Rights + Contract with architect

16 years ago

Hi all,

I'm fairly new here, but I had a question that relates to typical verbiage in contracts with architects. I've got a contract which states that the owner owns the design, but the architect retains ownership of the instruments of service (drawings and specifications).

* Is this typical?

* This sounds like as the owner you wouldn't be able to take the same documents/design and use them on a different project. Does this sound fair? I'm thinking that you bought the design/docs thus you should be able to use it how you see fit.

"1. Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the ARCHITECT and the ARCHITECTÂS consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The ARCHITECT and the ARCHITECTÂS consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

2. At the completion of Schematic Design as recommended by the ARCHITECT, the OWNER shall retain ownership of the Schematic Design for use in this project. However, if the ARCHITECT is not retained for the Construction Documentation / Permitting Phase for this project then all information connecting the ARCHITECT and California State License shall be removed from the drawings and documentation for this project."

Thanks for any insight!

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (6)

brickeyee
16 years ago
The standard AIA contract is very slanted towards the architect.

Beware.
athensmomof3
16 years ago
Yes it is. That does not sound unusual. Not that it is not negotiable - just not unusual.
Related Professionals
Rome Architects & Building Designers · Vidalia Architects & Building Designers · Joplin Architects & Building Designers · Rocky Mount Architects & Building Designers · Columbus Architects & Building Designers · Beaumont Architects & Building Designers · Traverse City Architects & Building Designers · Youngstown Architects & Building Designers · Middletown Design-Build Firms · Oxnard Design-Build Firms · Palm Desert Design-Build Firms · Terre Haute Home Builders · Dayton Home Builders · Lufkin Home Builders · Moline Home Builders
sue36
16 years ago
It is standard for architects to retain copyright to the design, docs, etc. You cannot even make a photocopy of the plans. You are not buying the design and docs, you are licensing them. You don't own the design, you own the building that results. Unless the contract states otherwise the architect can use the design or portions of it for other clients. I have never heard of an architect that would allow the homeowner to retain the copyright. Most architects have a certain "style", there really are no unique houses. Their education, experience, creativity is where the design comes from, they retain that and use it from project to project.

If I was spending a lot on an architect I would want the right to use the plan for a rebuilt (after fire, etc.) and I would want some type of assurances that the same design will not be built within a certain proximity of my house.

If you want the right to build the house again (on another lot) you will have to pay additional for that.

This is all "generally speaking"...
ww13
Original Author
16 years ago
Thanks everyone for the speedy replies. Putting it in terms of licensing versus buying helps to make things more understandable.
creek_side
16 years ago
The only thing in there that puzzles me a bit is statement # 2.

2. At the completion of Schematic Design as recommended by the ARCHITECT, the OWNER shall retain ownership of the Schematic Design for use in this project. However, if the ARCHITECT is not retained for the Construction Documentation / Permitting Phase for this project then all information connecting the ARCHITECT and California State License shall be removed from the drawings and documentation for this project.

Our architect was not retained for anything beyond preparing the design (specifications and drawings), and her name was all over the documents.

Would you still have usable drawings in the state of California if the architects name and license was removed from them? It seems like this wording might force you to hire the architect for more than design purposes.
finehomebuilding
16 years ago
You definitely should make the changes that give you the right to rebuild after any accident.
Depending on how involved the architect is during the construction phase, you may want the "right" to make photocopies. If the builder needs to get more bids from subs (particularly on finishing work), I've found it is less expensive and faster if I could supply extra copies or parts of copies as needed.
I'm in NC and it's probably required in California, but check your contract to make certain that the architect has the plans reviewed and approved by a structural engineer before he releases them for bid or construction.