legally the drawings belong to the architect, however are you sure that architect works exclusively with that builder? Can you go to that architect and hire him to produce the drawings you can then take to any builder?

I don't know who the architect is. the only way to find out is for me to call the builder (who I'm not using) and say 'can you tell me who your archtect is (so I can have someone else build my house)?'- That would be a little awkward...

It's not a big deal at all for you to ask for a referral to an architect from a builder. All he knows is that you are thinking of building. You're so far away from the real process (just like many many others) that it's not like you are snubbing him for a build. And it's not like a sketch of a floor plan is anything remotely close to a building plan even if you talk to other architects.

You just tell him that you like a house that the architect has designed and you want to talk with him about possibly designing your home. That's the truth, and it also implies that you've been talking to other architects as well---which you should be. While you're at it, ask him about how much the home you like cost to build. That can give you an idea right away if you can afford a similar plan.

And when you do finally have plans, you should definitely bid them out and include this builder. Never say you are only going to use Builder A unless you can afford to approach a build without any competitive bidding. Building a home is already more expensive than buying, and if you don't add some competition to the process, there's no incentive for restraining costs.

GD- I was going to say almost exactly that, but you beat me to it.
I am guessing the home is close to a spec home, in which case would not be a big deal for your preferred architect to "referance" that plan assuming he will be changing it up.
However the more bids you can get from good builders, the better off you are on pricing. Also realize a bid can usually be negociated after you get it. Multiple bids at least gives you some sort of common ground reference point to compare each of them too. Also sometimes, depending on how they break them out, you can see who is including what.

Such great advice - and you are so right. My heart is set on this builder but that's just not smart to go with one and not at least explore others. So in what part of the process would you purchase your land??- before or after you choose a builder? And that would mean the architect would have to help you choose your land, correct? I know, dumb question but I seriously don't know! ;)

Kudos for being aware of copyright issues and for wanting to do the right thing!

You've asked a very good question that far too many people ignore - to their potential peril - so I hope you don't mind if I take this opportunity to try and educate everyone on some important - but all to often ignored - aspects of copyright law as it pertains to architectural drawings.

lzerarc is mostly correct. Typically architectural drawings do belong to the architect...but not always. By contract, an architect and his client can agree that the copyright to the completed design will belong to the client. Or, if an architect is an employee of, say, an architectural firm or a design-build firm, the firm would own the copyrights under a "work for hire" doctrine. Architects can also transfer their copyrights to others at any time.

In this case tho, if you can't find out who owns the copyright of the floorplan you like, it doesn't matter who actually owns it. What you know is that somebody (not you) has the copyright and, therefore if you copy it, you would be infringing that right. So, since you want to do the right thing, you basically have only two choices: 1) Find out who owns the copyright - if you can - and get permission to copy it, or 2) DON'T COPY IT!

But, you say, you don't want to copy the entire plan, you want to make some changes so it wouldn't be a true copy. Sorry but making "some changes" won't cut it. Copyright protection is not lost simply because the infringer makes some changes to the design. Making a copy with some changes is often referred to as "making a derivative work" and, with a few exceptions that are not applicable here, making a derivative work is still infringement. Both you and the builder could still be held liable for copyright infringement.

In the case of a copyright infringment suit, the plaintiff basically has to prove two things: 1) that an ordinary person would see the overall form or "the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements" of the alleged copy as "substantially similar" to the original and 2) that the alleged infringer had access to the original design.

There is no hard and fast rule that says "if you change a floor-plan by X%, it is no longer a copy so you don't have to worry about copyright infringeent." It all depends on whether an ordinary person would think the two designs are substantially similar. Obviously, the more you change the plan from the original, the less likely you are to be found liable for infringement. But, 15% is not really very much of a change.

And, the more unique the orignial plan is from the run-of-the-mill stuff you see everyday, the more likely it is that any copying you do will be obvious. This is because it is very probably the "unique elements" in the design that caught your eye in the first place... so those are probably the very things you would not be changing. True?

Yes, every architect and designer draws "inspiration" from the works of others. But, when "drawing inspiration" crosses the line into "copying" (even with a few changes) - THEN one is stealing the intellectual property of another. And that is both ethically wrong and illegal.

So, you've found a floorplan you really really like. Great, let yourself be "inspired" by that plan but do NOT copy it.

Instead, think hard about what it is that you like about the plan. Make lists detailing what you like (i.e., the kitchen and living room are open to each other; a soaring view out the windows to either side of the fireplace; a study right off the kitchen so cook can chat with spouse working at the computer; a cozy breakfast nook with windows all the way around it; master bedroom is tucked back behind the dining room so that noise from the living room won't reach it; secondary bedrooms surround a computer room/playroom instead of opening off being off a long hallway; etc., etc., etc.,) Take all that information to the architect or builder of your choice and let him/her create an original plan just for you.

