ᐅ Building Plans for a Prefabricated House as a Template – Could This Cause Issues?
Created on: 16 Oct 2015 20:20
N
NOUSEFORANAME
We are currently in the detailed preliminary planning phase before consulting an architect soon.
At the moment, we are wondering if there could be any legal issues if we use prefab house manufacturer plans as inspiration. For example, we really like the exterior dimensions, layout, etc. We would only want to change a few small details such as the arrangement and size of the windows and doors.
Legally, the plans are apparently protected as stated in the printed material...
The question is, what exactly can be protected in such a design? If we only change a small portion, it wouldn’t be an exact copy anymore, or am I mistaken?
Even if we were to implement it exactly as is, the chance that the prefab company would ever find out seems low, doesn’t it?
At the moment, we are wondering if there could be any legal issues if we use prefab house manufacturer plans as inspiration. For example, we really like the exterior dimensions, layout, etc. We would only want to change a few small details such as the arrangement and size of the windows and doors.
Legally, the plans are apparently protected as stated in the printed material...
The question is, what exactly can be protected in such a design? If we only change a small portion, it wouldn’t be an exact copy anymore, or am I mistaken?
Even if we were to implement it exactly as is, the chance that the prefab company would ever find out seems low, doesn’t it?
N
NOUSEFORANAME16 Oct 2015 21:33“Pandora’s box” seems to be the standard answer to every question... Thank you for the helpful and very detailed response
I
Irgendwoabaier16 Oct 2015 21:40Honest answer? The architect will bill correctly for whatever they were commissioned to do.
At that time, we had our own ideas, and our architect offered several really good improvement suggestions, which quickly led us to a successful design.
And yes, we brought along a brochure from another company as a basis for design discussions. We liked the basic concept, but some adjustments had to be made to fit the plot. Among other things, the second balcony had to be added due to the property’s characteristics, as well as the roof pitch, which needed to comply with the planning permission / building permit...
So, the building’s external dimensions changed from 8m x 11m (26ft 3in x 36ft 1in) to 8m x 10.5m (26ft 3in x 34ft 5in), roof pitch from 25° to 30°, entrance moved from the eave side to the gable side, staircase shifted inside, plus a second balcony (yes, it is used a lot), and a few other small modifications... The architect really had some great ideas on how to enhance the solid base design even further.
At that time, we had our own ideas, and our architect offered several really good improvement suggestions, which quickly led us to a successful design.
And yes, we brought along a brochure from another company as a basis for design discussions. We liked the basic concept, but some adjustments had to be made to fit the plot. Among other things, the second balcony had to be added due to the property’s characteristics, as well as the roof pitch, which needed to comply with the planning permission / building permit...
So, the building’s external dimensions changed from 8m x 11m (26ft 3in x 36ft 1in) to 8m x 10.5m (26ft 3in x 34ft 5in), roof pitch from 25° to 30°, entrance moved from the eave side to the gable side, staircase shifted inside, plus a second balcony (yes, it is used a lot), and a few other small modifications... The architect really had some great ideas on how to enhance the solid base design even further.
;- ) It may all be like that, but I’m not sure if gray areas should be debated and sugar-coated here.
Of course, you can take a design and move a wall — that doesn’t make you the intellectual property owner; unclear if many would lose sleep over that... It’s similar with the HOAI.
The real question is where to draw the line... Throwing trash out of the car, bending the truth a little on the tax return, running a red light at night, finding a wallet and keeping the money, not pointing out a craftsman’s billing mistake (of course to their disadvantage), hitting someone else’s car with your door in a parking lot and driving off — after all, it already had scratches...
Of course, you can take a design and move a wall — that doesn’t make you the intellectual property owner; unclear if many would lose sleep over that... It’s similar with the HOAI.
The real question is where to draw the line... Throwing trash out of the car, bending the truth a little on the tax return, running a red light at night, finding a wallet and keeping the money, not pointing out a craftsman’s billing mistake (of course to their disadvantage), hitting someone else’s car with your door in a parking lot and driving off — after all, it already had scratches...
