Architecture - Regarding another architects plans.

Author

Regarding another architects plans.

Edgar

2006-09-05, 5:25 pm

So a friend of mine's father really likes the plan one of his neighbors has
on a sloped site overlooking the ocean. Of course no two sites are the
same, but they are very similar. The owner of the house that they like has
the plans to the house, and the father wanted to know if I could do
something with them. I would most likely take a lot of info regarding the
foundation, which would be dug into the hill, while the other 2 stories
would be built on this foundation. I would basically be redrawing
everything myself but possibly be using some of the plans the other
homeowner has for reference. The father would then have everything checked
out through an engineer. Is this legal/ethical/what have you? What are the
rules about copyright and how do they relate to something like this? Is
there a required amount of change before it is considered a new design? The
original owner said they had lots of problems with the original architect
and would not recommend using them at all. The father wants to help me out
on my newly purchased home (in the form of money). What should I tell him?
I would basically be providing drafting services with a bit of design, while
the engineer would calc and stamp the plans for city approval. Sorry if
this was covered in the FAQ, but it is getting pretty long now, I can't read
the whole thing

.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

3D Peruna

2006-09-05, 8:25 pm

Edgar wrote:
> So a friend of mine's father really likes the plan one of his neighbors has
> on a sloped site overlooking the ocean. Of course no two sites are the
> same, but they are very similar. The owner of the house that they like has
> the plans to the house, and the father wanted to know if I could do
> something with them. I would most likely take a lot of info regarding the
> foundation, which would be dug into the hill, while the other 2 stories
> would be built on this foundation. I would basically be redrawing
> everything myself but possibly be using some of the plans the other
> homeowner has for reference. The father would then have everything checked
> out through an engineer. Is this legal/ethical/what have you? What are the
> rules about copyright and how do they relate to something like this? Is
> there a required amount of change before it is considered a new design? The
> original owner said they had lots of problems with the original architect
> and would not recommend using them at all. The father wants to help me out
> on my newly purchased home (in the form of money). What should I tell him?
> I would basically be providing drafting services with a bit of design, while
> the engineer would calc and stamp the plans for city approval. Sorry if
> this was covered in the FAQ, but it is getting pretty long now, I can't read
> the whole thing

.
>

Well...it depends on how much of the design you "borrow". If you
essentially copy the plan, you're in violation of the copyright. If it
was a licensed architect, then he's not going to be too keen on you
using his design. Part of the problem is liability, the other part is
ego. If you take the same basic plan diagram and modify it to fit your
client...well, then, that's a whole 'nuther story.

The rest...well, it depends on the local jurisdiction if it's legal for
you to design a house. Some places require an architect AND an
engineer. Some don't. Check

Jude Alexander

2006-09-06, 9:25 am

Edgar

2006-09-06, 1:25 pm

"3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
news:f5oLg.189$ID3.115@newsfe07.lga...
> Edgar wrote:
>
>
> Well...it depends on how much of the design you "borrow". If you
> essentially copy the plan, you're in violation of the copyright. If it
> was a licensed architect, then he's not going to be too keen on you using
> his design. Part of the problem is liability, the other part is ego. If
> you take the same basic plan diagram and modify it to fit your
> client...well, then, that's a whole 'nuther story.
>
> The rest...well, it depends on the local jurisdiction if it's legal for
> you to design a house. Some places require an architect AND an engineer.
> Some don't. Check
>

That's the first thing I told him to do. Find out which stamps are
necessary, if they need an architects stamp then this whole thing is moot.
I would more than likely change a few things on the plans to change the
design a bit, but try to keep all structural elements the same. Of course
the engineer could change all that. Other than that he is sending me a topo
map and the foundation plans for the house he lives in now so I can get an
idea of how it works. I was also wondering about copying the plans for my
use. I don't know if it has any sort of "do not copy" stamps or something.
I might only be able to borrow them for a little while.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

3D Peruna

2006-09-06, 1:25 pm

Jude Alexander wrote:

> There is no copyright law regarding plans. The only thing I'm aware of is
> that if you put a statement on your plans that these plans are not to be
> reproduced, most copying businesses will honor that request.
>
> You can't sue someone for using their plans even for a licensed architect.
> I remember this from college and I've also called AIA and asked and there is
> no copyright law. Can you image the clotted justice system.... "The guy
> stole my bathroom design!"

How about checking with the US Copyright office:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.html

It's established precedent. Will you get sued if you copy a guy's
bathroom layout, no. Will you get sued if you build another copy of his
building? Possibly...

eds

2006-09-06, 1:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44fedb77$0$19645$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
> news:f5oLg.189$ID3.115@newsfe07.lga...
>
> That's the first thing I told him to do. Find out which stamps are
> necessary, if they need an architects stamp then this whole thing is moot.
> I would more than likely change a few things on the plans to change the
> design a bit, but try to keep all structural elements the same. Of course
> the engineer could change all that. Other than that he is sending me a
> topo map and the foundation plans for the house he lives in now so I can
> get an idea of how it works. I was also wondering about copying the plans
> for my use. I don't know if it has any sort of "do not copy" stamps or
> something. I might only be able to borrow them for a little while.
>
> --
> Edgar
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

Ever hear of plagiarism? Worked for an Architect 30 years ago who had 2
different houses copied and built after they were published in magazines. In
both cases he sued and received a substantial portion of the fee. The
copyright laws are now even tighter.
EDS

Edgar

2006-09-06, 1:25 pm

"eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kM-dneCDX5v9YmPZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44fedb77$0$19645$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> Ever hear of plagiarism? Worked for an Architect 30 years ago who had 2
> different houses copied and built after they were published in magazines.
> In both cases he sued and received a substantial portion of the fee. The
> copyright laws are now even tighter.
> EDS
>

Yes I've heard of it, which is why I am asking. Now question to you is,
were these houses that were plagiarized copied exactly, or were they changed
slightly/significantly? Was the fact that they were published in a magazine
give more credence to his lawsuit, or was that irrelevant? I need more info
man, more info!

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Don

2006-09-06, 5:25 pm

"Jude Alexander"> wrote
> There is no copyright law regarding plans. The only thing I'm aware of
> is that if you put a statement on your plans that these plans are not to
> be reproduced, most copying businesses will honor that request.
>
> You can't sue someone for using their plans even for a licensed architect.
> I remember this from college and I've also called AIA and asked and there
> is no copyright law. Can you image the clotted justice system.... "The
> guy stole my bathroom design!"

The next time you come by remind me to show you the file cabinet with all
the failed suits generated by emotional responses to assumed copyright
violations.
I got sued for a KITCHEN one time.
Whether you're right or wrong its best to avoid the confrontation if
possible.
Lawyers are prohibitively expensive and I'm sure you have better things to
do with your coins.

The situation that Edgar described is the perfect platform to getting his
feet wet.
He can use the *basic idea* of the original plans and expand on that by
adding in all of the things the new owner will want.
In the end it will be a brand new plan and house.

Since 1986 there has only been one dwg file created, all other plans since
have been *edited* versions of that first plan.
We've all violated our own copyrights!!!!! heh-heh

Edgar

2006-09-06, 8:25 pm

Don

2006-09-06, 8:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ff4b2b$0$19725$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ednf02022gi@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> Yes my feet are much too dry, and my wallet full of moths. I think maybe
> if I change the facade enough the architect wouldn't even think it has
> anything to do with the one he designed. Of course my friends dad would
> have enough changes to constitute a new plan. I've never done a full
> house and he constantly comes at me with some of the most difficult sites.
> I would have loved to just get a nice fairly flat site to start out, but I
> gotta start somewhere.

Do you have anyone locally with more experience that you can consult with?
Back in the day I did hundreds of remodeling projects before I actually did
a full houseplan on my own.

Jude Alexander

2006-09-07, 9:25 am

"3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
news:B8CLg.17$yd7.14@newsfe02.lga...
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
>
> How about checking with the US Copyright office:
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.html
>
> It's established precedent. Will you get sued if you copy a guy's
> bathroom layout, no. Will you get sued if you build another copy of his
> building? Possibly...

Okay, I read parts of it. It's official date is 1990, way after I persued
the issue and therefore is relatively new but I've been hearing other
architects mumble "copyright" since I was in college (1986 grad).
However, it's literally impossible to prove copying if it differs, I'd say,
even 20%. Also, that you use the word "possibly" let's me know you're in
tune of how difficult it would be to prove someone actually copied any or
most of one's plans. It would probably be more easily done with commercial
rather than residential and in relationship to it's fronts rather than it's
layouts unless it's a very unusual layout.

You walk into a receptionist's part of a small Dentist's Office with a small
waiting room. The hall is double loaded with rooms each with dental chair
and each room probably has the minimal comfort space to accommodate the
equip. There's two restrooms for each gender. I wonder just how many small
Dentist's Office are 90% alike? It's an absurd law imo, unless it's 100%
copied, inside and out, and the only difference is that some architect just
made more copies of it with his name on it. I'd say that doing that would
be unethical.

Jude Alexander

2006-09-07, 9:25 am

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ednf02022gi@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Jude Alexander"> wrote
>
>
> The next time you come by remind me to show you the file cabinet with all
> the failed suits generated by emotional responses to assumed copyright
> violations.
> I got sued for a KITCHEN one time.

That was my take on the issue. A guy walks into a room and sees something
completely alike from his plans. The chance of that happening is rather
larger than I think most people expect. How many ways can one design a
kitchen. You've GOT to have all the elements and if you do a lot of plans
with 1,000's of other architects from your state are doing lots of plans,
how many layouts can one come up with EVEN in relationship to how many
doorways. Obviously, the amount and location of entrances from other spaces
will greater impact what goes where.

> Whether you're right or wrong its best to avoid the confrontation if
> possible. Lawyers are prohibitively expensive and I'm sure you have better
> things to do with your coins.
>
> The situation that Edgar described is the perfect platform to getting his
> feet wet.
> He can use the *basic idea* of the original plans and expand on that by
> adding in all of the things the new owner will want.
> In the end it will be a brand new plan and house.

I agree. One can take a houseplan by another (which probably holds a few
ideas from yet another plan, on and on) and then customize it, stretch this
room out, bring this space in which will affect other parts of the original
plan which will change a bit therefore, blah blah blah until in the end it
is almost unrecognizable that the resulting plan was a take off from the
original.

> Since 1986 there has only been one dwg file created, all other plans since
> have been *edited* versions of that first plan.
> We've all violated our own copyrights!!!!! heh-heh

I've done variations of my own plans also. Once, I had a couple that had
know the original owners (former neighbors before the move into the new
house) and the couples wanted a slight variation of the plans. I called the
owners and told me they didn't mind having the plans used again more as a
courtesy as I wasn't thinking copyright. I only changed the M. Bath area
and deleted the extraneous areas in the 1/2 story above (weight lifting
room/game room/office/library).

3D Peruna

2006-09-07, 9:25 am

Jude Alexander wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
> news:B8CLg.17$yd7.14@newsfe02.lga...
>
> Okay, I read parts of it. It's official date is 1990, way after I persued
> the issue and therefore is relatively new but I've been hearing other
> architects mumble "copyright" since I was in college (1986 grad).
> However, it's literally impossible to prove copying if it differs, I'd say,
> even 20%. Also, that you use the word "possibly" let's me know you're in
> tune of how difficult it would be to prove someone actually copied any or
> most of one's plans. It would probably be more easily done with commercial
> rather than residential and in relationship to it's fronts rather than it's
> layouts unless it's a very unusual layout.

It's not so difficult to prove...but you have to care enough to do it.
Your original argument was "There is no copyright law regarding plans."
Quite clearly there is a copyright law regarding plans.

>
> You walk into a receptionist's part of a small Dentist's Office with a small
> waiting room. The hall is double loaded with rooms each with dental chair
> and each room probably has the minimal comfort space to accommodate the
> equip. There's two restrooms for each gender. I wonder just how many small
> Dentist's Office are 90% alike? It's an absurd law imo, unless it's 100%
> copied, inside and out, and the only difference is that some architect just
> made more copies of it with his name on it. I'd say that doing that would
> be unethical.

Why? How about if the architect told the client the client was getting
a "reused" design and that the design? There isn't enough information
in the scenario you presented to make a determination of ethics.

Edgar

2006-09-07, 1:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ednnm402etd@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44ff4b2b$0$19725$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> Do you have anyone locally with more experience that you can consult with?
> Back in the day I did hundreds of remodeling projects before I actually
> did a full houseplan on my own.
>

Well my boss here is a very nice guy, I think he might be willing to look
over my stuff. Other than that, not much.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jude Alexander

2006-09-07, 1:25 pm

"3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
news:cZVLg.296$fK7.175@newsfe03.lga...
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
> It's not so difficult to prove...but you have to care enough to do it.
> Your original argument was "There is no copyright law regarding plans."
> Quite clearly there is a copyright law regarding plans.

My original argument was based what I discovered awhile ago. It's ONLY been
since 1990 that a copyright law was instituted. I knew at that time that
there were powerful lobbyist trying to get copyright law instituted but I
hoped it wouldn't come to fruition. So much for hope.

Hey, he stole my bathroom! ;)

>
> Why? How about if the architect told the client the client was getting a
> "reused" design and that the design? There isn't enough information in
> the scenario you presented to make a determination of ethics.

I wasn't attempting to make or ask you to make an completely adequate
determination of ethics with the situation I described. However, I KNOW
you're not an idiot so you got the message, which is given a small office
with the same type of equipment required and the same minimal spatial
"tricks" (i.e. double loading halls, etc.) it would be difficult to say a
layout has been stolen.

