architect refusal to forward autocad drawings

[studio.jk]

Hi,

Having recently received planning permission I sought the services of an engineer to work up full structural drawings and oversee the build project. I agreed a price for the service and that was that.

However, upon asking the architect who drew up the initial plans to forward them (in autocad format) to the engineer - he refused, on the grounds that it wasn't company policy to do this (though he was happy to forward PDFs.)

It seems that his refusal to forward the drawings in CAD format is to protect the plans' copyright (which resides with him - which is fair enough if that's what I unwittingly agreed to in the first place.) I just find it annoying that whoever works up the next stage of drawings (be they an engineer or a timber frame company or whoever) is going to have to start from scratch to some degree - and that seems like a waste of time to me.

With regards to our architect's role in the build, it was always clear that there were three stages - initial drawings for planning, full construction drawings and oversee of build. It was also clear that we could drop his services at the end of any of these stages - once fully paid up of course.

The architect has invoiced for stage one and has been paid and we will now no longer be working with him through the remainder of the project. He is quite happy with that arrangement and always made it clear that there would be no pressure to continue using his services through stage two and three. But I was just surprised I guess at a company policy which stated that autocad drawings would not be sent out to anyone (it was not just the engineer, as I asked if he would forward to timber frame companies to allow them to quote etc, and again the answer was yes to sending out PDfs, but no to Cad drawings.)

Have other people come across this? I'd be interested to hear from other architects (self-employed or practice based) to know if this is a commonplace policy - as in hindsight I guess it is soemthing I should have asked in the first place.

Also, on a more general note: if you commission an architect to design your house and you work with him to achieve it (in the way that I'm sure constitutes the majority of cases) who then normally owns the copyright to the house plans - you or the architect. (I hadn't even considered this until today!)

(Funny the little problems you run into - can't wait to start dealing with builders, plasterers, roofers, plumbers, window compaines, tilers, electricians, handymen, gardeners, carpenters.....wonder who'll own the copyright to your garden design?!)

JK

 

[ClubMan]

Is this not like wedding photographers who hand over the prints but not the negatives? Or certain software contracts where the executable/object but not source code is handed over? Maybe there are other common examples in other fields of endeavour?

Did you sign a written contract when engaging the architect and, if so, what does it say about the deliverables?

 

[MOB]

You could send the PDF files to a draftsman in India; it would cost less than €150 to get them re-done as CAD drawings.

 

[sydthebeat]

studio.jk,
you architect is a *censored*.... pardon the language....
while he is totally within his rights to retain the copyrght of the drawings, he is being professionally awkward and obstructive.

all he needs is a written signed letter from the sturctural engineer stating that his autocad drawings will only be used for the purposes of producing structural drawings for that project. He should have no problem if given that letter.

our policy here is to have no obstruction whatsoever in releasing digital drawings.... we often send on the acad dwg files to timberframe companies, engineers etc... and even will give the client a digital copy either by email or on cd if requested.

regarding copyright, the copyright for the design is retained by the architect, and any alteration to the design can also be considered a breach of copyright.......
like clubmans suggestion, did you sign any contract with the architect??

 

[Carpenter]

I think the situation with any architect's drawings or designs is that while you pay for a design the architect retains ownership and grants you a "licence" to use the design in your build- but say if you were to re-use the same plans to build another project on a different site then you could be liable for infringement of copyright as the "licence for use" is site specific. That said I can see no reason why the architect should refuse to issue you or your agents with CAD drawings and this would be unusual I think, especially when there is no quarrel over fees unpaid. Has your engineer requested these drawings directly? I've often requested CAD drawings from architects and other building professionals without problem in the past.

 

[ubiquitous]

For what its worth, I think the architect is well within their rights to withhold CAD drawings while providing you with pdf copies. This sounds like an eminently reasonable policy to protect against the risks of copyright theft and misrepresentation of their work. This protection is necessary to protect their interests and also your own interests as a consumer. For example if someone in a structural engineer's office, for example, was to nefariously copy the CAD drawings and use them to build an exact replica of your house, you would have reason to be annoyed (at the very least) with the architect's failure to protect against this risk.

For the same reasons, I would only in rare exceptions provide raw copies of Excel or Word files to third parties in the course of my own work.

 

[sydthebeat]

ubiquitous, if the architect forwards on a pdf to the engineer, and the engineer draws up plans from the pdfs...that automatically becomes a breach of copyright, so its not reasonable to expect him to withold the dwg files.... if the architect has a problem with an external firm using his design for construction then he should have informed his clients prior to any commemcement of engagement.....

once a clearly worded and legible copyright disclaimer is on the drawings then it should not be an issue for the architect, his paranoia will cause him to loose clients.....

 

[sydthebeat]

[broken link removed]

this is the only architect copyright law artical i can find on the net... does anyone have anything pertinent to Ireland???..

 

[ubiquitous]

Surely its a bit presumptious to take it for granted that this architect did not provide the client with a standard terms of engagement letter at the outset?

I would like to hear your suggestions as to how you would expect the architect to protect against a breach of copyright as I described above. The existencee of disclaimers is generally not worth a whole lot whenever a professional is being sued for negligence.

