Looking for service to create house plan in X7

[Chieftmbm50]

Hi Everyone,

 

I'm a home owner looking to get some chief architect design services.  We are working with a contractor for a new residential project but he is not a CAD guy.  He does use Chief X7 for making small plans and changes. 

 

We have found an online plan thats pretty close to what we want but we would like the plan replicated in ChiefX7 so our builder can make changes at will.   We did try and contact the website with the plans but go no response.  Its a fairly typical 3000sqft 2-story traditional home with attached garage.

 

We are located in PA.  Sample layout is attached.

 

A .plan and a .layout would be helpful.

 

As for a time line, we are not in a rush.  The project has no set start so its not something we are looking to get priority service for.

 

If anyone is interested, please send me a ballpark figure for the services. 

[DCortes]

My guess you will have a problem with this.  Since 1990, the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act specifically has protected "architectural works," which include architectural plans and drawings as well as "the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design." Original plans and drawings for the design of a property, or the property itself, can be protected under the copyright laws.

 

You will have to go to the owner of those plans.  JMHO

[DanielAllen]

Send me your email and we can discuss your needs for designing your home and providing construction/ permit documents.

 

danielallendesigns@gmail.com

[DRAWZILLA]

You can use that as a starting point then change some, and it will be ok. done it a thousand times

[designedbyAlan]

Those plans are copyrighted and cannot be replicated, even if there are slight modifications.

[DRAWZILLA]

I don't think so

[lbuttery]

Perry:

 

Alan is correct

 

derivations of a copyright are still protected by the copyright

 

can someone copyright a cape code model - probably not

 

the model has to be "unique" to be copyrightable

 

probably best to assume a set of plans are protected by copyright

 

Lew

[DRAWZILLA]

Lew, nothing is unique anymore. I have talked to an Attorney about this. If you make some changes, doesn't that make it a different unique. What about room additions, I have done hundreds with only interior remodeling yet I have to draw the whole house over and over again, looks just like the original, with kitchen and bath remodels . No one has ever sued me over drawing it. I also invite them to spend thousands of dollars taking me to court only to lose the case, and also have to pay my Attorney's fees.

 

So Lew, you are just Dreaming.  You actually believe the scare tactic's going around.

[DRAWZILLA]

Marc, I'm not saying you just take a Design and run with it. you change it, And you and I know, we can do it. And yes my Attorney is one of the top Attorneys in California construction, also works for Architects. Big projects. I'm willing to listen to him rather than anyone here on this forum. He just says anything I do he could beat anyone if that occurred, He told me don't worry about it. He owes me anyway.

[DRAWZILLA]

Nothing is unique anymore unless you are at Disney. I have changed A couple of Joe's macro's, But he taught me how.

[DavidJPotter]

If that were true no one could draw a square, circle or rectangle because its all been done before, rediculous. There is a specific definition for copy and it means a precise duplicate in every way. not similar but the same in all respects, look it up.

 

DJP

[lbuttery]

Perry/David:

 

sorry but read the copyright law

 

derivations of a copyright are still covered by the copyright

 

given that understanding we did take the left side of one plan and merge it with the right side of another

 

we did take a plan and enlarge it from 4000' sgft to 8000' sqft

and also reduced another plan from 10,000 sqft to 7,000 sqft

 

could we have been sued - maybe so

 

I'm not saying you will be sued but that you could be sued

 

so we added a disclaimer to our contracts with the builder that he had the rights to the plans

how were we too know if he did our didn't ???

hopefully the disclaimer would have held in court

but maybe it wouldn't

 

we were never sued so we will never know

 

Lew

[Geyatautsilvsgi]

This has always been an interesting topic. I had a contractor ask me once to duplicate some plans without changing anything. I was skeptical because if the copyright laws etc. I contacted my state A & E boards and asjed them. I was told "change 20-25% of the plan...it won't be the same...you are ok". By the time I did that, it was nothing like the original. So when clients ask me to "copy" someone elses work, I explain to them the issue of copyright protection, how much I would have to modify their plan, they're like whats the point? I say exactly, and we agree on a custom design. 10 times out of 10 they like their custom design better than the plan they were trying to copy.

