownership of the copyright in the plans, and you purchase the right to use the plans once in the building of your house. It’s like buying an original work of art – you own the painting, but not the right to copy it and sell the copies. Similarly you will not have access to the CAD files.
Other arrangements are possible, but need to be agreed to beforehand. It is possible that you could negotiate a deal to obtain the CAD files for a fee – or for free if the architect has a change of heart. Perhaps if you explain to him how you intend to use the CAD files, he will be more cooperative.
It’s always best to discuss these issues up front – for example, what will happen to the plans if you decide to change designers or wish to modify the plans at a later date.
Regarding the fee, the answer will depend, in part, on the contract you signed with the architect, assuming you have a written agreement. Sometimes architects charge by the hour, sometimes as a percentage of the contract price. The smaller addition would presumably cost less, so perhaps the design work should cost less.
It sounds like the architect had to rework the plans, however, which took additional hours. If you were paying by the hour, this could have added to the final cost – not reduced it. If you are paying based on a fixed fee, you can expect to pay 15% to 20% of construction costs on a remodeling project if the architect provided comprehensive services (design, documents, bidding, and construction administration).
One key issue is whether the architect was negligent in designing an addition that was declined in permitting? If the design violated an obvious zoning regulation, then you would have a strong case that he should only charge you for the final, smaller design. If the design was rejected for reasons that the architect could not have reasonably anticipated, then you would likely have to absorb the extra design fees (assuming that you paid by the hour).
Since you have already paid in full, you don’t have a lot of leverage here. Whether or not you have a strong case legally, legal action is probably not cost-effective for the amount of money involved. Your best bet may be to express your concerns in a letter and meet with the architect to try to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution.
Roland Arriaga, AIA, NCARB, Architect says
Is It Illegal To Copy House Plans?
I have a client that I did schematic plans for on an historic home in the French Quarter in New Orleans. Unfortunately the client could not close on the property, But a new buyer came to me and asked me for a fee quote to continue the work I had started with the previous client. However, that buyer is interviewing other architects handing out copies of my drawings which I don’t know where she got them from. I assume that she will hire the lowest cost provider from the way it sounds. And, my plans I had prepared are circulating and being distributed without my consent. If I am not hired to continue the work I had started, I do not want facilitate anyone else’s effort in doing the work I had started to do. I spent over 300 hours doing design work and got paid very well for it. Shouldn’t I be angry that my plans are being used to make someone else’s work easier? My plans are copyrighted and I feel that my ownership rights have been violated as the sole owner of the plans. Should I take them to court? Or should I consult a copyright attorney?
buildingadvisor says
These are legal questions and I am not a lawyer – so you need to check with a lawyer for an authoritative answer.
In general, however, you are correct that your plans are copyrighted under law to the extent that they are creative and original, even if you did not stamp them as copyrighted. If you registered the copyright, you do get additional legal protections. Unless you specifically granted the original client (or the new owner) the right to make copies of the plans and distribute them, then they are probably violating copyright law.
Moreover, if another designer or builder uses your plans to design or build a house, then they are also infringing your copyright. The owner of the new home is also at fault for the copyright violation.
The problem is that there are no copyright police. Copyright law can only be enforced by bringing a lawsuit. And then you need to prove, in court, that the new house design is “substantially similar” to the house you designed.
It is very expensive and time-consuming to bring a lawsuit, so you need to decide whether it is worth the effort. If a developer built 200 houses using your plans, it could certainly be worthwhile to sue. For one client building one house, probably not so much.
If your main goal is to stop the infringement, a “cease and desist” letter from you or a lawyer (better), would probably do the trick. This would notify the new owner that they are infringing your copyright and threaten legal action if they continue to circulate the plans. At this point, they may not even realize that they are violating the law.
Bridget D says
Should Architect Charge Extra For Drawings?
The architect we hired billed us Schematic Design Drawing(lump sum) and Construction & Permitting Drawings, however he is billing us for copies of the drawings. Is this appropriate? We feel that the Construction and Permit Drawings (lump sum) should automatically be provided to us we paid the lump sum to him for his services. Please advise. Thank you
buildingadvisor says
It sounds like you hired the architect on an a la carte basis, paying individually for just the services you needed.
It also sounds like one of the services was called “Construction & Permitting Drawings,” which logically should include at least two sets of blueprints – one for permitting and one for the contractor.
This should have been made clear in the agreement you had with the architect. If it was not spelled out in the agreement, then you will have to negotiate with the architect. In my experience, most architectural and drafting services include a limited number of plan sets and the client pays extra for additional sets, at a pre-established rate. But there are no standardized fee schedules or procedures for architectural services – each sets up their practice and policies as they see fit.
Depending on circumstances, local permitting, financing, etc., you will usually need at least five sets of plans. That includes one or two for the building department, one or more for the contractor, and one each for the lender and yourself. It’s best to establish up front how many sets of plans will be provided, what extra sets will cost, and whether any electronic versions will be provided, such as PDFs. In most cases, architects will not release the original CAD files (reproducible masters), which remain their property.
Read more about Hiring An Architect
Lucy says
Who Owns Plans Based On Client’s Sketch?
Hi Steve. A question of ownership of the plans: If the client sketches out the design and gives it to the architect to draw it up, who actually owns the copyright to the drawings. I feel the copyright rule allows architects to hold the client to ransom even if the client works out exactly what they want and they are merely copying it into some software.
buildingadvisor says
That’s an interesting question – and probably one with a murky answer. It’s not clear from your email what the dispute is about. Are you trying to get the CAD files from the architect? In general, architects are very reluctant to release their CAD files. It is partly a liability issue, but also a financial issue as you are suggesting. You need to go back to the architect for additional copies, modifications, etc. Unless you have a written agreement to the contrary, the architect generally owns the copyright and the computer files. Architects are selling their design services, not the drawings themselves. This is the standard arrangement and is generally supported by the courts. It is also part of standard AIA architect-client contracts.
Copyright law protects the creative expression of an idea, but not the underlying idea. For example, you can copyright a specific illustration of an apple, but not the idea of an apple drawing.
When more than one person contribute substantially to a creative work, it is considered a joint work – for example, a book with two authors. In a joint work, each person has equal and independent ownership of the copyright. In your case, it is possible that a court would consider the finished drawings a joint work in court (but of course it will never go to court, so this is really an academic question). The architect would claim that you merely contributed some ideas, but that he made and owns his creative expression of those ideas.
As a practical matter, you would certainly own your original sketch but, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, would not own the CAD files. If you had gone to a draftsman rather than an architect, he might have been more amenable to giving you the CAD files as drafting work is considered more technical than creative. It’s always best to discuss these issues beforehand and to put your agreement in writing.
Sharon Knowles says
Not all Drafters are male; as such, ‘Draftsman’ is an antiquated term. I am a CAD Technologist and have a client who requested AutoCAD files for their contractor. Once I relinquish my drawings, my logo is no longer attached as an external reference and the contractor can assume ownership of the drawings I created which I’m not comfortable with! Normally if a client requires revisions, it’s because the municipality needs to have specifications met, then they send me a request to do the changes and I place the revision date and notes on the layouts where changes were made. Giving a .dwg file to a third party doesn’t sit right with me for liability reasons. Yes the service I provide is technical; however, in large part is also creative because placement of dimensions, text with leaders, blocks, hatching, etc. are all placed for legibility and in a creative context.