Copyright has no place in Architecture: Part VI - O+M Data and Conclusion

Thank you to everyone who's come along every step of the way on this journey through copyright in architecture. If you'd like to revisit any previous topics, here they are:

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

As we near the end of the construction process, we near the end of this series of articles. We’re now talking about building handover, including all the information the client needs to own the building. This information is often characterized as operational and maintenance (or O+M) data. O+M data are often provided for a wide array of project systems. 

This O+M data comes from various sources. They may be published data on manufacturers' websites, shop drawings for a particular installation, or specific data that relates to a bespoke product. In the end, one thing is clear, O+M data is largely a reproduction of various submittals produced by trades, manufacturers, suppliers, and commissioning agents.

Often, these documents are reproduced in the most archaic fashion - a copying machine. If I again go copy my favourite book, Green Eggs and Ham (re: Article 5), on a copying machine, that is precisely the sort of conduct the Copyright Act intends to protect.

I would argue, it should not protect the reproduction of this O+M data that an owner requires to operate their asset. Nonetheless, the Copyright Act doesn't appear to make this distinction - although I would appreciate any insight from colleagues to the contrary.

Each time a consultant compiles O+M documentation, we are committing copyright infringement to the letter of the Act. Certainly there are exceptions - whether by way of (yes you guessed it) license or by way of some sort of implied right (which I haven't come across yet in my reading of the case law).

Some might be inclined to accept the current state of affairs and be subject to their own infractions to these legislated limits. While they're currently undecided by the courts to my knowledge, that does not mean they won’t be decided in the future. What can be alleged is that the reproduction of O+M documents is prohibited under the Copyright Act.

Architects and consultants alike - license your work to your clients. You'll have more enduring relationships as a result.

Or we can take an alternative approach. I'm not suggesting careful navigation of these waters. I'm advocating for clearing the seas and removing the barriers. Architects and consultants alike - license your work to your clients. You'll have more enduring relationships as a result. While an argument can be made that these documents are probably already licensed to owners for a particular purpose, I suggest going one step further. License your work to everyone involved in the project and who might be involved with the project in the future. Give other parties the ability to benefit from your product. Serve your clients better. Be a recognized asset to the industry.

Conclusion

Over the last 5 days, I've articulated why copyright doesn't belong in architecture. We’re all guilty of infringing it, we all seem to still insist on it, and we’re all falling further behind because of it. This doesn't mean I'll rip off the next Zaha Hadid design as a Holo-Blok original. Originality is architecture at its finest. 

Instead, let's:

1. adopt a culture of sharing, enhanced efficiency, and more productivity as a profession;
2. share native, electronic documents transparently and with a view to serving our clients better;
3. learn from the accomplishments and failures of our colleagues; and
4. push our professional associations and legislators to modernize this archaic body of law as it applies to architecture.

Most importantly, let's revert back to a humble, yet valued, profession where the focus is on generating value for our clients, stakeholders, and the underlying objectives of our governing legislation.

This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice by contacting their own legal counsel. Roddy Handa and holo-blok Architecture does not warrant or guarantee the quality, accuracy or completeness of any information in this article. The content should not be relied upon as accurate or fit for any particular purpose.

Roddy Handa is an architect and lawyer who specializes in digital project delivery. He is the key founder of holo-blok - a collection of architectural problem solvers specialising in building solutions.