However, there may well be circumstances where such a case could not be established, giving rise to increased statutory damages. The defendants were able to show that there was no "flagrant" breach of copyright, and on the facts the judge was satisfied that no additional damages should be awarded pursuant to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1998. It also found an infringement in respect of the promotional material. After a detailed comparison of the defendants’ drawings against the original plans, the High Court held that the development as built was sufficiently similar to suggest an infringement of copyright in respect of the relevant drawings and the completed design. The original applicants claimed that this constituted an infringement of their copyright.
#AS BUILT DRAWING COPY RIGHT SOFTWARE#
They also included relevant imagery in their promotion and marketing material. AS-built drawing As-built drawings are the base of your design and building process, we specialize in residential and commercial as-built drawings, using the latest and newest tools and software we obtain top notch designs. The new developers obtained copies of the plans from the city council’s website and built the scheme largely in accordance with the original plans, subject to some approved variations. While the planning application was being determined, the land was sold to a third party. The original applicants commissioned architects to prepare drawings to help secure planning permission for student accommodation on land they hoped to buy.
The ruling highlights the need for further investigation in cases where the situation is not straightforward. However, a recent High Court case involving plans for a block of student flats in Sheffield is a reminder that purchasers should make sure they have the right to use the approved drawings to construct the building, bearing in mind that failure to follow the approved plans would be a breach of planning control. They are the field redlines and changes made during construction which are recorded on the original as-bid plan set showing any changes or modifications made to. you have a very clear idea of what you expect to be given if you ask for a ‘Coca-Cola’).Case law has established that when an architect prepares planning application drawings, there is an implied licence that clients can use those drawings for all purposes related to construction of the permitted building and can transfer that licence to the purchaser when they sell the site. One of the elements of a copyright infringement action is copying.
If the architect merely sketches what someone else has already drawn, the element of originality is missing and there is no protection. While copyright will apply from the point a work is created, ‘passing off’ is based on the public perception of what the name implies, (i.e. The drawing is the expression of the idea and is given copyright protection by the Copyright Act, unless, however, the drawing is not original. This does NOT mean that there is no protection on the name, as it may be covered by other legislation: If the name was a trademark, or if it could be proved that that use of the title misleads or confuses the public, (this is know as ‘passing off’), then there can be issues. As long as the content of works themselves are not copied or adapted, no infringement has occurred.
Copyright laws are actually very restrictive, and do not apply to items such as names and titles that may be duplicated coincidentally, or that may be legitimately used in unrelated instances.įrom a copyright perspective, there is no reason why two works cannot have the same title.
0 kommentar(er)
