All the design/blueprints/plans are owned by the architect even though the client paid for his/her services. In theory you can't sell or give the plans to friends and build the same house somewhere else.

I'm going to disagree with you. On a custom built house involving the client's requirements, a blueprint should be considered a "work for hire" and thus should be returned to the owner/builder when the house is complete. If an architect designs a house and then the client says, "I want that," then the architect should own the copyright.

All right class. Time for a little quiz. . No, you cannot use a carpenter pencil. No. 2 pencils only.

Question: Consider the following scenario: a builder conceptualizes a design for a house. He meets with an architect to describe his general ideas for the design of the house, and the architect puts the design on paper and draws up the blueprints. The builder constructs the house according to the design and sells it to a very enthusiastic homeowner. In fact, the homeowner loves the house so much that the builder figures he will duplicate the design elsewhere, so he quickly starts work on seven more houses in another part of town. Naturally, since the builder came up with the general idea for the design, he figures he owns the rights to construct as many buildings as he wants using that design. Is the builder correct?

No. In a similar case, two Virginia builders were quite wrong-to the tune of $5.2 million -

See more at: http://www.constructionbusinessowner.com/topics/law/construction-law/builder-beware-how-avoid-blueprint-and-building-design-lawsuits#sthash.nuulqIiv.dpuf

I read the article you referenced, and nowhere did it mention an owner who "hires" an architect to draw up construction blueprints based upon a design the owner has come up with on his/her own. I would still consider this scenario to be "work for hire," and therefore the copyright should rest with the owner/builder of his own house. I suppose to cover his/her a$$, the contract between the homeowner/builder should contain the proper wording, so that copyright ownership is clearly spelled out. As an example, I developed a floor plan for a house I wanted to have built, on my own computer over a period of about four years. I did not hire an architect, but the builder and the company providing construction materials checked all drawings I created, making changes where needed for construction issues (laminated beams, joist size and spacing, balloon framing, lally columns in the basement, etc., etc.).

If a friend of mine wanted to use the same floor plan to build the same house next door, I probably wouldn't allow them to do so, but if they lived in another community or state, I believe I would certainly be within my rights to allow them use of my design. Am I right in this scenario?

In this scenario, if the builder I hired to build my house later decided to build a development using my design, I guess I would have the right to sue under copyright infringement, correct?

There is a lot more to a blueprint than drawing walls where you want them. At that point it is just a piece of art you stick to your refrigerator with a magnet. The intellectual property is the posts and beams etc. As well. Every time an architect does a job they are drawing what the customer wants them to draw so by the logic of someone who "designed their own floor plan" the architect would always be a work for hire.

Excuse me... when you use a cad program on a computer, it NOT "a piece of art you stick on a refrigerator with a magnet"! I take offense to that remark--it speaks of elitism, and denigrates a person who has some intelligence and understanding of the building process.

Work-for-Hire or Assignment Agreement. Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, if an architect produces blueprints for a builder, then the builder will own nothing but a one-time license to build one house according to those specifications. AIA form contracts (and many others) specify that the architect is the sole author and copyright owner. However, if a builder, as in Question above, wishes to preserve the option of producing additional houses anywhere using the same or similar design that an architectural firm created for him, he must get a written assignment of the architect's copyright. If the design has not yet begun, the architect would sign a "work-for-hire" agreement, where the architect essentially agrees that he should be treated like an employee of the builder (rather than an independent contractor) and thus relinquishes any potential rights in the future design. Otherwise, after the design has commenced and the copyright interest has already vested, the architect must sign an "assignment agreement" with the builder. To be enforceable, both agreements must be in writing and could be included in a normal builder/architect contract. -

See more at:

http://www.constructionbusinessowner.com/topics/law/construction-law/builder-beware-how-avoid-blueprint-and-building-design-lawsuits/page/0/2#sthash.hlJWZ67R.dpuf

So this answers my question about contract language, even for the home builder who is not in the business of building homes.

No matter how expensive a CAD program you may use, it is NOT a working drawing until a professional puts their expertise into the plan. From footing sizes to beam sizes and ALL the other code compliant measures. Until that happens, it is just a picture.

thank you all for taking the time to answer my question. It was an interesting and informative conversation. To follow up. I understand that the design is my architect's "intellectual property" As I worked with my architect all my personal needs and taste were communicated to her and she made them into a comfortable, beautiful plan. She is like a lot of architects and loves to do new unique designs, but if she were different could I find out that she gave these plans to her husband, our builder, who then did a 100+ home development with this as one of three or four choices for homes? Right now I think I am living in a unique home that was well worth the price I paid to work with an architect. I would hate to find out it had become a "development" home.
Again, just curious about how this works, not a real problem in my life.

Ms midnight, that rarely happens. Even if they started with your plan and tweaked it to someone else's personal taste and building site, you would not recognize it when they were done. I own my own plans and the only ones I have ever built twice are a duplex and a simple starter home.

This is where something as small as a relocate in the drawings no longer makes it your design, the architect could change one wall or change the size of a room and it would be a new design as far as the law is concerned.

This occurs with furniture design all of the time, we have had some of our furniture designs "knocked off" by others and there was not a single thing we could do about it because the size and construction of the frame was changed. One could never copywrite all of the variables.

I would think each state has their own laws on this and it is according to the contract you signed. I worked for a builder- he was sued by another builder because the fireplace was the same as one done by another builder. The other builder lost because enough changes were made to the design to make it different. The only common factor was the architect- who was also named in the lawsuit- the builder contracted the architect and he designed the home based on his design. The court would have sided with the plaintiff if the design had been exact. But in the case of a home owner, i would think it is in your contract what the architect can do with the design afterwards.

