![]() The word "designer" has never been held to be "confusingly similar to the word architect" that I am aware of, nor have the terms "architectural sales representative" or "software architect", but "architectural designer" has. In CA, the only regulated titles are "Architect" and " any term confusingly similar to the word architect" (BPC ยง5536(a)) (ignoring engineers for the moment). I'm curious why you would think it's illegal for an architecture firm (or any other company) to use, or not use, whatever job titles they like. Clients would get a license to use the design for the construction of the project at that site unless the contract says otherwise. ![]() because I would be a seperate legal entity. Ironically, we both would actually have liability to the project even though you were the AOR. We would have inherently joint-ownership of the intellectual property and it would be proper for both of us to rightly claim and rightfully credit each other. It would be like if I was the primary designer of the project and you were the AOR for a project. Without contractual specifics on who owns the rights, the Federal court will have to conclude that the rights are the joint property of 'two authors' (or multiple authors). The AOR would have some inferred right to credit it as a work he/she was AOR for even if it isn't his/her right. ![]() When it's not, federal law governs intellectual property rights as it would be the federal government's jurisdiction, not the state which legally can not confer or rule on matters of copyrights. ![]() If the unlicensed person was an employee of the Architect, it's a work-for-hire situation under copyright law. What would be proper is the unlicensed person would be able to claim credit for their role and so would the licensed architect claim credit as AOR. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |