Ownership of architectural plans belongs to the creator of those plans, not to the person whose house is being built from those plans, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
For example, Homeowner #1 retains and pays an architect to design Homeowner #1’s dream house, which is subsequently built according to plans prepared by the architect. The architect puts the copyright notice on each page of the plans, but does not register the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. After the home is built, Homeowner #2 asks Homeowner #1 if she can use Homeowner #1’s plans in building her new home. Homeowner #1 gives Homeowner #2 the plans and Homeowner #2 makes copies, changing only the name and address of the owner. Because Homeowner #1 paid the architect for those plans he has the right to give them to Homeowner #2 to copy and use in building another home - right? WRONG!
An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including the building itself and the architectural plans and drawings for the building, is subject to copyright protection as an architectural work, regardless of whether or not the copyright is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. As affirmed by the U. S. Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit in Christopher Phelps & Associates, LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2007) an architect that designs a home owns the copyright in the plans that the architect creates. As the owner of the copyright in the plans, the architect has the exclusive right to make copies of the plans and allow others to use those plans.
In Galloway, the Court awarded the architect $20,000 in compensatory damages which represented the amount that the architect testified he would have charged the second homeowner who copied the plans that the architect prepared for the first homeowner. The court, however, refused to enter an injunction requesting that the homeowner be enjoined from selling the house, on the grounds that once the homeowner paid the damages of $20,000 to the architect, the plans and the resultant home became a lawfully made copy.
This case illustrates several important points. First it reaffirms that it is the architect, and not the homeowner, who has the right to allow others to use architectural plans, regardless of the fact that the homeowner paid for the plans. Second, if the copyright is not registered with the U. S. Copyright Office, the architect’s damages may be limited to what he would have charged the second homeowner for the plans. Third, if the copyright in the plans had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the architect would have been able to recover statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 if willful infringement is found, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
Therefore, if you are the person or business that contracts with another to design a building, you will not be owner of the copyright in the plans or the building unless the designer agrees in writing to assign those rights to you. If you are the architect and want to fully protect yourself in the event of an infringement, then you should register the copyright in the design so that you may recover statutory damages, rather than having to prove actual damages.
These articles are meant to bring awareness to the topic and are not intended to be used as legal advice. If you have questions about any of the articles or any other related matters, please see the contact information located at the end of each individual article.
You must read and accept these terms in order to send us email.
Use of this website for communication does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter for which we do not already represent you. Please do not send any confidential or privileged information electronically via this website unless we have already agreed to represent you.
If you send us information electronically via this website, you agree that our review of that information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if it is highly confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.