Neighbor Sues For $2.5 Million After Renovation Looks Too Much Like Their Own House

from the copyright-madness dept

Mon, Oct 16th 2017 3:39pm — Mike Masnick

Copyright on home design has always been a really sketchy idea. Earlier this year, we wrote about a disturbing trend of housing copyright trolls and have had some other similar stories over time. For reasons that are beyond me, the Berne Convention requires copyright on architecture, and that creates silly situations, such as the one in Australia, where a homeowner was forced to modify their home due to "infringement."

And this nonsense has spread to Canada. The Toronto Star has the story of a couple, Jason and Jodi Chapnik, living in Forest Hill, Toronto (one of the "most affluent neighborhoods" in Toronto), who sued their neighbors for $2.5 million for the horrific faux pas of renovating their house to look too much like the Chapniks.

Jason and Jodi Chapnik, who own the home on Strathearn Rd., near Bathurst and Eglinton Sts., alleged that a house on nearby Vesta Dr. was newly renovated to look “strikingly similar” to theirs — including using the same shade of blue and matching grey stonework.

The Chapniks filed a lawsuit against neighbour Barbara Ann Kirshenblatt, her builder husband and architect brother-in-law for copyright infringement in federal court, as well as the real estate agent who profited from the house’s recent sale and the anonymous contractors who worked on the house. They were seeking $1.5 million in damages, $20,000 in statutory copyright damages, $1 million in punitive damages, and a mandatory injunction on the defendant to change the design of the home.

Of all the things in the world to be concerned about, how totally screwed up must your priorities be to freak out that someone around the corner has a house that looks kinda similar? The story notes that the case went on for 3 years, before recently being settled. As Kirshenblatt noted in filings in the case, nearly all of the so-called copied features appear to be pretty standard features you'd see in nearly any Tudor-style house -- and they pointed to other properties (including a Scottish castle) with similar features that they based their house on.

The whole thing is a reminder, yet again, of the ridiculousness of locking up ideas like home design under copyright. No one is inspired to design a house because of the copyright you get. There is no necessary incentive there. People design homes not for the copyright, but for the home. What a complete waste of time.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: architecture, copyright, houses, jason chapnik, jodi chapnik, toronto, tudor homes

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 3:49pm

They copied other things too
Both homes have walls, roofs and floors clearly copying the first. They also have lawns, use outside air and have water and electrical incorporated right into the home itself.

Madness.

Next thing you know, they will be installing a driveway, walkway and wait... They already copied those too. Those bastards are going to pay now.

Some people really need to just be barred from every using the court to demonstrate their insanity. Maybe they should be wearing a helmet and bite guard to prevent the online assaults that they deserve for bringing a lawsuit like this in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Oct 2017 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re: They copied other things too
  
  Some people really need to just be barred from every using the court to demonstrate their insanity.
  
  Some people really need to just be barred from every using the court to demonstrate their entitlement.
  
  FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:03pm
    
    Re: Re: They copied other things too
    I do like your version better!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben (profile), 16 Oct 2017 @ 5:21pm
  
  Re: They copied other things too
  But isn't it the _lawyer_ who should be (dis-)barred?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 3:50pm

It's not that outrageous of a lawsuit. I've seen lawsuits about trees blocking the view of a neighbor view. The parties were arguing about which branch and limbs to trim and the legal costs was in the $200,000+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mononymous Tim (profile), 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:07pm

So I guess borrowing a cup of sugar is out.

And you can't comment on the article because they obviously value user relationships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:18pm

Next anti-copyright piece, please,
and try to make it actually copyright, not battles of The Rich over status symbols. (That was my subject line, quickly censored, in one prior piece.)

Sheesh. You're yet again incensed over a LOST battle in settled law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:18pm
  
  Re: Next anti-copyright piece, please,
  It's easy to understand why copyright applies to architecture: even the least of efforts to make a house livable besides the mechanical and wiring layout requires orders of magnitude more effort and ability than blathering on how shocking and horrible and stifling of creativity it is that these (rich persons) can't copy a design.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Next anti-copyright piece, please,
    Tell ya what, Masnick. Just sit down with a blank sheet of paper and design a house. I don't mean draw a facade and leave details to "workers", but sit down and specify a workable plan with electricles, ventricles, insulage, pipage, sewerage, broadband cabling, outside covering, windowage, numerous components within: light switches, outlets, and door latches at least, load limits, and so on, all with optimum use of space and minimum materials, besides convenient to live in, and that can actually be built and up to code. -- You can't do it, college boy. First, you're too lazy. 2nd, you're not competent at integrating the wide range of knowledge: all your "work" experience is simply the WRITING OPINIONS from out of the blue.
    
    Sprawling because of a length limit Techdirt now imposes.
    
    Are you happier with three headings rather than one?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Roger Strong (profile), 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Next anti-copyright piece, please,
      
      Sprawling because of a length limit Techdirt now imposes.
      
      Which was clearly unneeded, because...
      
      You can't do it, college boy.
      
      ...your belief that education and intelligence are an insult tells us everything we need to know about you and your opinions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Next anti-copyright piece, please,
        Also his belief that architects don't go to college.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Next anti-copyright piece, please,
      sit down and specify a workable plan with electricles, ventricles, insulage, pipage, sewerage, broadband cabling, outside covering, windowage, numerous components within: light switches, outlets, and door latches at least, load limits, and so on, all with optimum use of space and minimum materials, besides convenient to live in, and that can actually be built and up to code.
      
