Care with copyright when copying house plans without permission

When planning to build a home, it’s common for homeowners to consult different builders and compare prices and design ideas. However, few realise that using someone else's house plans without permission, even with some modifications, can breach copyright law.

In this blog, we unpack the decision in Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Lucky Homes Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QDC 116, where the Court found that a builder and homeowner had infringed copyright by reproducing a popular house design. This case sends a clear message: shopping around with architectural plans may come with significant legal risks.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Builders

• Copyright protects house plans and their design expression - not just the technical drawings.
• Even if plans are redrawn or slightly modified, copying the “look and feel” can still amount to infringement.
• Builders and homeowners can both be held jointly liable for infringement.
• Ignorance of the copyright owner’s identity is not a defence.

What Was the Case About?

Background

The case involved Henley Arch Pty Ltd, a well-known home design and construction company, which alleged that Lucky Homes Pty Ltd had infringed its copyright in the design of a two-storey home known as “Amalfi”.  Henley Arch had developed the “Amalfi 33” design, a house marketed nationally, including online and through display homes. A potential customer, Ms Tran, had approached Henley Arch in 2017 and was provided with promotional materials, including a brochure containing the Amalfi 33 floor plan and façade image.

Ms Tran ultimately chose not to build with Henley Arch. Instead, she approached Lucky Homes, who constructed a home for her at Springfield Lakes in Queensland, using a plan closely resembling the Amalfi design.

The Legal Issue

The central legal question was whether the house constructed by Lucky Homes was a reproduction or substantial reproduction of the Amalfi 33 design, in breach of Henley Arch’s copyright.

Henley Arch argued that:

• Its Amalfi 33 plans were original artistic works protected by copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);
• The home built by Lucky Homes substantially reproduced the layout and features of the Amalfi design;
• Lucky Homes and Ms Tran had infringed its rights by using and building from those plans.

Lucky Homes and the homeowner denied copying, claiming:

• They had developed their own plans, with assistance from a building designer;
• Any similarities were coincidental or the result of industry-standard design features;
• The plans they used were sufficiently different and did not constitute a reproduction.

The Court's Analysis

Were the Amalfi 33 plans protected by copyright?

Yes. Judge Barlow KC confirmed that the Amalfi 33 floor plan and façade images were artistic works under section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The Court accepted that the drawings were original and involved sufficient skill and labour to attract copyright protection.

“Each of the drawings was a product of work done by or under the direction of Henley Arch… They are therefore original artistic works.”

Was there reproduction of the copyright work?

The Court made a detailed side-by-side comparison of the Amalfi 33 design and the Springfield Lakes home. Judge Barlow KC found that while the designs were not identical, there were clear and substantial similarities:

• The layout of bedrooms, living areas, and stairs;

• The positioning of the kitchen, pantry, and laundry;

• The internal flow and dimensions;

• The façade, including the front elevation’s key features.

The judge concluded:

“It is evident… that the design of the Springfield Lakes house was derived from the Amalfi 33 design and that it substantially reproduces it in material form.”

Significantly, the Court said that even where changes were made, such as moving a bathroom or adjusting dimensions, the substantial elements of the original work remained.

Liability of the Builder and the Homeowner

The Court found both Lucky Homes and Ms Tran liable for copyright infringement.

Lucky Homes Pty Ltd

The company built the house using the infringing plans. The Court rejected arguments that the design had been independently created, noting that the builder had access to Henley Arch’s plans through Ms Tran.

“Lucky Homes was provided with the Amalfi 33 brochure… They had the opportunity and motive to copy it.”

Ms Tran (the homeowner)

Despite not being a designer or builder, Ms Tran played a key role in providing Henley Arch’s plans to Lucky Homes. The Court found she had knowingly used a plan derived from Henley Arch’s copyrighted work, making her jointly liable.

Why This Case Matters

This decision is a significant warning to:

• Homeowners who share building plans across different builders;
• Builders who agree to construct homes based on client-supplied plans;
• Drafts persons or building designers who “tweak” an existing plan without checking its origin.

The case confirms that:

• Redrawing or modifying a plan does not protect against liability if the new plan substantially reproduces the original;
• Both the party who provides the copied material and the one who uses it can be held responsible;
• The law protects the creative expression of a design, not just the exact technical drawing.

Practical Guidance for Builders and Property Owners

✅ Get Written Permission Before Using House Plans

Never assume that you can reuse a design just because you were shown it during a sales process. House plans remain the intellectual property of the designer unless a licence or written release is granted.

✅ Builders Should Investigate the Origin of Client-Supplied Plans

If a client provides a floor plan or sketch, ask:

• Where did this come from?

• Were you given permission to use it elsewhere?

• Do you have a licence or assignment of copyright?

A builder who fails to ask these questions risks exposure to infringement claims.

✅ Avoid “Reverse Engineering” Plans

Changing a few rooms or redrawing a façade doesn’t avoid infringement if the overall design is copied. Courts assess the substantial similarities in structure, layout and expression, not just superficial details.

✅ Use Confidentiality and Copyright Clauses

Architects and building designers should ensure their contracts and quotes include clear copyright notices and prohibit clients from reusing plans without written approval.

Remedies and Penalties

The Court in Henley Arch v Lucky Homes awarded:

• An injunction restraining further use of the infringing plans;
• Damages to Henley Arch, including for lost opportunity and harm to business reputation;
• An order that the infringing parties pay costs.

These remedies reflect the seriousness with which courts treat unauthorised copying even when it involves private dwellings.

Conclusion: Respect Design Rights to Avoid Costly Mistakes

The decision in Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Lucky Homes Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QDC 116 is a clear reminder that house plans are protected by copyright, and using them without permission, even with modifications, can result in legal action.

Whether you’re a homeowner planning your dream home or a builder quoting for new work, it’s essential to:

• Understand the legal status of house plans;
• Seek consent before using or modifying designs;
• Take legal advice early, especially when reusing or adapting previous works.

Copyright protection is not just for books, songs or films.  It applies to everyday works like house designs. Don’t let a misunderstanding of copyright law derail your build.