Hey, he stole my bathroom! ;)

3D Peruna

2006-09-07, 1:25 pm

Jude Alexander wrote:

>
> I wasn't attempting to make or ask you to make an completely adequate
> determination of ethics with the situation I described. However, I KNOW
> you're not an idiot so you got the message, which is given a small office
> with the same type of equipment required and the same minimal spatial
> "tricks" (i.e. double loading halls, etc.) it would be difficult to say a
> layout has been stolen.

No doubt... For instance, I think there are really only a half dozen
apartment layouts in existence. Every apartment complex in the US is a
minor variation on the same plan...

eds

2006-09-07, 1:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44fef4c2$0$19684$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kM-dneCDX5v9YmPZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Yes I've heard of it, which is why I am asking. Now question to you is,
> were these houses that were plagiarized copied exactly, or were they
> changed slightly/significantly? Was the fact that they were published in
> a magazine give more credence to his lawsuit, or was that irrelevant? I
> need more info man, more info!
>
> --
> Edgar
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
Exterior appearance was very close in both cases. A contractor who was
building another house for us in CT spotted it within 1/4 mile of the new
house. We would never have known otherwise. Told me about it and I took
photos. Yes the fact that it was published and the architect or owner had
not contacted us was a major factor. The other house was in California and a
friend of the firm saw it in a local CA newspaper and sent it to us.
EDS

Jude Alexander

2006-09-07, 1:25 pm

"3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
news:j0XLg.564$fK7.107@newsfe03.lga...
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
>
> No doubt... For instance, I think there are really only a half dozen
> apartment layouts in existence. Every apartment complex in the US is a
> minor variation on the same plan...

Okay, so we're basically on the same page. so what do you think the 1990
copyright laws actually do for anyone except protect an architect from doing
all the work and having another person come behind and just copy him but it
would have to be an obvious 100% reproduction of a distinqishable commerical
building? It seems it would be massively hard to do with 99% of house
plans.

Edgar

2006-09-07, 1:25 pm

"eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:No2dncAnOdMU3Z3YnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44fef4c2$0$19684$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Exterior appearance was very close in both cases. A contractor who was
> building another house for us in CT spotted it within 1/4 mile of the new
> house. We would never have known otherwise. Told me about it and I took
> photos. Yes the fact that it was published and the architect or owner had
> not contacted us was a major factor. The other house was in California and
> a friend of the firm saw it in a local CA newspaper and sent it to us.
> EDS
>

Ok that is good info. Thank you.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Michael $LS$

2006-09-07, 5:25 pm

"eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:No2dncAnOdMU3Z3YnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44fef4c2$0$19684$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
wanted[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
amount[color=darkred]
it[color=darkred]
is[color=darkred]
your[color=darkred]
for[color=darkred]
he[color=darkred]
lives[color=darkred]
about[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
magazines.[color=darkred]
The[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
> Exterior appearance was very close in both cases. A contractor who was
> building another house for us in CT spotted it within 1/4 mile of the new
> house. We would never have known otherwise. Told me about it and I took
> photos. Yes the fact that it was published and the architect or owner had
> not contacted us was a major factor. The other house was in California and
a
> friend of the firm saw it in a local CA newspaper and sent it to us.
> EDS
>
>

I was flipping through the latest issue of "Residential Design & Build"
magazine yesterday and there was a short industry news piece about how
Rottlund Homes "won a legal battle to protect its design". Seems another
townhouse builder had copied Rottlund's townhouse design. "In Dec. 2004, a
jury decided in favor of the defendants, finding the townhomes were not
substantially similar." However, the Court of Appeals evidently sided with
Rottlund.

A google search will probably turn up more info on the matter (if anyone
cares to look).

Michael (LS)

3D Peruna

2006-09-07, 5:25 pm

Jude Alexander wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
> news:j0XLg.564$fK7.107@newsfe03.lga...
>
> Okay, so we're basically on the same page. so what do you think the 1990
> copyright laws actually do for anyone except protect an architect from doing
> all the work and having another person come behind and just copy him but it
> would have to be an obvious 100% reproduction of a distinqishable commerical
> building? It seems it would be massively hard to do with 99% of house
> plans.

I think it provides a little more protection that that... For instance,
I once worked for a design/build firm. The firm wouldn't do design work
for you unless they also did the construction. Fairly regularly, the
design work would be completed and the price would come in way over
budget. At this point, the client got mad and usually left. Once, one
of the principals of the firm was out and saw a house being built on the
client's lot. He got out and did a little investiation... they were
using the plan developed, but not paid for, to build the house. They
had had it redrafted, to remove the titleblock info, but it was exactly
the same house. They took the client and draftsman to court...and won.

