Reusing planning drawings without permission

[willbish]

Can my neighbour download site, block plans etc from my planning application and then upload them to his own (ongoing) application?

 

He hasn't changed any details to make them look like his own documents, they still carry my architects 'signature box'. I was very surprised to see these drawings, some of which have no relevance to his application such as floor plans.

A bit of courtesy by asking permission would cost nothing.

[joe90]

Your architect might have something to say about that! Using his drawings without permission!

[Carrerahill]

8 minutes ago, willbish said:

Can my neighbour download site, block plans etc from my planning application and then upload them to his own (ongoing) application?

 

He hasn't changed any details to make them look like his own documents, they still carry my architects 'signature box'. I was very surprised to see these drawings, some of which have no relevance to his application such as floor plans.

A bit of courtesy by asking permission would cost nothing.

What is he using your drawings for? Surely they show everything for your build with your address, location plan etc?

 

Your architect and or you own these drawings. I would sue him if someone used our firms drawings without prior written authorisation - realistically I would only need to have our legal dept. send the threat and that would shut it down but we would go the full way if pushed.

 

 

[ProDave]

I would just make your architect aware of what he has done and he will no doubt "have words"

[PeterW]

That is a vey grey area ..!!

 

Has the architect just taken an Ordnance Survey map and pasted it into a drawing of his own ..?? If he hasn’t credited the source as Ordnance Survey then he is in breach of his license to use. 
 

They are not expensive (£11 IIRC) so why your Neighbour isn’t doing his own is a surprise to me. 
 

TBH the overall IPR doesn’t belong to you so nothing you can do, it would be up to the architect to take any action anyway.  

[willbish]

17 minutes ago, Carrerahill said:

What is he using your drawings for? Surely they show everything for your build with your address, location plan etc?

 

This is very true, Im struggling to see the relevance for the block plans etc let alone my internal floor plans.The documents aren't accompanied with any text submission so I'm really at a loss as to how they benefit his case. 

The initial application was refused and I now believe he is going to appeal. He is using a planning consultant who really should know better.

 

17 minutes ago, PeterW said:

TBH the overall IPR doesn’t belong to you so nothing you can do, it would be up to the architect to take any action anyway.  

One of the drawings is my own, a SketchUp plan of the highway showing driveway entrances. Signature box has my name and details.

 

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

Depends who owns the copyright.  All my drawings are either assigned to me uniquely, or have a shared attribution with the OS, which requires that I include the OS limited licence reference.  No one else can use or publish those drawings without my express consent.  If they do, then they would be in breach of my copyright.

 

I've made the copyright position explicit, by including reference to it on drawings and plans, but my understanding is that this isn't essential, as copyright is assumed to belong to the author, unless rights have been reassigned. In my (limited) experience the main area for confusion is around assignment of rights.  For example, the first time I sold an article for a magazine, I made the mistake of agreeing an "all rights" contract.  This meant I got paid once, and the magazine then owned the rights to publish.  They went on to publish the article in their US and Australian sister publications, without paying me.  I learned the lesson, and have since only ever agreed to limited rights, single publication, so if a publisher wishes to re-publish something they have to come back to me an negotiate another fee for doing so.

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, willbish said:

One of the drawings is my own, a SketchUp plan of the highway showing driveway entrances. Signature box has my name and details.

 

 

In that case you own the copyright and can take action to prevent it being used, or demand a fee for the use of it.  You don't have to explicitly state on the drawing that you own the copyright, as I believe the law is that copyright is assumed to apply to the named author.

[willbish]

New development.

 

I emailed the planner saying I was surprised to see many of the new documents uploaded had been lifted from my application. I also queried the relevance.

 

She comes back to me- 

 

"They were attached on 7 October 2019, the plans were relevant as I used them to assess whether there was any additional overlooking during the course of the application.  They are attached to the file for scanning as they are useful if the applicant appeals the decision.  

 

I can only assume that they are clearing the old files away and have scanned the files in one batch. These plans were not submitted by the applicant."

 

Now I'm assuming the LPA can use documents from previous application for their own benefit?

I don't like seeing my documents publicly attributed to this application but it's not a big issue for me really and I doubt there is little i can do.

 

 

[Carrerahill]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

 

TBH the overall IPR doesn’t belong to you so nothing you can do, it would be up to the architect to take any action anyway.  

That depends on the agreement, contract etc. it is entirely possible the OP owns his drawings.

 

Bearing in mind it is very common that multiple practises and disciplines may take a project from concept to completion it is common for rights to be bought or be part of the scope of works. We use other peoples drawings and indeed allow others to use our drawings all the time, totally legitimately, it's just a question of £'s. 

 

A typical NOS project we would have the following terms in our contract - obviously we only deploy these sort of terms where the project involvement would deem this to be acceptable:

 

"At any agreed point of cessation or completion of services, as outlined in the scope of works documentation and agreed project contract documentation, where no monies are owed, the right of the information or data may be released to the client. Terms of use are outlined in section 34.5.6 of the standard data release T&C's.

