Am I being too sensitive or should I be concerned.

[jamiehamy]

Okay, just caught up - I go away for build some walls for a few hours and look what happens!

 

I *think* uor experience is relevant here. We were originally going to buy an old barn but that fell through. When we found the water tank, we used the same architect, however we decided for various reasons to look at who else might be interested. We changed architect, but before the new architect would do anything, he wanted permission from the old one to carry on from the very high level design that had been completed. This was despite the final design bearing little resemblance, and the final design being from a scale model my partner built and the architect simply drew up properly. Nonetheless, despite agreeing it might be a bit OTT, the new chap wanted written permission from the previous one. 

 

That was fun, but we go it in the end - but needless to say, it did very much sound like the rights to the design remained with the architect, not us - and that is not unusual. 

 

 

[jamiehamy]

I'm not out to upset anyone, but the whole design rights thing did cause us a headache. 

[Guest Alphonsox]

5 minutes ago, Sensus said:

So (technically - and don't shoot the messenger... it's just the way it is under law) if you've had Planning drawings done, their 'intended purpose' is for obtaining Planning Permission. You don't sufficiently 'own' the copyright to the extent that you can develop them into full construction drawings without the original Architect's consent.

 

Interesting - Is this ever enforced ? At what level are planning drawings seen as derivative ? - as in "my new house looks pretty much like a million other houses because that's what the planners want", whose copyright have i infringed ?

[Mr Punter]

15 minutes ago, Sensus said:

So (technically - and don't shoot the messenger... it's just the way it is under law) if you've had Planning drawings done, their 'intended purpose' is for obtaining Planning Permission. You don't sufficiently 'own' the copyright to the extent that you can develop them into full construction drawings without the original Architect's consent.

 

I think you are wrong.  Look at Blair -v- Osborne & Tomkins for reference.

 

Going with your thinking would mean that an architect could hold the client to ransom at any point, as building design is a staged process.

 

I use one architect for planning (which is his speciality) and another for detailed construction information.

 

I have, in the past, purchased plots with consent and have been asked by the architect to pay for the plans.  I refused and they did nothing.  Clearly the intention of planning drawings is to gain consent for a scheme and subsequently develop it.

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, Sensus said:

 

 

To repeat: this is not just something used by 'some' Architects. It is the default situation for all design consultants (even for Architectural Technologists, whom I notice that ProDave seems to think are the cure for all ills!). If you want it to be different, you have to specifically agree so within the contract.

 

 

Re "architectural technologists" the only reason they were the "cure" for everything was that was the only route I could find to get the package of work that I wanted.

 

I had designed the house myself and done all the drawings for planning. All i wanted was someone to detail the drawings so building control would issue a building warrant, and produce a set of drawings from which a builder could construct it.

 

For some reason no architect that I spoke to was able to quote for that package of work, they all just wanted to charge the standard fee based on their over inflated estimate of the build cost with no negotiation. That is my main gripe with architects. All this contract stuff just further entrenches my view that they are out to make the maximum money from the minimum work. If I took that view in my business as an electrician I wold be out of business very quickly.

 

There might well be some very good architects out there that will do just the work you want them to do for a fair price, and with a fair contract. It's just that I could not find one.

 

[Temp]

 

It's not the design that's copyright but the drawings. So for example you can't copyright a window shapped like a clover leaf. A new architect could also include a clover leaf shape window in the new design. What you can't do is give the new architect a copy of the first architects drawning and have him trace it. The issue is can a new architect make any use of the original drawings.

 

A lot depends on the wording of the contract you agreed with the first architect and the terms of any license it contains to use his drawings.

 

See bottom of page 14 par 47 (a) continued on page 15..

 

https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/SmallPracticeConference/2010/2011RobertStevensonHandout.pdf

 

The court held that the client paid a nominal fee for a licence to use the plans for no purpose beyond the application for planning permission. There was no licence to use the drawings to construct the building or make the modifications and therefore there was an infringement.

and then ont the other hand (b)...

That situation is to be distinguished from the usual situation which applies where a client pays a full RIBA scale fee or equivalent substantive fee for the architect to prepare drawings for planning permission. In that event, it is likely that the court will imply a licence to use the drawings for the construction of the building, as well as to obtain planning permission. The rationale for this is explained in Blair v Osborne & Tomkins [1971] 1 All ER 468. An architect had been employed under RIBA Conditions of Engagement 1962 to prepare drawings for planning permission and permission had been granted. His client sold the land and handed over the architect’s plans as part of the sale. The purchaser used its own surveyors to obtain building regulation approval. The architect claimed that this was a breach of copyright in his drawings.

 

 

 

[ProDave]

46 minutes ago, Sensus said:

Well, there at least, we do not disagree. That's surely the aim of any business?

 

And it's self-regulating, to a degree, in that if you don't do a sufficiently good job, you won't get the custom and you won't make maximum money.

 

Of course, if you run your business to make minimum money from maximum work, I can understand why you would be so pissed off with the world - and why you would have such an issue with those who succeed in doing it the other way around!

 

The aim of any business is to make a living for its owner and any staff employed. I sleep better at night knowing I have done a fair job for a fair price and know that my customers are happy with the work and happy to recommend me to others.

 

In all trades there are good and bad. Electricians are no exception, we hear horror stories of poor work and extortionate charges frequently.

 

I will finish by saying that it sounds like you are a reasonable person, and it is just such a shame that when I was looking, I could not find an architect that I would describe as reasonable.

 

Perhaps it's time to talk more of the positives rather than negatives?
 

[Stones]

5 hours ago, ProDave said:

 

And can I throw into the mix what happens when the OWNER designs his house and gives that design to the architect to detail (was the case with my present new build) There can be no argument that I own the copyright to the "design" the architect only owns the copyright to the details that he produces.
 

 

I also wonder what the position would be in these circumstances.

[jayroc2k]

On 29 December 2016 at 10:18, Sensus said:

 

"The problem with self-builders is that because they don't value their own time when costing a project, they seldom value anyone else's at what it's worth, either. "

 

 

 

On 29 December 2016 at 10:18, Sensus said:

 

 

 

Very true indeed, my partner and I are building an extension, she spent over 70 hours on the planning drawings and about an extra 100 hours on drawing details for the builder. In the end, the builder does not even read them, we have had to make him take down an entire wall because he missed the bridging detail.

 

I have spent about 200 hours on sourcing materials, calling manufacturers etc  (not including reading this forum) because in order to build within our budget, we agreed a labour only deal with the builder. We hired a structural engineer which I initially complained was too expensive, after all his input, i think his industry are just not charging enough!

 

Pretty much everyone around me is an Architect (except me), not a single one of them is profitable, in my opinion, they spend 2-3x more time on projects than they bill the client,  same goes for structural engineers.

 

I have come to the conclusion that no other profession (lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants) would do this.

 

For a bit of fun, I would love all members to bill every hour spent on their project from inception to completion at the per hour earnings of your day job (if retired, then earning just before retiring) and add it to the project, you may find your time to be worth a lot in monetary terms.

 

Not to mention, by the very reason you are on this forum means you have gained so much knowledge and advanced insight of how buildings work. I doubt a builder, after spending all day on site grafting would not have the time or energy to go home and spend another 3-4 hours researching new products, bridging details and ideas.

 

On my project, i have found good ideas have come from the everyone all the way down to the labours.