Designer Fired - Re-use of plans. 4

[JoeTank]

Wow, the circle of darkness keeps getting bigger on this thread. Lots of assumptions and precious few facts. This is taking on a real "what if" debate flavor isn't it? This thread is a good one,but now my head hurts. Bye.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[EddyC]

Steve,

Its been a long time since we heard from you. Your opinions are usually interesting and I look forward to hearing more of them.

 

[DRC1]

Daley has provided final drawings to the owner. This is what it was contracted to do. The expertice and consulting should be summarized in thoe drawings and bid documents. If the airport wants to advertise the job for construction based on those plans, it should be able to do so, but that is all. For another designer to pickup were these plans leave off is to modify a design that the A/E has no knowledge of . This strictly prohibited by license laws in most if not all states (for good reason) Therefore, if the owner, has the plans, it is like owning a Ferrari, but not ever being able to drive it. He has a right to the plans, but he can not ask another engineer to have a stamp cover them.

 

[LHA]

My take, and only speaking from a site/civil perspective:

The product of a design is not just the resulting document, but the procedural files. If you hire someone to provide what the sum of 2 and 2 is, it would be an incomplete deliverable to just provide a document with "4" written on it. The number 4, standing alone, is the complete and correct answer, but further analysis, auditing or use of that product is impossible without the procedural input (ie, "2+2") Twenty years ago, a piece of paper with both items "2+2" and "4" would have been reasonably expected. What should "reasonably" be expected as an end product has changed with the advent of the PC.

Twenty years ago, a Due Diligence search consisting of phone calls, a search at the courthouse, etc. would have been reasonably complete. Now, a Due Diligence Study including a websearch (AND the documentation of said websearch, including addresses used, not just a summary of findings) is the norm. To provide one without a websearch (AND the documentation of said websearch) would be negligent in my opinion; it would be incomplete, with respect to what is reasonable for a client to expect.

Likewise, twenty years ago, a bound copy of a Stormwater Management Report (again, with input data as well as output results) was reasonable to expect. Today, the computer input should be expected, because it is no longer standard to expect a curve on graph paper as a hydrograph.

As with the examples above, if I am hired to do a site design, I am expected (and usually contractually directed) to provide CADD files...not just the layers which show the end result, but working files. This allows the client further analysis, audit or use of the product; which they paid for. They paid for a design, and a site/civil design in 2005 is a CADD file, not a blueprint.


Remember: The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is comprised of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.”
-Steve

 

[dik]

I suspect that it largely depends on the arrangement between the airport and the original designer, either at onset of the contract or at final payment/termination time.

Generally, the drawings would be owned by the airport and depending on the jurisdiction, the copyright would be owned by the original designer, or if it was transferred, the airport.

The new designer, with permission from the copyright owner, could likely use the plans; there may be other professional restrictions/notifications. At very least, professional courtesy dictates that the original designer be advised of any reuse.

My $.03 (CAN). Dik

 

[ctmtwilliams]

I continue to find it interesting how many engineers like to chime in on legal issues when they would crindge at lawers putting their 0.02 in on engineering issues!

 

[IRstuff]

Do you consult a lawyer when you want to cross the street? Or do you consult a lawyer to take a driver's license exam? Are the consumer truth-in-lending inserts that you get for your lawyer or for you?

It's mandatory in our company for EVERY engineer to understand Sarbanes-Oxley, Truth-in-Negotiations, insider-trading, employment of foreign consultants, , etc.

As engineers, many things that we do or know have legal consequences, while almost nothing that lawyers do have engineering consequences.

TTFN

 

[boffintech]

I have to agree with IRstuff on this one. Every engineer must have basic understanding of how the legal process functions or he/she will have a very short lived career. Offering what amounts to be one’s understanding of a particular legal matter is not the same as offering legal advice for a fee.

 

[casseopeia]

JAE is absolutely correct. Drawings, specifications, notes, sketches are all instruments of service. The owner is buying hours of service, not so many bags of ziti!

Legally, even when the contract is silent on ownership of drawings, courts have a tendancy to use the AIA standard as a benchmark for building construction. Can't say what they do in cases of airplane or oil rig construction.

You do not purchase a building design like a can of peas. What if the owner chooses to place that building on an inappropriate site, say one within a significanly higher earthquake zone? What if the owner chooses to move the building to a swamp, or right on top of a Karst feature?

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[RDK]

Depends what the contract for services says.

A lot of firms have a clause that the plans are instruments for work and belong to the design firm.

Owners on the other hand have standard clauses that say that copyright of the plans belongs to the owner and not the designer.

In the absence of a contract the copyright belongs to the creator of the work.


If you have a contract that requires that copyrights go to the owner, make sure that your sub consultants sign on to this clause specifically so that when things go wrong, (when not if) you are in a position to deliver the copyright to the owner that you are contractually required to do and that you don’t have to turn around and pay extra for them from the sub consultant.



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com