> How does a firm in general protect its intellectual
rights over its details
> and general notes based on years of experience
in the field? To me this is
> a very valuable assest that should
have some protection against employees
> taking these details with them
when they leave that firm, or others who have
> received a set of plans,
using those details in their own projects at some
> later
date.
In general, you are
correct, an intellectual asset warrants protection from
unauthorized reproduction and re-use. The most likely solution would be to
certify agreement between employer and employee in the form of a non-competition
clause as well as an an acknowledgement signed by the employee that all works
are proprietary and as such, non-disclosure policies are in effect.
This covers your staff, but only
sort of, since there's no guarantee they won't do it anyway.
At least you've given them
notice. If they break the rule you have grounds for recourse.
> This has a value when one considers that an architect can
be in practice for
> 30 years and have a huge volume of details that
finally work as hoped vs. a
> recent graduate designing a similar
structure with only a few years
> experience and having to create his own
set of details which have not been
> tried in the field. This young
architect could benefit from the older
> architect's field experienced
details and this could translate into a
> monetary value.
This
suggests some interesting scenarios.
size=3>
First it
needs to be said that , in my opinion at least, there's a dividing line that
needs to be applied. Generic construction details indicating connections,
structural members, etc., don't really change that much from one office to
another, in the same jurisdiction or climate area. About the biggest difference
I've ever seen amounts to style of delineation, i.e., text fonts, hatch,
etc. In extreme cases the amount of "detail" in the detail is a dead giveaway as
to who created it. From there you can go back to your employee agreement for an
answer.
size=3>
Overall I'd
say the "Standard Details" exclusion applies to this sort of work, as it
probably should, since a spread footing, for example, is always a spread
footing.
size=3>
On the other
hand, highly specialized detailing, for, say, a unique cornice design, or a
decorative structural connection that hasn't any proven history, "could"
fall under the copyright act. Especially if it lends a distinction to the
structure that wouldn't otherwise be there.
size=3>
Where this
all gets wild is in the arena of forensics analysis. Who has the copyright? Is
it the designer, or the analyst who provides for a solution in the detail for
the purpose of protecting all parties involved in building the structure and
maintaining it? For that matter, since this amounts in some cases to being a
life-safety matter, could it not be argued that such is public
domain?
size=3>
size=3>Fundamentally, its another paper-trail issue, and should be addressed by
contract to the parties involved.
size=3>
Finally, I
don't know of too many architects richly rewarded for only their
detailing acumen, other than that its the attention to them that makes a great
building great.
size=3>
size=3>W.
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")