Or, keep searching online until you find a plan that is very close to perfect for you, purchase it (along with a license to make alterations (I think all the online plan places allow for that option), then take your plan and license to a local architect/draftsman to make the alterations you want.

Here are some links to some articles that might be helpful...

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2005/08/22/focus1.html?page=1

http://www2.gtlaw.com/pub/articles/2004/valcarcelm04a.pdf

Again, mcfromct, you are very wise to have asked the question you did! I do hope this all works out well for you.

BTW - while it might be a bit awkward to go to the builder and say "I don't want to use you to build my home but I do want to find out who your architect is..." there is no law that says you can't have a friend stop in, chat with the builder, look at his plans and casually ask who the architect is. Builder may not tell them, but HE just might. You can then call the architect up and find out from him if he has an exclusive contract with that builder or if he is free to design a home for you to be built by another builder.

Best of luck!

ok ok ok Bev...I gave the cliff notes version :)Didnt think I would have to go into as much detail in this thread since the OP clearly has some sense of morals.

True...my drawings done through my firm do not belong to ME, personally, they belong to my firm. However work done on the side would belong to me, unless, like you said, I contractually release it to the client. In which case, they can do whatever they like. Typically this includes a buyout, which many ask about, but never do once they get the price...
However most governmental work and some universities require us to surrender all ownership to them including our cad files (which are revit models technically).
But like I said, the preferred architect can "reference" them, but yes, not copy.

Also realize that builder may not even have an architect. He could have purchased the rights to the plans online, or is simply showing a plan he has used.

However, I say it many times on here, you would be doing yourself a great disservice by finding a plan that "works" online vs sitting down with a competent architect and going through schematic designing and programming for a house to perfectly fit your needs.

wow, bevangel - I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me and others reading this. That was incredibly informative!! I am going to ask the builder myself. It is very early so I wouldn't feel like I was 'cheating' him in any way.
lzerarc- I completely agree - I like to look at online plans for inspiration but truly believe that sitting down with an architect is the way to go!
Thank you everyone!!

That's honestly why I asked - I can't imagine how I would feel if I was an architect and someone 'borrowed' - no basically stole my home plan and paid a different architect to 'tweak' it simply because the builder it was designed for happened to post it on their website so potential buyers could view it. Yes, it is your typical updated colonial in CT, but with many features we really like (open plan, large kitchen, a mudroom, 3 1/2 baths (we are a family of 5 with my family visiting from LI often). What's more important is what it does NOT have that most of the new homes in our area do such as 2-story foyers and 2-story great rooms. So that's actually what makes it somewhat 'unique'. I did contact the builder and am waiting to hear back. Thank you all for your insight. If we do build, I will sleep better at night knowing I gave credit where credit was due (and some money too I'm sure)!

I don't think I've built a home yet that didn't draw "inspiration" from the rough floor plans of other builders. My designer or architect inevitably rearranges, combines and massages interior features, sizes and details. And the elevations (exterior) that are in builders' brochures, ads and presentations are so distorted by artistic licence that anyone trying to build from them would end up with a circus fun house.

If one is really intent on avoiding suits consider the following comments from one of bev's cited articles by an identified IP lawyer, which says, in part:

"In many cases the copying is obvious and undeniable. In other cases, courts have found that architects successfully designed around other copy- righted works, despite having access to them, by creating a new work that has enough differences so as to not be substantially similar to other copyrighted works. Such cases have come down to a tedious comparison of the overall expression and selection, coordination and arrangement of individual features of the allegedly infringing work to the copyrighted work."
....
While ideas and concepts are not protectable under copyright law and indi- vidual standard features or design elements that are functionally required are not protec-table and can be freely used, the architect must start with a blank sheet and create an original work."

I never sign into model homes etc with my own name, address or phone number. And I jealously guard full building plans of my own homes, with copies only going to a few trusted trades. What's surprising though is how many of other builders' plans have ended up in my files by happenstance and mistake. And there they stay.

This brings to mind another question that I have often had. I never posted my plans because of copyright concerns. Would posting a custom plan belonging to the architect who drew it be a copyright violation?

Bev
thanks for the warm and fuzzy backup, but as an architect producing the drawings, I also like to get paid, but also like to keep the money in my pocket. I do not do residential, but lets focus on that since that is what this forum is about. Lets look at fees. Lets say someone is doing a $300k house, and I charge a 7% fee. That is putting 21k in my pocket right? I wish. Depending on the AIA contracting with the client, the scope will vary, but typically we do an all inclusive scope, so lets focus on that for simplicity.
Out of that 21k, I have consultants to pay. It can range from structural engineers, mechanical, possibly electrical, site designers, surveyors, soil borings/testing, etc. Now lets factor in software licencing, paper, other office materials, and all other overheads I may have. That 21k drop REAL fast. One would be very lucky to walk away with 10k in their pocket.
So lets keep it easy, 10k profit. I find out someone is using my baseline plan, yet modifying it slightly. I am out work, yes. However I am not out the 21k, I am out the 10k. I get greedy, hire a lawyer to go after the tough case. Chances are my 10k is blown in a matter of weeks, or even days. Not to mention the stress, massive time, etc.
So at the end of the day, I am still out my 10k and most likely far more, I am out a lot of time, I have gained higher blood pressure, but my IP attorney leaves with a fatter wallet.
I am sure you will take it as a personal attack, but it certainly is not. Its reality in the residential world. Plans are plastered EVERYWHERE. Architects do not have the time nor funds to chase things such as this example.
I am not trying to downplay your threats of copyrights infringement, but just trying to employ some sense of real world logic. I am certainly not suggesting it is not an issue and the OP should copy, they know that. But suing, in our field, is not a happy word and we avoid it in any way action such as that, no matter what side we are on. It simply is not worth it. Like I said, I am speaking from a residential side. Commercial, depending on the size of the project, is an entirely different game in many, many ways.

I will stand by my recommendation and it will always be my recommendation...take plans you like to your architect of choice to reference or to give him/her a sense of direction for your home. Not only does it avoid any risk of issue, but it can practically guarantee a custom designed home fit for your needs.

buckheadbilly,

yes - posting a copyrighted plan on the internet without the permission of the copyright owner is a copyright violation. You SHOULD get your architect's permission before you post his plan. But, if you are the architect's client, he probably is not going to sue you for posting the plan he drew for you because you ARE his client and he wants to stay on your good side. Plus, there are all the very good reasons for an architect not filing a lawsuit that lzerac mentioned in his post following yours.

lzerac,

I certainly won't argue that in many many many lawsuits - perhaps even MOST lawsuits - the only ones who really wind up happy are the lawyers. With rare exceptions, lawyers on both sides make money whether we win or lose. I certainly don't take it as a personal attack that you point this fact out. And you make a very good point about why one should avoid litigation if possible. Even winning plaintiffs often lose money on the process.

That said, if it were not for the THREAT of potential litigation (or prosecution) many more people would steal IP - and everything else that isn't nailed down - than already do.

IMHO, people can generally be classified in one of three groups:

1) Those like mcfromct who want to do the right (ethical) thing and will do ii regardless of whether there is any threat of litigation;
2) Those on the opposite end of the spectrum who want what they want and don't care whether what they do to get what they want is ethical or legal; and
3) Those in the middle who mostly want to do the right thing but only so long as, on balance, doing the right thing doesn't cost them too much $$$ or get too much in the way of them getting what they want.

"Law" has nothing to do with people in Group 1. They base their actions on "right and wrong" and - except when the law is out of whack, their actions are generally in accord with the law. These people won't steal (IP or anything else) because stealing is wrong and they don't need a law to tell them that. (BTW, I will be the first to admit that laws are sometimes out of whack with "right and wrong" and whenever that is true, the out-of-whack laws need to be changed.)

"Law" often won't stop people in Group 2 from doing whatever they want. They have no concept of "right and wrong," don't respect law, and only fear punishment if it is harsh and highly certain to follow an illegal act. They only respect their own wants and desires. These people will steal if they think stealing will get them what they want and potential punishments have to be extremely harsh and highly probable to stop them. If these want your IP, they will steal it rather than pay for it, and if anyone should tell them, "you know, it's illegal to do that and if you get caught, it could wind up costing you ten times as much in legal fees and judgments," their response would probably be "maybe so, but I probably won't ever get caught and even if I get caught, the IP owner probably won't want to bother with the expense of litigation. So who cares what the law says? Chances are, I'll come out ahead if I steal so I'm going to steal."

"Law" is for the vast number of people in Group 3. When someone in this group starts thinking something along the lines of "well, I could purchase a license to build that house and I know that would be the right thing to do but it is going to cost me $21K for the license, or I could just use it for free...," YOU want them to follow up that thought with "BUT, if I do that, I might wind up in a lawsuit that could cost me ten times as much plus it would be really embarrassing to have been caught doing wrong. Sure, I might get away with it and save $21K, but then again, I might get caught and have to pay $210K. It's too much risk and besides, it's wrong to steal. Guess I'll just do the right thing and pay the $21K."

So, while I agree that, in the real world, lawsuits should be avoided, lawsuits are a weapon you don't ever want to throw away entirely....even IF the only people who ever really make any money on lawsuits ARE the lawyers.

Leastwise, that's my theory of why we need law and lawyers.

And OP, I do apologize for having hijacked your thread for a long-winded philosophical discussion!

mcfromct
If you need advice that addresses your specific situation email me at renovator8@gmail.com