[lbuttery]

 I was told "change 20-25% of the plan...it won't be the same

 

Jacquilla:

 

all depends on the judge as to whether it is derivative

 

Lew

[DRAWZILLA]

Maybe it's different in California, never ask the A&E boards, they will give you their skew on it. Ask an attorney that does this. Lew ,please look at "Case law" not what someone has told you.

[kMoquin]

I find when a client arrives with a plan they've found and we benign fixing all the things that do not work it is radically changed. The client always wants "one little thing" changed, but the ripple effect is always large.

[dshall]

I find when a client arrives with a plan they've found and we benign fixing all the things that do not work it is radically changed. The client always wants "one little thing" changed, but the ripple effect is always large.

 

 

Yep,  their plan is perfect except they want to change a door swing,  3 hours later,  it is a different plan.  

[DRAWZILLA]

Then you have to change it back b/c they can' afford it.

[joey_martin]

If someone wants a "copy" of a plan they bring to me, I go to the site they were going to steal it from, and ask for 25% more than they could buy it from the site....they go back to original designer.

[Joe_Carrick]

If someone wants a "copy" of a plan they bring to me, I go to the site they were going to steal it from, and ask for 25% more than they could buy it from the site....they go back to original designer.

Perfect !!!!!!!

[lbuttery]

Lew ,please look at "Case law" not what someone has told you.

 

Perry:

 

I have ....

 

besides, I am simply stating what the law says

what you do with that info is up to you

 

Lew
 

 

 

 

 

[Northriver]

This was an actual court case.

 

 

Analyzing for the first time a copyright suit under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment against the plaintiff, finding tryable issues of fact. T-Peg, Inc., v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., Case No. 05-2866 (1st Cir., Aug. 18, 2006) (Lynch, J.).

The plaintiff filed a copyright infringement suit under the AWCPA against the defendants, including Vermont Timber Works (VTW) and a property owner who hired T-Peg to provide architectural designs and a construction material package for a timber frame house. The property owner terminated its relationship with T-Peg after having seen T-Peg’s architectural plans and then hired VTW for construction of a timber frame house with elements similar to T-Peg’s design. Based on its comparison of the relative architectural designs, the district court granted a summary judgment for the defendants, finding the no reasonable jury could conclude that VTW copied T-Peg’s architectural work or that VTW’s frame was "substantially similar" to T-Peg’s registered plans. T-Peg appealed.

The First Circuit noted that under the Copyright Act, in order to establish copyright infringement the copyright owner must establish two elements: ownership of a valid copyright and copying of elements of an original work. Proof of the latter may be in the form of a showing that the defendant actually copied the work, through either direct or indirect evidence, or that the infringing and copyrighted works are substantially similar. The court noted that the AWCPA added "architectural works" as a new category of copyrightable works defined expansively to include the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including other buildings, architectural plans or drawings. The court noted further the holder of a copyright in an architectural plan has two copyrights: one under the provision for an architectural work and another under the provision for a "pictorial, graphical or sculptural work."

The court concluded that a factual dispute existed regarding direct evidence of copying, and that the necessary elements needed to indirectly establish copying could have been inferred by a reasonable jury. The First Circuit thus concluded there were genuine issues of material fact as to substantial similarity between the accused and copyrighted works. The Court found that the district court erred in failing to consider those similarities that went to "overall form" as well as the "arrangement and composition of spaces and elements," noting that according to the AWCPA legislative history: "[t]he phrase ‘arrangement and composition of spaces and elements’ recognizes that … creativity in architecture frequently takes the form of a selection, coordination, or arrangement of un-protectible elements into an original, protectible whole."

[DRAWZILLA]

All depends on how good your Attorney is and the judge. Of course any time you go to court, you lose. I guess you would have to see the copy.

[Joe_Carrick]

What happens if someone copies one of my designs and then I create a new design that's almost an exact copy of my design?  Will I get sued by the person that copied mine originally?

[OkcDesigner]

Joe,

 

I would be concerned with the macro of the month gang....... I mean really as great as you macro's are a few changes and anyone of them could be resold with the thinking in this thread.........