Nelson-Salabes, Inc. v. Morningside Holdings Of Satyr Hill, L.L.C.

Facts

P is an architectural firm. P was hired by a local real estate development and construction company, The Strutt Group, to provide architectural work for a proposed assisted living facility, Satyr Hill Catered Living (Satyr Hill). P agreed to develop a schematic building footprint on an hourly basis. Strutt never signed the agreement. Nonetheless, both parties performed fully under the contract. Strutt retained P to perform the architectural work for the Design Phase. P agreed to develop the exterior elevations and attend the zoning exception hearing. Again, Strutt did not sign the letter of agreement. P performed the services outlined in the Design Phase letter agreement, and in consideration, Strutt paid P $18,250. P created four drawings depicting the footprint, floor plans, and elevations of the Satyr Hill site. The Satyr Hill site has a three-story building configured in 'Y' shape. The front elevation features an octagonal-shaped silo in the center, where two arms of the 'Y' intersect. The first floor of the silo serves as an entrance. A porte-cochere extends from the entrance to a traffic circle in front of the building. The second and third floors of the silo serve as common areas and contain large windows. The first floor of the vertical element is brick, and the remainder of the building is vinyl siding. Both ends of the front elevation contain a vertical element protruding from the building with bay windows and a gable roof. There are also vertical elements with gable roofs located between the silo and the ends of the building. These elements protrude from the building and aesthetically break up the length of the building. P's drawings were incorporated into the development plan. The development plan was submitted and Baltimore County granted the exception on April 7, 1997. P sent Strutt a third letter proposal offering to provide the design and working drawings for the remaining phases of the project. The letter agreement was signed and revised on September 29, 1997, to exclude mechanical and electrical engineering from the scope of work. P also sent a revised AIA contract. The AIA contract is a form created by the American Institute of Architects which contains standard terms and conditions between architects and their clients. Architects then tailor the document to specific projects. Article 6 of the AIA Agreement provides, in relevant part: The Architect's Drawings, Specifications, or other documents shall not be used by the Owner or others on other projects, for additions to this Project, or for completion of this Project by others unless the Architect is adjudged to be in default under this Agreement, except by agreement in writing and with appropriate compensation to the Architect. On October 7, 1997, Strutt instructed P to stop working on the project. D got interested in the Satyr Hill site because it had an approved development plan. D was aware that P created the development plans for Strutt. P sent D its Design Development proposal for the Satyr Hill project as well as its latest billing for the project. D purchased the sites. D decided not to use P. P informed D it could proceed with another architect, but if he did so, he could not use P's design, including the footprint and elevations. Further, P's attorney subsequently wrote D a letter to inform him that none of the design concepts or design documents prepared by P should be used without the express written consent of P. On February 13, 1998, P submitted its certificate of registration of a copyright for its schematic designs of the Satyr Hill project. D gave EDG, D's new architect a copy of P's plans and the approved development plan. D asked EDG to design Satyr Hill but not to change the plans to such a degree that EDG's design did not fit within the approved plan. Turner knew that substantial changes would require a new special exception, which would be time-consuming and costly. According, to D, EDG rolled up P's plans after the meeting and never used them again. EDG designed the building and on July 13, 1998, P filed a one-count complaint, alleging that the Ds infringed P's copyright by copying the footprint and exterior elevations from the architectural designs and plans created by P. Ds assert that neither the footprint of the building nor the elevations are copyrightable and that the Y-shaped footprint is neither original nor an expression of artistic merit. They argue that it is utilitarian and within the public domain. According to Ds, the 'Y' shape is commonly used for architectural structures and, in this case, was dictated by zoning regulations, building codes, and physical attributes of the site. Ds assert that the various elements of the front elevation, such as brick, siding, gables, the octagonal entrance, and bay windows are common features of similar buildings in the area. Ds claim that the height of the building and the elevations were dictated by the Baltimore County zoning ordinance.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.