Just wanted to say" thanks" to all who participated in this debate, it was a interesting topic to read!

@ Fred S--apparently you did not read my comment where I stated that my builder worked from MY drawings. If a builder has knowledge of code law in the state they are working in, which I would HOPE any reputable builder would, they know how big a footing has to be, how far below frostline it has to be, how thick the foundation walls must be, the way the sills have to be attached to the foundation, etc., etc. Your assumption that ONLY an architect knows these things is erroneous... in fact, if I had had an architect in the state I lived when I designed my house do the design, he might not have known the code in the state where I eventually built my house. Your elitism is showing, kind sir.

My husband and I drew up our home on the "cocktail napkin" and then a rough concept on grid paper. We took it to a draftsman and she got it on paper for us. She is part of a large engineering firm who did all the other stuff (not a very intelligent word).

But, that house was our idea, inside and out. I would expect that the draftsman and the company would not share those plans to anyone. Our idea and our money got the home built to our specs.

It is a special home and we want it to remain that way.

I know of a couple who duped a seller by pretending to be interested in buying his house. The seller, generously, allowed this couple to bring their builder on their next visit on the pretense of discussing a few renovations here and there. They even took pictures of the trim and the floors, etc for their "decorator". The couple had no intention of buying that house; had the builder copy it; and built it in the same neighborhood! I mean, talk about duplicity.

The seller has taken them to court. I hope he wins the value of his home, at least. Sneaky people.

I am not saying that the architect has any right to sell your ideas even if it is just on a cocktail napkin. But you can't sell or use the architect's finished plans for anything other than the original purpose either. There is way too much other information on those finished working drawings that is the property of the architect.

Again, thank you all for taking the time to help educate me. i am just so curious about this and do respect and appreciate this mini course on home building! I am confident that my architect and builder are not interested in doing my plans over but I was just so interested as several of my friends have seen the house and mentioned it would be a great house for them, just what they wanted.
Architectrunnerguy- I am a teacher and have created many units of study etc. and know how little needs to be changed before someone else can claim it as their own., and get paid to do a workshop on it! I guess it is the same in every area of work.
Serra Design Inc and others- a pox on those who used your creative original ideas and changed such a small amount. I am a senior citizen who is less than 5'tall so I believe my being troll like will make that mojo work on them. LOl LOL sweet revenge!
Again, many thanks for taking the time in your busy life to post.

Ok... I have a question. I own a set of blueprints for an Earthship. The builder set for a 2 bedroom model... the set costs $7000 and every set sold is the same floor plan. can I let a friend use my set or can I sell it?

I have a question? My builder will not let me have a copy of the blue prints that he and I came up with? Can he with hold those blue prints from me?

I have a question. We hired an architect to do custom house plans for us. We have the cad file. However, our contractor has on their website our front elevation and our first floor plan. They are alluding to the fact that this was their design and named the house. Is this right?

Please advise, please. I am in the process of choosing the builder and my hybrid timber house plan is complete. My architect was slow and kept making changes that I didn't want. Horrible experience. Period.

Today, I saw MY house advertised, in conjunction with the timber company plan. in a national magazine! It was EXACT down to every detail. I haven't even started the house yet! I am so ticked off, I don't know what to do. There seems like an ethical boundary was crossed. Now what? They didn't even tell me that they were planning to advertise MY house. I feel I need compensation. Advise?

Most architects will not want to replicate their work. As a singular design, it holds value in its uniqueness. If she were to sell it to her husband and have him replicate it, she loses design integrity. It's just not something we do, as designers.

Chris- they technically have the right to do this. It devalues their service, but it is their artwork. Imagine this, you hire a painter to create a custom piece for you. They create it, and it's beautiful, so they replicate it and sell several. YOU have the original, but it is THEIR work, their art- and their right to do with it as they see fit. Just like the artist has the right to replicate their painting.

It devalues the original, yes- and it will never hold the same value to others as a replica as it does to you, who it is personalized and tailored for.

You own the house. The architect owns the design.

I bought a set of house plans online, paid for, received cad files. Did not build the house. can i sell them?

When you purchased the on-line plan you would have signed/agreed to their Terms of Use. Read that and you will likely find the your usage rights are for your own personal use and that you have no right to resell. It's the same when you pay Apple to download music, you have the right to listen to the music but no right to distribute or sell the music to anyone else.

My question is, I found a house in Sacramento CA and my wife I really like the floor plan in this home. The house was built in 2004. Who or where do I find the blueprint to this home?

If read somewhere that even if you change 95% of the original plan, it's still copyright infringement. I don't remember where I saw that, but it definitely seems like an exaggeration, especially since most houses have an efficient flow pattern that is best practice. When I built my house a few years back, I saw a plan, but it needed about 30 different modifications - from the basic footprint to walls/room sizes/closet location/door locations/hallway eliminations/ceiling heights, etc. Not one single room or wall was not changed. I felt compelled to purchase the plan anyway - but at this point, the documents I bought were unusable because of the changes. I believe the only thing that is similar is the general location of the rooms (bath on left, guest room on right, etc). Any thoughts? If I had just described what I liked about the flow to the CAD person rather than purchase the plan, would that be an infringement as well? Some individuals just want a combination of the best plan layouts rather than one design with details.

I just

What if you provide them the idea on paper and they create from that paper?

It should be in your contract. In our contract, it originally read it was his property, but we had it revised to state that it was jointly owned for purposes of making copies -- not for sales to third parties, but I didn't want him just duplicating my house and selling it to other people, and me having to pay if I wanted another set of prints in the future to make modifications.

I should add that I originally took the house to him as floor plans I had drawn up in my own little software. Unprofessional, but my own design. He put it into plans that were navigable for builders.