# What is the legality of copying a sample plan provided by Architect.



## seanistaken (5 Dec 2012)

Embarking on a self-build next year. I have met with a number of architects. A couple of them have supplied me with basic plans of houses they have designed in the past, this was done by them to provide me with a sample of their work. 

What is the legality of us taking one of these plans, changing it very slightly and going to an Architectural Technician and getting it drawn up? For the sake of keeping this discussion focussed I am not asking about the morality of this course of action, just the legality.

Some additional possibly relevant details. The plans supplied were unsolicited. They are A 4 size and feature just the floor plan, no measurements or views of the outside. We have however seen the house itself which allows us to fill in some of the blanks.


----------



## Leo (5 Dec 2012)

Architects usually have copyright on their work, any such reference on the documents you were provided with?


----------



## bk01 (5 Dec 2012)

Copyright rest at all times with the Designer and it is illegal to copy any drawings without express permission from the designer.


----------



## seanistaken (5 Dec 2012)

Leo said:


> Architects usually have copyright on their work, any such reference on the documents you were provided with?



There is no mention of copyright on the documents I have. 

I know I am getting into a grey area which might not be suitable for this forum, but to what degree would the plans have to be changed in order to avoid copyright infringement? I am not sure how you would even answer that question to be honest but its the question that springs to mind.

The intention is not to supply any plan from an Architect to the Technician but to use them as the basis for plans which I would hand-draw and supply to the Architect, with minor changes.


----------



## Jim2007 (5 Dec 2012)

seanistaken said:


> There is no mention of copyright on the documents I have.



Copyright is automatic on all original works, there is no need for it to be stated on the documents!



seanistaken said:


> I know I am getting into a grey area which might not be suitable for this forum, but to what degree would the plans have to be changed in order to avoid copyright infringement? I am not sure how you would even answer that question to be honest but its the question that springs to mind.



There is nothing grey about it!  If it is not your original work, then it is breach of copyright end of story.


----------



## seanistaken (5 Dec 2012)

Thanks for all the replies. Fairly unambiguous consensus. Glad I know now...


----------



## Docarch (5 Dec 2012)

Why would you not approach the architect and ask could you buy a set of his/her plans for the house in question - in essence to use their plans under license. Then go with these plans to your AT to re-work, do your planning, etc., etc.

Architect may be happy to sell you a set of plans for a small/reasonable sum. They have already done the plans/been paid for them so could be a bonus for them to get a few extra euro?


----------



## seanistaken (5 Dec 2012)

Thanks for the suggestion Docarch. I fear that they may not wish to release the plans but it's appears its the only option open to me.


----------



## seanistaken (5 Dec 2012)

I know I will get the answer when I ask the arch. But has anyone else heard of them selling copies of existing plans? 

The full story is that I want a house very similar to one they have already designed. I don't have the budget to have them design a house from scratch, even if I did I would want it to be so similar to the existing plans that it would be a waste of their time and my money. 

Getting a licence or permission of some sort to use the plans would seem an ideal compromise, for me anyway.


----------



## Mooples (5 Dec 2012)

I'm currently discussing our build with an architect and he was going through pricing options with me.

He mentioned that if they had already drawn up plans that were similar to what we wanted, then it would be a lot cheaper than getting bespoke plans drawn up from scratch. He didn't give an exact figure but he brought it up, not me, so I'm guessing it is quite common practice and worth asking about. I'm sure he'd be happy to help you out.


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2012)

Who do you plan to sue when you find that your house isn't level, or isn't safe in case of fire?


----------



## seanistaken (5 Dec 2012)

Mooples said:


> I'm currently discussing our build with an architect and he was going through pricing options with me.
> 
> He mentioned that if they had already drawn up plans that were similar to what we wanted, then it would be a lot cheaper than getting bespoke plans drawn up from scratch. He didn't give an exact figure but he brought it up, not me, so I'm guessing it is quite common practice and worth asking about. I'm sure he'd be happy to help you out.



That's very encouraging. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## seanistaken (5 Dec 2012)

Complainer said:


> Who do you plan to sue when you find that your house isn't level, or isn't safe in case of fire?



I don't understand what you are implying. Are you saying that repurposing plans is risky or that no one will be accountable using this approach? Or are you saying something else?


