Aia License Agreement

Contractors` rights to use services are exposed to Section 1.5.2 of AIA A201-2007. Contractors are limited to using the documents necessary to carry out the volume of work of each contractor, as defined in the agreement of each contractor with the owner. The contractor may not use the services for other projects or for work outside its scope, unless the owner and architect admit this use in writing. The owner can also terminate the architect for convenience. Section 9.5 of the AIA B201-2007 document allows the owner to terminate the architect for convenience after 7 days of written communication, for owner`s reasons and without reason. In this scenario, the owner`s license for the use of the Services is complete. The claim of copyright infringement by AhAdams focused on the fact that the drawings had a copyright symbol, followed by the language “This drawing or its parts cannot be modified or reproduced in any form without the written permission of AHAdams-Company.” The Court found, however, that simply listing a copyright symbol in a drawing does not mean that a party does not intend to grant a non-exclusive licence. The court also found that the language that followed the copyright symbol was the only indication that AHAdams required its continued participation in the project. In addition, the copyright language was small and difficult to read. The Court found that this language could not exceed the language of the AHAdams AIA agreement, which expressly granted Spectrum a non-exclusive licence for the use of the drawings. Courts often use a three-factor test to determine whether an unspoken licence has been granted. It is likely that a court will find a non-exclusive tacit licence if (1) the taker requests the creation of a plant; (2) the licensee creates the work and the book to the licensee; and (3) the licensee intends to copy and distribute his works by the licensee.

The first two factors in this case being undisputed (Spectrum requested that the drawings be drawn up and provided to AHAdams), it was sufficient to analyze the intent of the parties. The Court found that the analysis constituted an objective analysis of the facts that revealed the contractual intent and listed the factors to be taken into account: finally, the complexity of the project may mean that certain elements of the project belong to the owner, while the other elements remain the property of the architect.