The law doesn't necessarily distinguish between commercial and
residential. Also, I think that you could, in court, win a "close
enough" argument. A structure could have a completely different
interior plan, but same exterior and it would be in violation.

But that implies that you want to deal with the whole legal aspect.
Will the judgement be worth the hassle? The law exists (and it's
certainly one that can be argued isn't a great law)... But I don't
think that it's that hard to win... I just think in almost every case
it's not worth it to win.

Don

2006-09-07, 8:25 pm

"Jude Alexander"> wrote
> Okay, I read parts of it. It's official date is 1990, way after I persued
> the issue and therefore is relatively new but I've been hearing other
> architects mumble "copyright" since I was in college (1986 grad). However,
> it's literally impossible to prove copying if it differs, I'd say, even
> 20%. Also, that you use the word "possibly" let's me know you're in tune
> of how difficult it would be to prove someone actually copied any or most
> of one's plans. It would probably be more easily done with commercial
> rather than residential and in relationship to it's fronts rather than
> it's layouts unless it's a very unusual layout.
>
> You walk into a receptionist's part of a small Dentist's Office with a
> small waiting room. The hall is double loaded with rooms each with dental
> chair and each room probably has the minimal comfort space to accommodate
> the equip. There's two restrooms for each gender. I wonder just how many
> small Dentist's Office are 90% alike? It's an absurd law imo, unless it's
> 100% copied, inside and out, and the only difference is that some
> architect just made more copies of it with his name on it. I'd say that
> doing that would be unethical.

The thing is if you're sued, whether you're right or wrong is irrelevent to
the fact that you have to defend yourself in the system.
AFTER you've been sued is the absolute WORST time to hire an attorney as
they know you NEED them and they stick it to you a little deeper.
Even if you win the case you are out the cost of the attorney.
It really is a no win situation.

Each designer has to make his own decisions on whether putting food in his
kids caves warrants doing something that can jeopardize his career and
further, is that really what anyone wants to do, *copy* somebody elses
stuff?

Copying stuff requires no real talent or skill and my career has been all
about designing from images in my own head.
I've turned jobs down where people have requested exact copy's of model
homes.
It just ain't worth it, in many ways.

Don

2006-09-07, 8:25 pm

"Jude Alexander"> wrote
> My original argument was based what I discovered awhile ago. It's ONLY
> been since 1990 that a copyright law was instituted.

In 1988 I was wrongly accused of copyright infringement.

Jude Alexander

2006-09-07, 8:25 pm

"3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
news:tz%Lg.767$fK7.557@newsfe03.lga...
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
> I think it provides a little more protection that that... For instance, I
> once worked for a design/build firm. The firm wouldn't do design work for
> you unless they also did the construction. Fairly regularly, the design
> work would be completed and the price would come in way over budget. At
> this point, the client got mad and usually left. Once, one of the
> principals of the firm was out and saw a house being built on the client's
> lot. He got out and did a little investiation... they were using the plan
> developed, but not paid for, to build the house. They had had it
> redrafted, to remove the titleblock info, but it was exactly the same
> house. They took the client and draftsman to court...and won.

I agree with this and I'm glad they were caught.

However, there is a statement you made that the firm you worked for at one
point *regularly" went over budget. Perhaps, the clients should have taken
the firm to court rather than sneak around and do wrong.

> The law doesn't necessarily distinguish between commercial and
> residential. Also, I think that you could, in court, win a "close enough"
> argument. A structure could have a completely different interior plan,
> but same exterior and it would be in violation.
>
> But that implies that you want to deal with the whole legal aspect. Will
> the judgement be worth the hassle? The law exists (and it's certainly one
> that can be argued isn't a great law)... But I don't think that it's that
> hard to win... I just think in almost every case it's not worth it to win.
>

Jude Alexander

2006-09-07, 8:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:edq5ic08kt@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Jude Alexander"> wrote
>
> In 1988 I was wrongly accused of copyright infringement.

Well, the copyright law says :

Eligible Works
Architectural works created on or after December 1, 1990, and any
architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished
plans or drawings on that date are eligible for protection.

housemouse.net

2006-09-08, 5:25 pm

How about using classic designs from old house-plan books?

The books are from before 1923:

http://www.housemouse.net

Jude Alexander wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:edq5ic08kt@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Well, the copyright law says :
>
> Eligible Works
> Architectural works created on or after December 1, 1990, and any
> architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished
> plans or drawings on that date are eligible for protection.

LinkBot