----------



## Slim (6 Dec 2012)

seanistaken said:


> I don't understand what you are implying. Are you saying that repurposing plans is risky or that no one will be accountable using this approach? Or are you saying something else?


 
I understand exactly where you are coming from. We got a plan we liked in a plan design book and gave it to a friend with our own requirements. Friend drew up plans at a fraction of the cost of an architect. Long story short, a few inconsistencies in measurements arose, and had to be sorted out by me, not technical at all, finishes were not so good, no great snagging process. Heel of the hunt, sorry I did not hire the meanest nastiest architect around, even if it cost 5 times the friend's cost.

I do not think the copying of the plan can be traced and lots do it from plan books. Not every new house is 'designed' afresh by an architect. There are only so many configurations you can have in a regular house.


----------



## seanistaken (6 Dec 2012)

Slim said:


> I understand exactly where you are coming from. We got a plan we liked in a plan design book and gave it to a friend with our own requirements. Friend drew up plans at a fraction of the cost of an architect. Long story short, a few inconsistencies in measurements arose, and had to be sorted out by me, not technical at all, finishes were not so good, no great snagging process. Heel of the hunt, sorry I did not hire the meanest nastiest architect around, even if it cost 5 times the friend's cost.
> 
> I do not think the copying of the plan can be traced and lots do it from plan books. Not every new house is 'designed' afresh by an architect. There are only so many configurations you can have in a regular house.



I understand there are risks, I had intended in using a qualified and experienced arch technician though. I guess my question has changed to _*'What do you do if you want to use an architects existing plan?'*_

I know the answer is _'Ask them. Can I use it and if so for how much? And what if any restrictions are you placing on its use?'_.

I have a feeling that they may not want to have their work used in this way, but we will see.


----------



## rayn (6 Dec 2012)

Who (what professional) confirmed compliance with Planning and Fire Regulations.?
As I understand it this is required for loan approval?
Best to negotiate with Architect or Engineer for x number of inspections and issuing certificate of compliance as above.


----------



## Docarch (6 Dec 2012)

I think people are possibly confusing things _a little_ as to the OPs query?

The OP just wants a copy of the plans.

If the original architect was to sell the OP a set of plans, they are only likely to be a complete set of the design plans (plans, sections and elevations), and, I would suggest not tender construction drawings, because Building Regulations have most likely changed since the house was built.  

If the original architect was happy to sell the OP a set of the design plans, I'm pretty sure they would come with a disclaimer, that the OP might have to sign, basically stating that it would be OP's responsibilty to prepare his own planning drawings, tender/construction drawings and generally satisfy himself that (current) Building Regulations are complied with, etc., etc. 

OP then employs his own AT and/or engineer to take the original design plans as simply a template and then, from these, do planning drawings, apply for planning permission, prepare tender/construction drawings, oversee construction, certify, etc., etc.

I'm pretty sure this is what the OP intends to do?


----------



## David_Dublin (6 Dec 2012)

We have drawings we like. They are not "technical drawings" per se, they are on two sheets of large paper, a suggestion of what we should build, with some elevations and outline measurements, but more coloured in look & feel for the outside, and internal  layout & space. I dont know what type of drawing you would call them. We asked her to draw them to give us some ideas for what we would build when we have the money.

We paid good money for them. Whatever the legality of it, I would have no issue with using them as ideas for what we end up going with. I will definitely use an architect, but it may not be the girl who did up the original drawings. If we can afford what she suggested, what we will do will be a very close match to what she was suggesting. I dont remember any explicit agreement regarding ownership or copyright. But I would have no hesitation in using them, or letting another architect see them to help them visualise someone elses plans that we like. It's an interesting discussion!


----------



## Docarch (6 Dec 2012)

David_Dublin said:


> I dont remember any explicit agreement regarding ownership or copyright.


 
Copyright is pretty much implicit.

But.....the difference is that if you _paid_ somebody to draw up plans for you, and/or agreed and paid for somebody to draw up plans for you to a certain level, _then_ you pretty much have in effect a license to use those plans as you like. 

The difference is that the OP is suggesting that he would like to copy/use plans that were not drawn for him without the consent of the person who drew up the plans (or indeed the person who paid for the plans!).  

