Copyright and public plan submissions.

[epsilonGreedy]

When an architect's diagram is submitted as part of a planning application that is subsequently approved and published in the public domain, does the submitter of the planning application retain copyright over the plan?

 

I ask because I want to submit a small revision to an approved plan of the plot I am purchasing and the simplest route would be to download some of the diagrams listed with the approved plan, digitally tipex out the feature I wish to change and then draw in my alternative.

 

Would this land me in hot water?

 

I am not sure what is reasonable, the architect has been paid for his work in obtaining DPP and the plot seller will get his pot of gold.

[Jeremy Harris]

5 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

When an architect's diagram is submitted as part of a planning application that is subsequently approved and published in the public domain, does the submitter of the planning application retain copyright over the plan?

 

I ask because I want to submit a small revision to an approved plan of the plot I am purchasing and the simplest route would be to download some of the diagrams listed with the approved plan, digitally tipex out the feature I wish to change and then draw in my alternative.

 

Would this land me in hot water?

 

I am not sure what is reasonable, the architect has been paid for his work in obtaining DPP and the plot seller will get his pot of gold.

 

 

Yes.  Copyright stays with the author unless specifically assigned to another.  It doesn't matter if something is published, posted on the internet or whatever, unless the author has specifically waived his rights then he retains the copyright, as a general rule.

 

Architects are pretty hot on this, as they know their work will end up on council planning sites, so they tend to be pretty robust in not allowing anyone to use it for free!

 

Best bet would be to seek permission from the architect and see what he/she says.

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

[...]

Would this land me in hot water?

[...]

 

Yes. Simple rule of thumb.

If you had done the grunt-work, and somebody else tweaked it a bit, and then used it, how would you feel?

[epsilonGreedy]

51 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Best bet would be to seek permission from the architect and see what he/she says.

 

 

I thought it might be the case, I might introduce this as a negotiation point during conveyancing. Something like, "The purchaser is granted rights to create duplicate copies and publish minor amendments to the plans in order to build the dwelling and when interacting with suppliers, contractors and local officials.".

 

Without such a clause an architect would in effect maintain an exclusive right to supply all architectural services post plot purchase because it would not be cost effective to start with a blank sheet and recreate copies of the original DPP. 

[Jeremy Harris]

5 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

I thought it might be the case, I might introduce this as a negotiation point during conveyancing. Something like, "The purchaser is granted rights to create duplicate copies and publish minor amendments to the plans in order to build the dwelling and when interacting with suppliers, contractors and local officials.".

 

Without such a clause an architect would in effect maintain an exclusive right to supply all architectural services post plot purchase because it would not be cost effective to start with a blank sheet and recreate copies of the original DPP. 

 

I doubt you'll get an architect to assign over their copyright as a part of a conveyancing deal, TBH.  They have/had a contract with the seller (presumably) which won't be transferable, in all probability, so you would need to negotiate directly with the architect, I think.

 

There's nothing to stop you putting in a planning application for something similar, but not using the original architects drawings, though.  The old planning permission remain valid, so there's no real risk involved in submitting a new application, just the cost and time.  If the new design is broadly similar in terms of design scale and placement then the chances are there would little or no problems in getting it approved.

 

 

[epsilonGreedy]

2 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

Yes. Simple rule of thumb.

If you had done the grunt-work, and somebody else tweaked it a bit, and then used it, how would you feel?

 

 

Said architect did the grunt work for the plot seller and presumably got paid handsomely for his role in turning a green field into a highly valuable asset.

 

I hope that an experienced solicitor would rise this matter. None of the self build advice I have read covers this point presumably because most plots are sold with OPP and so plot purchasers expect to pay for cleansheet pro design. 

[Ferdinand]

If you haven't bought the plot yet you could make a right to reuse part of the sale contract, and the seller could deal with it easily because they were switched on enough to have the ownership of copyright or right for a n other to reuse in their contract with the architect, or there could be a fee which they could absorb or negotiate about passing on.

 

Or you could renogotiate with the architect.

 

Or you could ask the seller what it would cost them to get the right to reassign to you, and they may get a better price from the architect.

 

We have covered on BH somewhere because some of us learnt the lesson the hard way.

 

If you are talking about this it would also be useful to talk about you taking over formally as client so you could benefit fully from the architects liability insurance etc. THe cost could be nominal. That was a standard facility from the Surveyor when we had a structural survey done before we sold our last house ... the buyer could become the owner of the report for a very few £ (perhaps £30 iirc).

 

This thread touched on elephant traps where architects are involved:

 

The same applies to all consultant reports :-).