 

[kkelliher]

it is possible to get a pdf transfered back into autocad so i wouldnt care much for this idea of safeguarding copyright. if you do a search for pdf to autocad on the internet you get alot of products that wil do this for you. Autocad has an addon itself to allow you do this. I have used it in the past and it works perfect.

This aside if you have paid for the product the architect should release the drawing in what ever way you like. The reason he dosnt give it to you is so you dont copy it. If you get them re-done thats exactly what your doing so copyright really dosnt come into it.

 

[ubiquitous]

it is possible to get a pdf transfered back into autocad so i wouldnt care much for this idea of safeguarding copyright. if you do a search for pdf to autocad on the internet you get alot of products that wil do this for you. Autocad has an addon itself to allow you do this. I have used it in the past and it works perfect.

This aside if you have paid for the product the architect should release the drawing in what ever way you like. The reason he dosnt give it to you is so you dont copy it. If you get them re-done thats exactly what your doing so copyright really dosnt come into it.

There is a subtle difference. If the architect's autocad work is freely distributed, there is a (possibly remote but still potential) risk that someone else could alter aspects of this and pass off the amendments as having been made by the architect. Where a fresh version of an autocad project is generated from a pdf conversion program, this fact will be clear from the properties of the particular file. This enables the architect to disclaim a particular version of the project if he can show that that version did not come from him.

If pdf-autocad conversions work so easily, surely the OP should just forget the semantics of this argument and have their pdf drawings converted in this way?

 

[sydthebeat]

just throwing an idea up in the air here, but could the architect release his dwg for use only as an external reference file..... maybe saving the file as read-only in an online storage site.....
whenever the engineer etc wants to use it he would have to externally refer to that dwg file on that website...... is that the theory behind build-on-line???

 

[galwaytt]

it is possible to get a pdf transfered back into autocad so i wouldnt care much for this idea of safeguarding copyright. if you do a search for pdf to autocad on the internet you get alot of products that wil do this for you. Autocad has an addon itself to allow you do this. I have used it in the past and it works perfect.

This aside if you have paid for the product the architect should release the drawing in what ever way you like. The reason he dosnt give it to you is so you dont copy it. If you get them re-done thats exactly what your doing so copyright really dosnt come into it.

Exactly. The issue here isn't about copyright - indeed, you could argue that the design paid for by the client is the property of the client, and that the architect, by accepting the commission, works for him to execute the designing process. All that's left is method of delivery of the commission. It is as fair to say that the customer is entitled to CAD as the architect may claim that he is not. And given that the design is commissioned by the OP, it should be his his choice.

Pragmatically, any architect that refuses to hand over CAD is only going to get a name for awkwardness, as it is possible to reverse the process, as someone else has mentioned.

It's also possible for the architect to deliver CAD drawings with restrictions, so if he doesn't know that, because he would have offered to do so if he did, I'd have thought, then he's in denial, basically, and it's as well that you change him at this juncture...........proof, then, that his awkwardness is only going to cost him money in commission............very, very shortsighted.......

 

[kkelliher]

There is a subtle difference. If the architect's autocad work is freely distributed, there is a (possibly remote but still potential) risk that someone else could alter aspects of this and pass off the amendments as having been made by the architect

I have to totally disagree with this

The archit has lodged for planning there is a clear paper trail and it could never be argued that changes were made by the architect in this case because he brought the project to planning and is no longer been used going forward.

In all projects the architect will submitted a hardcopy and this is the contract between the client and the architect. The client has asked to use the cad for engineering purposes. If any changes are made that differ from the hardcopy then it is clearly nothing to do with the architect.

This is the basics of what happens in every job

 

[Satanta]

You could send the PDF files to a draftsman in India; it would cost less than €150 to get them re-done as CAD drawings.

I don't see the additional cost in producing the construction drawings being huge even if produced here in Ireland (relative to the cost for the production of the specifications etc.).

The main cost of producing the planning drawings comes from the actual decisions (dimensions of rooms [ensuring relevant standards are adhered to], best use of space/light etc.). Once the drawings have been done (and detailed with relevant dimensions etc. as they should be) it won't be a huge task to reproduce the CAD work (although it is dependent on the complexity of design just how long it will take and cost). Given that you intend to use a different party to produce the construction drawings, they may actually prefer to work from drawings produced by themselves (and it might also help you avoid future disputes where the producers of the construction drawings try to blame the original planning drawings for errors - if they reproduce a plan they will be responsible to ensure the detail is correct).



FYI... tools are available, as mentioned above, to allow the raster data (i.e. a picture) in a pdf to be converted to vector data (i.e. starting point, distance and direction) to allow pdf's to be imported as vector information, represented by simple lines in CAD instead of an image.

The level of detail from the original CAD drawing is hugely reduced (e.g. layers lost etc.) and the accuracy can be a bit questionable. I know some CAD techs who like it (allows them to view the pdf information in a more familiar environment if nothing else) and some who hate it (I, with my limited CAD knowledge, fall into the latter. I'd compare it to trying to work on a half completed jigsaw where the pieces are broken, easier to just start from scratch. But I'm not a CAD specialist so not best placed to comment). Personally I'd go with a re-drafting of the plans (and associated cost) ahead of this, but thought I'd mention it FYI.