Which case is described by the sequence: Owner terminates Architect; New Architect uses original work product; Owner and follow-on architect liable for copyright infringement?

Which case is described by the sequence: Owner terminates Architect; New Architect uses original work product; Owner and follow-on architect liable for copyright infringement?

• A. Smith v. Construction (1996)
• B. Johnson V. Jones (1996)
• C. Miller v. ArchDesign (1994)
• D. Williams v. Builder (1997)

Answer: (B)

The situation tests how copyright on architectural work product is handled when a project passes from one architect to another and the original designs are reused. In architectural practice, the drawings, models, and specs created by the architect are protected as original works of authorship. Ownership or the right to use those works generally stays with the author unless the contract explicitly transfers ownership or grants a license. If the owner terminates the original architect and then a new architect reproduces or uses the same original design without a license or assignment, that use constitutes copyright infringement. The owner who authorized or enabled the reuse and the follow-on architect who copies the work can both be liable. Johnson v. Jones (1996) addresses this exact pattern: a client ends the relationship with the original architect, a successor architect uses the original work product, and both the owner and the successor architect end up liable for infringement because the protected designs were used without proper authorization. That precedent makes the described sequence the best fit for the question.

The situation tests how copyright on architectural work product is handled when a project passes from one architect to another and the original designs are reused. In architectural practice, the drawings, models, and specs created by the architect are protected as original works of authorship. Ownership or the right to use those works generally stays with the author unless the contract explicitly transfers ownership or grants a license. If the owner terminates the original architect and then a new architect reproduces or uses the same original design without a license or assignment, that use constitutes copyright infringement. The owner who authorized or enabled the reuse and the follow-on architect who copies the work can both be liable.

Johnson v. Jones (1996) addresses this exact pattern: a client ends the relationship with the original architect, a successor architect uses the original work product, and both the owner and the successor architect end up liable for infringement because the protected designs were used without proper authorization. That precedent makes the described sequence the best fit for the question.