 

F

Edited February 28, 2018 by Ferdinand

[epsilonGreedy]

7 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

I doubt you'll get an architect to assign over their copyright as a part of a conveyancing deal, TBH. 

 

 

Another question springs to mind, when the original owner of the land paid the architect did he become the owner of the DPP design he paid for? What is typical business practice?

 

My design change is minor, less than a 2% change to the overall design vision and it would be much simpler to illustrate this overlaid against the original.

 

My question is bigger in scope than just the planning revision, a brickie team has asked for a full sized printed copy of the elevation plan.

[Jeremy Harris]

4 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Said architect did the grunt work for the plot seller and presumably got paid handsomely for his role in turning a green field into a highly valuable asset.

 

I hope that an experienced solicitor would rise this matter. None of the self build advice I have read covers this point presumably because most plots are sold with OPP and so plot purchasers expect to pay for cleansheet pro design. 

 

Our plot had full, rather than outline, planning permission, but the house design was horrid, so I started again with a totally different design.  It meant submitting a new application, and doing some drawings (but only outline ones) but it really wasn't that arduous.  The principle of development had already been set by the existing application, so I just needed to do a lot of work to persuade the planners (well, to be fair, the planning officer was onside it was the environment agency, conservation officer and the committee of the AONB that were the hardest to convince)

[epsilonGreedy]

2 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

the AONB that were the hardest to convince)

 

 

You are a braver man than me. I am dealing with two conservation officers, one is employed by the local authority and the other one cooks my dinner.

[Jeremy Harris]

1 minute ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Another question springs to mind, when the original owner of the land paid the architect did he become the owner of the DPP design he paid for? What is typical business practice?

 

My design change is minor, less than a 2% change to the overall design vision and it would be much simpler to illustrate this overlaid against the original.

 

My question is bigger in scope than just the planning revision, a brickie team has asked for a full sized printed copy of the elevation plan.

 

 

The design almost always remains the intellectual property of the architect, not the land owner, even though the land owner paid for it.

 

When you contract with a designer or architect, what you are buying is a one-time right to use their design, usually.  Often this is a non-transferable right, but it may be that the plot owner was far-sighted enough to obtain a transferable right, you'd need to check.

 

Copyright has caught me out before now, as has the assignment of rights.  I wrote an article for a magazine years ago, and because I didn't understand the way assignment of rights worked, I accidentally agreed to assign them "all rights" when I sold them the article.  They published in the UK magazine, then a few months later went on to use the article in their big US sister publication.  When I rang them to ask about payment for this, they pointed out that I had assigned them "all rights" in the original contract.  A hard lesson to learn.  Since them I've only ever sold articles with "limited UK rights only", usually one publication only, which stops companies doing this.  If they want to publish it a second time, they have to come back to me and negotiate another fee.

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Another question springs to mind, when the original owner of the land paid the architect did he become the owner of the DPP design he paid for? What is typical business practice?

 

My design change is minor, less than a 2% change to the overall design vision and it would be much simpler to illustrate this overlaid against the original.

 

My question is bigger in scope than just the planning revision, a brickie team has asked for a full sized printed copy of the elevation plan.

 

THe answer to para 1 is not usually unless the vendor negotiated something with the architect at the outset, or the architect was an employee of his, or there was a work for hire agreement, and the terms of the relationship transferred all the rights.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Ferdinand

[Mr Punter]

On the basis that you will need more drawings for building regs, I would get your building regs CAD person to draw up your new scheme and submit for planning.  If the changes are minor you will get consent in any case.  As I understand it, even a very minor change can be considered to be a new original work.

 

The person we use for planning consent has no real interest in doing the detail stuff and will happily hand over the CAD drawings to the others.  Some architects are far stickier than others, but initiating court action would be very expensive for them so unless the design is very unique and special they won't bother.

[epsilonGreedy]

Since stating this thread more weird legal scenarios are popping into my head.

• A supplier of a major component of the house used diagrams on the local authority planning web site to produce an engineering diagram and then a quote. Could this be construed as unlicensed use of the architect's original DPP work?
• If the brick & block laying team build the shell without a detailed building diagram and instead we eyeball an image of the elevation diagram on an iPad screen on site, would that transgress the architect's intellectual property rights?
• And in an extreme case, if the architect is given no further work beyond the DPP design work for the plot seller and then visits the finished house, could he declare that the physical house is an unlicensed manifestation of his paper design? 

I must be over interpreting this scenario otherwise this issue of architectural IP would be as topical as ranson strips.

[Jeremy Harris]

1 minute ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Since stating this thread more weird legal scenarios are popping into my head.

