Copyright is an important legal consideration for everyone involved in the building industry. Recent court decisions provide useful reminders of the consequences of infringing—or authorising the infringement of—copyright in architectural designs.

How is ownership of intellectual property in a design protected?

In Australia, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) governs copyright law. Under section 31 of the Act, copyright applies to original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works. “Artistic works” include a building or model of a building, regardless of whether the building has artistic merit.

The creator of such work—typically the architect—owns the copyright. This means reproducing or authorising the reproduction of architectural designs, whether in two-dimensional or three-dimensional form, can amount to copyright infringement. Simply building a structure from the architect’s plans—even without reproducing the drawings—can be a breach.

Even if the plans are simple or made publicly available (such as when a project home builder publishes floorplans online or makes physical copies available in a display home), they will still be protected by copyright. [1]

What if I paid for the plans?

If you engage an architect to design your plans, the architect still owns the copyright, even if the design is based on your sketch or ‘mud map’. However, you will have (unless your contract with the architect specifies otherwise) an implied licence to use the plans for the specific purpose they were created.

This implied licence usually transfers to future owners of the property. But it does not entitle you to reuse the plans for a different project or property.

To avoid uncertainty, you can negotiate ownership or a broader licence by agreement, ideally in writing. Copyright can be bought or transferred if this is explicitly provided for in a contract.

Importantly, an express agreement about copyright can override the implied licence. For example, your agreement with your architect might say that you do not have the right to use the plans unless and until the architect is paid in full. It could also say that you have no right to transfer your licence to future owners. You need to carefully check your agreement with your architect to ensure you understand your rights.

What if the architect works for me?

When architectural designs are created under an employment contract, the employer owns the copyright. This doesn’t apply to independent contractors.

If your draftsperson works in-house, it’s important to determine whether they are an employee or contractor. If they’re a contractor, you do not own the copyright unless this is clearly addressed in their engagement terms.

The Closing Loopholes Act, which amends the Fair Work legislation, includes updated criteria for distinguishing employees from independent contractors. Review this if in doubt.

Being inspired by others – how much needs to change to avoid infringement?

Copyright infringement doesn’t require copying an entire design. Reproducing a substantial part of the work is enough. What qualifies as “substantial” depends on the circumstances of each case.[2]

What Happens If Copyright Laws Are Breached?

Two recent cases highlight potential consequences:

Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton[3]

The Flatons visited a display home built by Look Design (which was a project home builder trading as Coast Life Homes). They liked the plans but chose a different builder, Edge Developments. Edge Developments told the Flatons they would only need to change the plans by 10% in order to avoid copyright infringement. Minor changes were made, and Edge constructed the home for the Flatons. Look Design sued both parties. The court held:

  • The plans were “artistic works” protected by copyright—even though they were relatively basic.
  • Modifying the plans by 10% was not enough to avoid infringing copyright.
  • The Flatons authorised the breach by giving the plans to Edge.
  • While Edge settled for $30,000, the Flatons were ultimately only ordered to pay $500 in nominal damages, as the Court found no significant loss or deliberate wrongdoing.

Coles v Dormer & Ors[4]

In this case, both the builder and owner knowingly copied a nearby home design. The court:

  • Awarded $70,000 in damages to the original designer.
  • Ordered the homeowners to substantially alter their completed home, including replacing windows and roofing.

This case illustrates that knowingly breaching copyright can result in serious financial and practical consequences—even years after construction.

Key Takeaways

  • Builders and owners can both be liable for copyright infringement—even if changes are made to the original design.
  • Paying for design work does not give you ownership unless explicitly agreed.
  • Copyright generally remains with the architect or original creator, not the client or contractor.
  • Always clarify copyright ownership and licensing rights upfront—especially when working with contractors or multiple designers.
  • Courts may award significant damages, and even require major design changes post-construction.

Need More Information?

Breaching copyright law in relation to building plans can be both costly and stressful. If you’re unsure about your rights or obligations, MV Law can help you navigate the legal complexities.

MV Law Canberra

Ph: (02) 6279 4444

Email: info@mvlaw.com.au

________

[1] Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116.

[2] Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116.

[3] [2022] QDC 116

[4] [2015] QSC 224