I plan on purchasing plans from the designer of a cabin I want to build on my land. I have no issue with them wanting to protect their work and design. I do however have a question about item #2 from their site. Does this hold water?

"These plans are protected by copyright and carry the following restrictions. By purchasing this plan you agree to the following:

1) The plan cannot be replicated with 250 miles of xxxxxxxx

2) The plan cannot be used for vacation rental or short term rental.

3) Purchase of plan is for 1 cabin build."

I would definitely want to know why they have chosen to prescribe that restriction. It could be that they are based in a city or other location that has restrictive laws governing vacation rentals due to limited affordable housing (i.e., Seattle and San Francisco) and they include that provision to comply with local laws.

That being said, why do they care what you do with your building after you pay them, and how would they even attempt to enforce it?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's a freedom of association issue at play in this scenario that favors you.

or they may have sold the exclusive rights to use the plan as a vacation rental to a someone building a resort with a bunch of the cabins, and they paid a premium to not have any competition.

And I don't understand why you need to purchase plans with restrictions. Sketch out the same thing on a napkin, give it to the builder, change the lengths of the walls a foot or two, and then not have any restrictions. Then sell your plans without restrictions when you're done.

I'd be interested in seeing the website with the cabin? Can you share that?

Legally I think #2 would not be enforceable as many restrictions on real property ownership rights are against public policy and/or unconstitutional esp in Texas. And what if you build it and sell it. What is to prevent buyer from breaching #2 since it not recorded and is not a deed restriction? I could go on but I think that's one of those items they put in there more as a scare tactic knowing it would not be enforceable.

I think it's to keep his plan from being replicated. He's saying you buy it once, you use it once. You can't take my plan and go build 10 properties for your STR empire. Otherwise you gotta buy it from me 10 times.

Many of these types are very protective of their blueprints.

I'm just curious what the plan or pictures of a built version look like. Can you post?

I would guess it's all CYA stuff.

ChoppinDs40 said:

---

I think it's to keep his plan from being replicated. He's saying you buy it once, you use it once. You can't take my plan and go build 10 properties for your STR empire. Otherwise you gotta buy it from me 10 times.

Many of these types are very protective of their blueprints.

---

Isn't that what #1 and #3 do?

In your scenario, even if they bought the plan from him 10 times, #2 would still prevent them from doing a STR.

sure but never doubt a lawyer to belt & suspenders restrictive language like this.

If it's a STR, the traffic seeing the property and wanting to replicate it increases. He just doesn't want to get ripped off.

I'm not sure that an architect would be liable in any case (I could be completely wrong). If it passes inspection by local, state, and federal ordinances, then how can he be to blame? I'd argue that would be more on the builder than architect because it's up to the builder to warranty and stamp their name on the product... final production vs. design can often times vary greatly as architects are drawing pictures... not engineering loads, grades, slopes, etc.

Anyways, who knows, why not ask him?

I know a builder that took a set of plans and built a house, then built the same house in another development without getting a new set of plans from the plan designer.

The plan designer sued and won.