Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The straight answer to this question is that copyright in an architect's design is owned by
('vested in' is the legal phrase) the architect who produced the design. Clients sometimes
claim copyright if they fall out with their architects and are disinclined to pay the proper
fee.CopyrightisgovernedbytheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988asamended,and
there is also a substantial amount of case law on the topic. It is quite complex, and as with
all the other questions in this topic, specific problems require specific answers. Therefore,
all that can be done here is to set out a few general principles.
Itisimportanttounderstandthatcopyrightdoesnotsubsistinideas,butonlyinthewayin
whichtheideasarepresented.Clientsoftenthinkthattheyarejustasresponsibleforthefin-
ished design as the architect concerned. In a way that is true. Architects and clients usually
work together very closely to produce the brief and then to create the building that solves
the problem posed by the brief. Some clients have very clear ideas about their requirements,
but it is the architect who interprets these ideas in the form of a design. If a client was able
to sustain a claim to copyright in a design, it would have to be shown that the client took
part in the transforming of the ideas into drawings, whether via drawing board or CAD ma-
case of a client being able accurately to draw a design that satisfied the brief and to pass it
to the architect so that all that needed to be done was to draw it out neatly, or being able to
provide such clear instructions that the architect became, in effect, a draftsman, it might be
that the client had a share in the copyright with the architect. However, that will be a very
rare circumstance.
Even if the client gives the architect a detailed drawing of what is required, the architect
willusuallyhavetochangeitconsiderablyinordertomakeitworkinpractice.Itisdifficult
to show that one design has been copied from another, which is why there are relatively so
few successful cases about infringement of copyright. Usually there have to be some signi-
ficant features on both designs.
In the majority of instances, the architect retains copyright in the designs and the client
has a licence to reproduce the design in the form of a building. Sometimes the terms of ap-
pointment expressly set this out, as in the RIBA-produced forms of appointment. Even if
the appointment document does not mention copyright, it will be implied that the client has
a licence to reproduce the design if a substantial fee has been paid. As a rule of thumb, it
is usually assumed that the licence will be implied if the client has paid for all work up to
RIBA stage D (now approximately RIBA 2013 stage 3). If the fee paid is only nominal, no
such licence will be implied. For example, a client will not normally have a licence to re-
produce a design in the form of a building if the architect has been paid only for preparing a
planning application.