      Literally nothing you just listed is covered by copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 5:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Next anti-copyright piece, please,
        They're not, of course. It goes to show how bastardized copyright has become, and how entitled copyright advocates behave.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 4:47pm

It's an infringing day in the neighbourhood, an infringing day in the neighbourhood, and won't you be my plaintiff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 5:04pm

People design homes not for the copyright, but for the home.

Tell that to the heirs of Frank Lloyd Wright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cpt kangarooski, 16 Oct 2017 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re:
  Frank Lloyd Wright didn’t ever get a copyright for an architectural work in the US, but that didn’t stop him.
  
  And that’s fundamentally the problem with copyrights for architectural works: they harm the public by imposing restrictions while providing no incentive for architects to create works they otherwise would not have created and made public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 5:24pm

Look, it's really very simple. If copyright isn't forcibly enforced for homes, then nobody will build homes. And we could get along very well without commercial pop music, but everybody needs homes.

And it's not just copyright that Masnick is maligning. Why shouldn't I be able to trademark "use of gray stone as an architectural element"? Think how much richer Wright's heirs could be if he had only thought to trademark "use of concrete in private residences"! And think how many homes Wright will not design, because he knows that OTHER PEOPLE ARE USING CONCRETE!

Creativity shouldn't be an issue here, except perhaps the creativity of the lawyers filing paperwork. And this is a good thing, because ... it's just not that hard to design or build a house. They teach it in high school, as our anonymous friend from the short bus would have known if he'd stayed out of jail that long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoever, 16 Oct 2017 @ 5:54pm

Easy way out for defendant.
The neighbours don't own the copyright on their home.

Their architect does.

The don't have standing to sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zem, 16 Oct 2017 @ 9:42pm
  
  Re: Easy way out for defendant.
  I am an architect. Many of us see copyright over architecture a bit of a joke. We share, steal, borrow ideas from each other all the time. This has been going on for 100's if not 1000's of years. and we are all better off because of it.
  
  Normally when someone gets done for copyright infringement it isn't for the actual building, but the plans the building were built with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kal Zekdor (profile), 16 Oct 2017 @ 11:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Easy way out for defendant.
    I feel like architectural copyrights should be like software copyrights. If another architect directly copies from a building's plans without permission, that would be infringement. If they independently design a building, then regardless if it shares design elements, or even if it's a carbon copy, that's fine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2017 @ 12:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Easy way out for defendant.
      In software, people use other peoples code all the time, indeed often most of the code in a new program is other people code in the libraries used by the program.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cpt kangarooski, 17 Oct 2017 @ 4:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Easy way out for defendant.
      All copyrights are like that. Independent creation is non-infringing even if two works are perfectly identical. However, the more similar two works are, where the junior author could have potentially copied, and the less of an excuse there is driven by outside considerations (such as compatibility with a particular OS and file type, say) or non-copyrightable elements (like mere ideas), the more suspicious a court will be.
      
      Also note that architectural works do not include “individual standard features” or things that aren’t buildings, per the Copyright Act.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 7:10pm

Abolish Copyright
And build a better world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 11:18pm
  
  Re: Abolish Copyright
  Never mind a better world, I'd settle for being allowed to build a house.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy Lyman (profile), 17 Oct 2017 @ 5:45am
  
  Re: Abolish Copyright
  I certainly hope your better world does not include signature elements of this flawed world such as: Oceans, Atmosphere, Gravity, or Sunlight. Otherwise gird yourself for a lawsuit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2017 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
    Are you thinking about patents?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 16 Oct 2017 @ 7:13pm

Supplier should be able to make a mint from providing slightly different shades and textures of things to each and every customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2017 @ 11:55pm

This issue is fairly amusing to me as I live in a Victorian terrace which is protected under a conservation area status.

That means you have to keep the houses looking almost identical, for all intents and purposes, so that the street remains uniform and the original Victorian look and feel is preserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 17 Oct 2017 @ 12:54am

Finally I get the poop emoji.
The creators of the poop emoji now can sue dog owners leaving dog crap on the sidewalk not for littering (which gives few measly dollars) but for copyright infringement, a capital crime in the U.S. with ten thousands of dollars for every infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 17 Oct 2017 @ 1:08am

Similar case: Stuttgart railway station
Deutsche Bahn wanted to tear down parts of Stuttgart Railway station, to refurbish the whole area around it. The building had been opened in 1922, the architect Paul Bonatz died in 1956.

One the heir asked for a court injunction, since tearing down part of the building would infringe his (inherited) copyright, as the overall impression of the protected building would change.

The court turned him down on the grounds that three quarters of the copyright protection period had lapsed already, and there was a strong public interest (make that government interest, large parts of the public actually wanted to keep the original building).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 17 Oct 2017 @ 1:38am
  
  Re: Similar case: Stuttgart railway station
  
  One the heir asked for a court injunction, since tearing down part of the building would infringe his (inherited) copyright, as the overall impression of the protected building would change.
  
  That's rubbish in my opinion. The artist has been paid for the physical copy in place. What the owner does with it is his business. Tearing it down would seem perfectly in order. Now reusing design elements for a rebuilding: there it gets tricky. But as long as the retained design elements are physically kept (and not rebuild with new materials), this should still be fine.
  
  But then that we even need to split those kind of multimillion dollar hairs is insane.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2017 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Similar case: Stuttgart railway station
  Another case of a government not wanting to live by it's own laws when it finds them inconvenient.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2017 @ 9:50am

This is bad news for HOA's...no longer can they force homes to look similar because copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devon T, 22 Oct 2017 @ 7:36pm

You guys are missing the point
This house was built by an architect. Who was paid for the original design. In America, it is totally illegal to copy a house, even without the plans, because it's property of the original owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]