 

Basically within those T&C's we say that they cannot use the drawings against us in any arbitration etc. etc. etc. and that the drawings cannot be edited and then issued under our original titleblocks etc. etc. etc.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Carrerahill

[ToughButterCup]

4 hours ago, willbish said:

Can my neighbour download site, block plans etc from my planning application and then upload them to his own (ongoing) application?

[...]

 

From experience: yes.

[Adrian Walker]

4 hours ago, Carrerahill said:

What is he using your drawings for? Surely they show everything for your build with your address, location plan etc?

 

Your architect and or you own these drawings. I would sue him if someone used our firms drawings without prior written authorisation - realistically I would only need to have our legal dept. send the threat and that would shut it down but we would go the full way if pushed.

 

 

 

Do not sue him - he is your neighbour.  It will come back and bite you

 

He copied the drawing for his application from a public website.  He doesn't think that he has done anything wrong since he has not altered the drawing.  In fact he could argue that he is just making reference to your previous application and hence there is no breach of copyright at all.

 

[Jeremy Harris]

Copying anything from any website doesn't give anyone the right to use it for any purpose, other than their own enjoyment, or, possibly, under a "fair use" type condition (limited quotation for review, to illustrate a point, etc, with an acknowledgement to the copyright holder).

 

Using copyright material for gain, (which is what this is - it's avoiding paying someone to do a similar set of plans) is a breach of copyright.  It may well be unintentional, and we all know that people breach copyright all the time, but that doesn't make it lawful or right in any way.

 

The problem is that there are a lot of people who have the false assumption that anything that's published on the internet is free for them to use as they wish.  For example, years ago a student from Lancaster University copied an article I'd written for a magazine, changed the name etc, and submitted it as his own work.  By pure coincidence his supervisor was a friend of mine I used to go flying with, recognised the article as being mine, and called me to ask if I knew the student in question.  I didn't, but apparently when challenged the student exclaimed that he'd found the article on the internet, therefore it must be OK for him to use it...

[mvincentd]

Is your concern that he ‘borrowed’ the drawings...or that you might end up with an identikit house next door after going to the trouble of having something distinctive and personal designed?

I might save my powder given the relative insignificance of the former (and relative ease with which he could modify in a very minor way and circumvent), in anticipation of lodging a planning objection which might ultimately bring about a more significantly adjusted design.  (Not withstanding of course maybe circumstances are such that it’s a safer bet having a matching house next door)

 

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, Adrian Walker said:

[...]

Do not sue him - he is your neighbour.  It will come back and bite you

[...]

 

What have you really lost: I mean, really, really lost?  

Teachers all over the Internet have taken and used my resources and Debbie's (SWMBO) and used them - often. Hours and hours worth of our own work. 

Shrug and forget. 

 

6 hours ago, willbish said:

[...]

A bit of courtesy by asking permission would cost nothing.

The time'll come when you can drop it into the conversation: 'til then, head down.

[Temp]

5 hours ago, willbish said:

New development.

 

I emailed the planner saying I was surprised to see many of the new documents uploaded had been lifted from my application. I also queried the relevance.

 

She comes back to me- 

 

"They were attached on 7 October 2019, the plans were relevant as I used them to assess whether there was any additional overlooking during the course of the application.  They are attached to the file for scanning as they are useful if the applicant appeals the decision.  

 

I can only assume that they are clearing the old files away and have scanned the files in one batch. These plans were not submitted by the applicant."

 

Now I'm assuming the LPA can use documents from previous application for their own benefit?

I don't like seeing my documents publicly attributed to this application but it's not a big issue for me really and I doubt there is little i can do.

 

 

 

Still not clear what has happened.

 

It's quite possible for one application to refer to another - for example when justifying the design on a new house you can refer to houses and approved plans for house nearby. I have seen this done in the case of houses and windfarms.

 

Is it possible the company scanning the drawings for the council just messed up or has he obviously modified any to use for his application?

Edited October 21, 2019 by Temp

[epsilonGreedy]

2 minutes ago, Temp said:

Still not clear what has happened.

 

 

It sounds as though the planning officer copied a site block plan from the OP's application to the new application by the neighbour to provide context. This was done for the internal convenience of the planning office. Tis a bit naughty because it gives an impression to the general public that the OP is cooperating with or supporting the neighbour's application, local grievances arising could adverely affect the OP for years.

 

In the same position I would demand the planning office re uploads the diagrams with a handwritten note saying "Copied from application LA123xyz (Mr Willbish) without permission by council staff for internal administrative convenience". 

 

 

[Carrerahill]

2 hours ago, Adrian Walker said:

 

Do not sue him - he is your neighbour.  It will come back and bite you

 

He copied the drawing for his application from a public website.  He doesn't think that he has done anything wrong since he has not altered the drawing.  In fact he could argue that he is just making reference to your previous application and hence there is no breach of copyright at all.

 

Not the OP - his architect, that is what I am saying, we would, as in my firm, if there was a breach of copyright or use (there is even a disclaimer on our title-blocks). I am not suggesting the OP would do it to his neighbour but I would have the architect act with a tip off, it also would not get that far - rarely does - however, it was not clear how they were being used by the OP and it sounded like he was submitting them to use for his own benefit.

 

In fact the whole post is somewhat confusing now as there is now a comment that it was the planning authority (by submitting them to the authority the have rights to use them - limited, but rights) that was using them so really I don't understand what is going on.

 

 

[Temp]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

It sounds as though the planning officer copied a site block plan from the OP's application to the new application by the neighbour to provide context. This was done for the internal convenience of the planning office. Tis a bit naughty because it gives an impression to the general public that the OP is cooperating with or supporting the neighbour's application, local grievances arising could adverely affect the OP for years.

 

In the same position I would demand the planning office re uploads the diagrams with a handwritten note saying "Copied from application LA123xyz (Mr Willbish) without permission by council staff for internal administrative convenience". 

 

 

 

If that's what happened I'm inclined to let it go. Presumably the planners were trying to get the neighbor to build something that doesn't clash horribly with the existing house. They could have asked the neighbor for a street scene showing a drawing or even an actual photo of the existing house. 

[willbish]

2 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

It sounds as though the planning officer copied a site block plan from the OP's application to the new application by the neighbour to provide context. This was done for the internal convenience of the planning office. Tis a bit naughty because it gives an impression to the general public that the OP is cooperating with or supporting the neighbour's application, local grievances arising could adverely affect the OP for years.

 

 

Yes this is what appears to have happened.

The LPA has used my documents to assess if there was "any additional overlooking". These documents have been "attached to the file for scanning" and now appear on the website as part of the original application.

 

 

2 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

In the same position I would demand the planning office re uploads the diagrams with a handwritten note saying "Copied from application LA123xyz (Mr Willbish) without permission by council staff for internal administrative convenience". 

 

I have emailed the LPA asking for the documents to be removed from the website. My issue is not so much with plagiarism but appearing to publically assist the applicant.

Many other neighbours are not happy with the applicant and I'm an inclined to agree with their views although I have not made any public objections. 

 

My belief being that the LPA will act in the best interest and refuse applications which are inappropriate. The issue we have here is the applicant doesn't consider a refused application a reason not to develop/build and so we are in retrospective application territory. 

[epsilonGreedy]

4 hours ago, willbish said:

I have emailed the LPA asking for the documents to be removed from the website. My issue is not so much with plagiarism but appearing to publically assist the applicant.

Many other neighbours are not happy with the applicant and I'm an inclined to agree with their views although I have not made any public objections. 

 

 

Just mention libel and consequential damages. This is not a copyright issue.

[ToughButterCup]

16 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

It sounds as though the planning officer copied a site block plan from the OP's application to[...]

 

Storm. Tea cup.

Is sounding like  sufficient evidence to ask the planner to do something? 

 

 

[PeterW]

9 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Just mention libel and consequential damages. This is not a copyright issue.

nothing libelous in that, and consequential damages for what..? OP hasn’t made a loss..? 

[Jeremy Harris]

Just to be clear, the only legal issue here is possible breach of copyright, nothing else.  It's entirely up to the copyright holders as to whether they feel that it's worth taking action over, and my experience is that such action can be a lot of effort for no gain.  I'm still in a copyright battle over use of my images as advertising by a company that I have never contracted with.  Been going on for years now, and the images are still up, and I have no way to get them taken down, it seems.  I just hope they aren't convincing anyone to do business with the company, as if they do they will probably lose out.

[epsilonGreedy]

34 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Just to be clear, the only legal issue here is possible breach of copyright, nothing else.  It's entirely up to the copyright holders as to whether they feel that it's worth taking action over, and my experience is that such action can be a lot of effort for no gain.

 

 

49 minutes ago, PeterW said:

nothing libelous in that, and consequential damages for what..? OP hasn’t made a loss..? 

 

 

It is highly likely that when submitting a planning application the applicant grants a licence to the planning office to publish the contents of the application. Since we are talking about a branch of government utter incompetence is always a credible theory however given that publishing planning applications is such a well established procedure I think it could be argued that the licence is implied if not stated explicitly.

 

The issue highlighted by the OP is whether the incompetent handling of that right to publish has constituted an act of libel against the OP. The planning office abuse of information has created the impression that the OP is actively cooperating with the neighbour and colluding in the active building of an unapproved development. This represents a false statement about the OP and could lead to long-term damage to the OP's reputation in the local community.