N
NOUSEFORANAME16 Oct 2015 21:44Not everything that limps is a comparison
You don’t need to reinvent the wheel, but apparently you do need to reinvent the house, judging by the posts here. A typical standard house from company A will certainly look very similar to one from company Z – and so will the houses in between. There is no major intellectual property behind these designs anymore. Just because copyright is rightly brought up and needs to be understood, it’s important to separate the wheat from the chaff. No one is violating copyright by copying a standard design from Heinz von Heiden and having it finalized by a planner. At least an architect charges for such a design according to HOAI 😉
B
Bauexperte17 Oct 2015 00:50Good evening,
The Architects' Chamber of Baden-Württemberg provides a clear and easy-to-understand summary regarding architects' copyrights. Here is an excerpt:
"According to § 2 of the Copyright Act (UrhG), buildings and their associated plans are also protected works under copyright law if they represent a personal intellectual creation—that is, they are 'works of architectural art.'
According to Beigel**, the following must be present:
'A unique personal intellectual creation brought about through artistic means by design activities and primarily intended to aesthetically inspire emotions through visual perception; it is irrelevant whether the work also serves a practical purpose alongside its aesthetic function. However, the aesthetic content of the work must reach such a level that, in the opinion of those receptive to art and somewhat familiar with art appreciation, it can be regarded as an artistic achievement.'
According to case law, a work of architectural art exists if it stands out from the mass of everyday construction work and is the result of a personal intellectual creation or differs from average architectural work. An aesthetic value is therefore basically not required. So far, no copyright claim has been denied because the building was considered ugly.
The extent to which the artistic achievement is reflected in the work determines the individuality that is crucial for copyright protection; the practical use of the building does not exclude the artistic protection of a building.
[ ...]
Even individual parts of a building can be copyrighted if they meet the above requirements and already constitute an independent work, separate from the overall building."
Sources/references: Architects' Chamber Baden-Württemberg,
**Beigel, Architects' Copyrights, Bauverlag 1984 Rn. 40 ff.
If I were you, for example, I would avoid taking on Huf® or Davinci®.
Best regards, Bauexperte
NOUSEFORANAME schrieb:You have a strange understanding of mine and yours 😕
Legally, the plans are apparently protected as stated in print...
Even if we were to implement them exactly as they are, the chances of the prefab company ever finding out would be low, right?
The Architects' Chamber of Baden-Württemberg provides a clear and easy-to-understand summary regarding architects' copyrights. Here is an excerpt:
"According to § 2 of the Copyright Act (UrhG), buildings and their associated plans are also protected works under copyright law if they represent a personal intellectual creation—that is, they are 'works of architectural art.'
According to Beigel**, the following must be present:
'A unique personal intellectual creation brought about through artistic means by design activities and primarily intended to aesthetically inspire emotions through visual perception; it is irrelevant whether the work also serves a practical purpose alongside its aesthetic function. However, the aesthetic content of the work must reach such a level that, in the opinion of those receptive to art and somewhat familiar with art appreciation, it can be regarded as an artistic achievement.'
According to case law, a work of architectural art exists if it stands out from the mass of everyday construction work and is the result of a personal intellectual creation or differs from average architectural work. An aesthetic value is therefore basically not required. So far, no copyright claim has been denied because the building was considered ugly.
The extent to which the artistic achievement is reflected in the work determines the individuality that is crucial for copyright protection; the practical use of the building does not exclude the artistic protection of a building.
[ ...]
Even individual parts of a building can be copyrighted if they meet the above requirements and already constitute an independent work, separate from the overall building."
Sources/references: Architects' Chamber Baden-Württemberg,
**Beigel, Architects' Copyrights, Bauverlag 1984 Rn. 40 ff.
If I were you, for example, I would avoid taking on Huf® or Davinci®.
Best regards, Bauexperte
Similar topics