You see the difference?


----------



## seanistaken (6 Dec 2012)

Docarch said:


> I think people are possibly confusing things _a little_ as to the OPs query?
> 
> The OP just wants a copy of the plans.
> 
> ...



Docarch, this is precisely what I would hope to do. I am not even necessarily looking for a full set of plans or detailed drawings. I have enough information to supply to the arch tech at this stage. I was just concerned that this would not be legal, even if I were not to supply them with a copy of the floorplan that I do have, but instead used it has the inspiration/basic for my own drawings!

It's complicated..


----------



## threebedsemi (6 Dec 2012)

For the OP:
As far as I can see, the architects from which you got the drawings gave them to you freely as 'samples'. The following questions then come to mind:
1. Are these designs freely available to view on the practices website etc? If so they are more than likely already in the 'public domain' to some degree.
2. Copyright on 'architectural designs' is very difficult to enforce in law. The 'original work of art' comment in relation to copyright above is true, but unless the designs are very ususual it is difficult to prove that they are totally 'original' and that some other 'designer' could not have come up with the same thing themselves. 

The main thing I wish to point out is that I think you are missing the point of hiring an architect in the first place. Just because a drawing they showed you at a preliminary meeting took your fancy, it does not mean that it is the only possible solution to your needs, or even the best one. 
The benefit of actually hiring a good architect - instead of copying their plans - is that you will hopefully obtain a _*far better*_ design for your needs an your budget, containing elements and solutions that you are not able to visualise on your own no matter how many plans you look at.

www.studioplustwo.com


----------



## seanistaken (7 Dec 2012)

threebedsemi - thanks for that. I have actually been in the house in question. It's how I got in touch with the architect that designed it in the first place. I literally saw it on the side of the road while driving far from home. 

I had a very similar plan and layout in mind for years. This house however solved a couple of major design problems I was having as well as a number of other small touches which only an architect could have come up with.

I believe that the house and plans have been displayed before at conventions/expos, for what that is worth. And while I agree that the ideal scenario is to hire an architect, the fees are prohibitive, based on my situation.

I have not called the architect yet re permission to use their plans but when I do I will update this thread for any interested parties.


----------



## threebedsemi (7 Dec 2012)

seanistaken
thats fair enough, 
On the copyright thing, if the house design has been published as an example of excellent design, or recieved a design award etc., then it is easier to enforce copyright as there may well be a case to be made that the design is unique or original. 

On the hiring an architect issue, I might venture to suggest that one of the reasons you liked the house you visited was that it was well detailed, well built and looked 'good'. This only happened because the architect in question was appointed for the detailing and construction stage of the project. An architect does not just 'do the drawings', and the best value in hiring one can actually be when you are on site or trashing out costs with a builder.

So you might consider aproaching the architect in question with a proposal that you appoint them on the bases that you are going to use much the same design as the one you like, including the detailed design drawings for tender and construction (which they presumably also have 'on file'), and for a full 'on site' service. You might be suprised what kind of a deal you can arrive at.

www.studioplustwo.com


----------



## seanistaken (7 Dec 2012)

threebedsemi said:


> seanistaken
> thats fair enough,
> On the copyright thing, if the house design has been published as an example of excellent design, or recieved a design award etc., then it is easier to enforce copyright as there may well be a case to be made that the design is unique or original.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the suggestion. I have a local Architectural Services company in mind for the drawings and 'on site' service. I won't go into the gory details but money is tight as I have to sell a house to build this one. Also the actual architect is very far removed geographically from my location, so this is a factor. I am going to call them next week and see where the chips fall!


----------



## David_Dublin (11 Dec 2012)

Docarch said:


> Copyright is pretty much implicit.
> 
> But.....the difference is that if you _paid_ somebody to draw up plans for you, and/or agreed and paid for somebody to draw up plans for you to a certain level, _then_ you pretty much have in effect a license to use those plans as you like.
> 
> ...



Yeah, pretty clear, wasn't sure that the right to use them transferred to me due to the fact that we paid for them. Makes sense alright, but equally I would not have been surprised to hear an alternative view that suggested I would need permission etc.


----------

