More on the NYT Dream Blog "architectural drawings ownership" issue

A lawyer in Boston opines on Who Holds the Rights in the Design of a Building?. My own comment on the lawyer's blog (which I note has not been approved):

I too have been following the Dream Home blog with fascination...like watching an acquaintance walking a tight-rope with eyes closed. And I was particularly interested in the whole discussion of "ownership" of the drawings. Over the years I have hireed many architects and that clause has always annoyed me as I usually have a large and very productive contribution to the design. So "the design" is in fact very much mine. But I gave up arguing about the whole re-use of plans business because I found "ownership" of the plans to be a non-issue. It really doesn't matter, except in very unusual circiumstances.

First of all, you can't copyright a site-plan and/or floor-plan.

Second, rarely, if ever, re-uses plans exactly as originally drawn. It just doesn't happen. So why argue about it? Most urban commercial buildings are so "one-off" that it makes no sense to make it an issue.

Third, if you do have a repeatable design — say a small commercial building which could simply be adapted to another site with only re-arrangement (if that) of parking etc and utilities — a smart architect who did the original plans will charge only the real, legitimate cost of re-drawing. If they don't, they have lost a client and you march merrily down the road to a new architect and have them re-draw it, changing only enough to make sure that architect # 1 has no legal much less moral case. Yes, you do have to pay for repeating some drafting. But that is trivial.

Overall, I see the "ownership" issue as an ego-driven non-issue. Where am I wrong?

One other point. It's only when you come to starchitecture that this issue is even remotely germane. As I don't like startchitecture in general or for my own projects I don't give a rip. Would I really want to do a knock-off of a Koolhaas or Gehry design? Don't make me laugh. I like ordinary, banal site plans and massings which are made brilliant by materials, detailing, colors, plantings etc. I don't buy freakitecture. My whole problem with the NYT couple doing the Dream Home blog is their naive insistence on having a "special and unique" house. Every time I see such a demand I think of what (architect) Jim Cutler told me years ago when a sketch he did for me looked very much like the sketch from the modular home company: "Dave, there are certain truths about floor plans."

Comments

[JRoth]

And this comment appeared on a lawyer's blog? The $300/hr people? The every-phone-call-is-billable people? The that-includes-voicemails people? That is - and I mean this literally - insulting.

Successful, established architects bill at around $120/hr, and are lucky to bill 30 hours a week. Most clients balk at architects' fees - whatever they are, no matter how much the client makes. I've never known an architect - including successful ones with second and third houses - who isn't constantly giving back fees to clients who don't value what architects provide. The only way for an architect to run a profitable business is to sell his valuable work - the design services - multiple times (NB - contract administration services are generally profitable; of course, CMs have tried to steal that portion of the architect's job). Except for large, one-off buildings (hospitals, skyscrapers, libraries, courthouses), very few projects are profitable the first time around. Hell, even firms that do hospitals only make money on the third or fourth. There's all sorts of reasons that this is true, but none of those reasons changes the facts. And the facts indicate that the commenter you cite doesn't think architects deserve to be paid as professionals.

One final note: would this commenter write to the proprietor of that blog, "Well, certainly I'd pay for whatever time you spent reading the contract, but otherwise I expect only to be billed for the time your secretary spent retyping it."? Not in a million years.

[David Sucher]

JR.
Are you insulted by the underlying post? — or the comment which I quote... which I wrote?

[JRoth]

Ack. Yes, by your comment - I hadn't realized it was yours. I cited lawyers' fees because I thought the commenter might have been a lawyer, but either way, my point remains. I don't dispute your every point, but I have a big problem with the way architects are paid (and valued) in this country, and your post captures a lot of that problem - a presumption tha tthe architect's contribution is primarily limited to regulatory gatekeeping (yes, you hand-wave at design aesthetics in your enveloping post here, but I think your "real" feelings are evident in everything else you say).

And I would sincerely like to hear your response to my final note, and explain how the situations are different. Would you really make the same demand of a lawyer?

[David Sucher]

JR,
I have added a few words to make my intent clear -- which is to express the idea that "ownership of the drawings" is in reality and for the largest part a non-issue of no importance to either party. I don't see that my perspective as an insult to either party.

[Stephen Rosenberg]

David, I have now approved your comment. I was busy with a trial and simply didn't get to my comments folder for a bit. I liked your comment though, as well as my go round of your blog. I was going to pass onto you in response to your comment, however, the following thought. With regard to your question of "where am I wrong?", you are, in essence, not wrong, in that you point out that a problem over ownership of the plans will be a very rare occurrence because of the realities of construction, architecture and the marketplace. But I know from my own practice they do come up, involving arguments over credit to a successful design, including in particular in the circumstance you describe, where the person retaining the architect has made a substantial contribution to the design process.

I suppose at the end of the day my point really is that, in my experience, there is no reason for the client not to protect him or herself in the contracting phase against such disputes.