• A supplier of a major component of the house used diagrams on the local authority planning web site to produce an engineering diagram and then a quote. Could this be construed as unlicensed use of the architect's original DPP work?
• If the brick & block laying team build the shell without a detailed building diagram and instead we eyeball an image of the elevation diagram on an iPad screen on site, would that transgress the architect's intellectual property rights?
• And in an extreme case, if the architect is given no further work beyond the DPP design work for the plot seller and then visits the finished house, could he declare that the physical house is an unlicensed manifestation of his paper design? 

I must be over interpreting this scenario otherwise this issue of architectural IP would be as topical as ranson strips.

 

 

The first point is that enforcement of copyright can be a pain, and there is a massive amount of copyright abuse in the UK, anyway.

 

A lot depends on what the drawings were produced for.  A set of outline drawings for planning aren't likely to be much use to someone building the house and producing major components, they would need a lot more detail.

 

If the architect hasn't assigned rights to the person having the house built and they then build it to his design, such that a reasonable person would recognise the architects design in the finished house, then yes, that would probably infringe the architects copyright.

 

Same for the last case, although far less likely, as there would most probably not be any significant house design on an outline permission submission, only a very rough outline of where the house may be and roughly what size and shape it may be, etc.

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

 

Same for the last case, although far less likely, as there would most probably not be any significant house design on an outline permission submission, only a very rough outline of where the house may be and roughly what size and shape it may be, etc.

 

Just to clarify, I am purchasing the plot with DPP and I actually like the approved plan except for one detail I want to tweak. If I progress without further input from the architect then the finished house will hopefully be an accurate clone of the DPP design. I am now wondering if I have steered the discussion down the wrong path by referring to "copyright", in the software world there is copyright but licences control usage rights. Does an architect's design published on a LA planning web site have an implied licence for use at the designated plot? 

[Jeremy Harris]

49 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Just to clarify, I am purchasing the plot with DPP and I actually like the approved plan except for one detail I want to tweak. If I progress without further input from the architect then the finished house will hopefully be an accurate clone of the DPP design. I am now wondering if I have steered the discussion down the wrong path by referring to "copyright", in the software world there is copyright but licences control usage rights. Does an architect's design published on a LA planning web site have an implied licence for use at the designated plot? 

 

 

Sorry, I misread DPP as OPP earlier.

 

The architects design will have been produced to fulfil a brief/contract with the original plot owner, so the plot owner almost certainly has assigned rights to use the design.  The question is whether or not those rights are transferable to a purchaser without a fee, and that's something you can only find out by asking.

 

Publication of the design is a red herring in this case, as just because the drawings appear on the council planning website doesn't have any effect at all on the assigned rights.  The only way to find out is to ask, and in the first instance I'd ask the vendor if the assigned rights he holds to build the house to that design are transferable or not.  I suspect not, but you'll only know for sure by asking.

[Ferdinand]

@epsilonGreedy

 

Having thought a little more, I think that in your situation I would:

 

1 - Contact the architect first, framed as an expectation ("could you clarify" or "could you confirm") that small changes would be OK or attract a small charge only. I think I would do an informal phone call confirmed by email with the drawings. Confirm the contents of the phone call in the email, so you create the contemporaneous record.

 

2 - Ask the seller more formally after you have the architect answer. Then the vendor will tell you about what he has negotiated.

 

Then if the architect states the charge in the conversation, you have a negotiating lever with the vendor.

And if he says it is OK, then you are in the clear.

 

If he wants money, perhaps make an alternative offer involving him being allowed to show clients round your house for 12 months after completion, or similar - if you are so inclined.

 

Ferdinand

Edited March 1, 2018 by Ferdinand

[epsilonGreedy]

@Ferdinand I like your tactical thinking.

 

The trigger for this thread is that the plot seller opened an enquiry and the architect quoted £600 to change the plan plus handle the whole planning amendment dialogue. Only at this point did I begin to appreciate that ownership of plans can lead to an architect establishing a defacto monopoly position for follow-on design work on an approved plot.

 

I imagine if I challenged the architect about the fee he would say the mouse wiggling edit of the plan is just part of the job and most of the quote would cover the ping/pong dialogue with the planning department.

 

Following the advice in this thread I think I need to bite the bullet and purchase a decent technical design software program and work up my own clean sheet version of the plan. 

 

Thanks all.

 

I will present my more conceptual legal question about whether an architect could claim that a finished house is an unlicensed manifestation of his design to my conveyancing solicitor and report back. I skipped the section on architects and planning in the House Builders Bible because the plot has DPP already, maybe I missed some words of wisdom on plan ownership in that book.