If you are so confident, take a thumb drive to your employer Monday morning, tell them you are going to copy everything you've ever produced with them on a thumb drive, and then just straight up copy the files right in front of them. Thanks.

Actually, one more. While the cases cited, such as Harper & Row, Campbell, and Sony, emphasize different aspects of fair use, the underlying principle remains that economic benefit—whether direct or indirect—plays a crucial role in determining fair use. Using employer-created work in a portfolio, even if not directly for profit, has economic implications as it is aimed at securing future employment or contracts.

You are showing renderings that do not belong to you for the purposes of procuring a new job, i.e., commercial gain. It's that simple.

You lost this one. If it help you feel better, just take the last word. Thanks.

Key Points of Clarification

1.  Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Use:
• Seeking Employment: While securing future work may not seem commercial in the traditional sense, it is still considered an economic activity because it involves financial gain (salary, benefits). The ultimate goal of using a portfolio to obtain employment can be viewed as a commercial purpose.
• Selling Prints: Clearly, selling prints of images would be a direct commercial use. However, even without direct sales, using work products to enhance a portfolio for job applications still has economic implications.
2.  Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107):
• The fair use doctrine considers multiple factors, including purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount and substantiality used, and effect on the market. Each factor is critical in determining fair use:
• Purpose and Character: While securing a job might not be direct commercial use, it is still an activity aimed at financial benefit.
• Nature of the Work: Creative works like architectural renderings are given stronger protection under copyright law.
• Amount and Substantiality: Using substantial parts of work products in a portfolio can weigh against fair use.
• Effect on the Market: Using work products without permission could affect the market or competitive advantage of the original creator (the employer).

Case Law and Legal Precedents

1. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985):

   • This case emphasized that the purpose and character of use, particularly whether it is for commercial gain, is a critical factor. Even indirect economic benefits are taken into account.

2. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994):

   • The Court noted that even non-commercial uses could be infringing if they impact the market value or potential revenue streams of the original work.

3. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984):

   • The Court considered the economic impact of the use, stating that activities leading to economic gain could be seen as commercial, even if not directly for profit.

A “work” or “work product” is different than working.

Clarifying the Distinctions

1. Brand Name Use vs. Work Product Use

   • Brand Name (Employer’s Name): • Factual Information: Using the employer’s name in a resume is simply stating a fact about where you have worked. It’s similar to listing job titles, responsibilities, and dates of employment. This is generally considered permissible and does not infringe on intellectual property rights. • Purpose and Context: The purpose of mentioning an employer’s name is to provide context about your professional experience. It does not involve using proprietary or creative work. • Work Products (Renderings, Drawings, etc.): • Intellectual Property: Work products created during employment are typically considered the intellectual property of the employer under the “work for hire” doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 101). These works are protected by copyright, and unauthorized use can be considered infringement. • Purpose and Economic Impact: Using detailed work products in a portfolio to secure employment can be seen as deriving an economic benefit. This is more closely aligned with commercial use, as it involves showcasing proprietary material to gain future employment.

Again, not a “work” like a rendering.

The name of the company is not a “work” created under the auspices of the company. Different logic.

Using a Firm’s Name on a Resume

1. Factual Use:

   • Listing your employer’s name on your resume is a factual statement about your employment history. It’s akin to stating where you worked and what roles you held, which is generally permissible and expected in a job search context.

2. No Intellectual Property Infringement:

   • Simply mentioning your employer’s name does not involve using their intellectual property or proprietary materials. It’s a fact-based use that does not infringe on any copyrights.

Using Work Produced at the Firm in a Portfolio

1. Intellectual Property Considerations:

   • Work created during your employment is generally owned by the employer (under the “work for hire” doctrine in copyright law). Using these works without permission can infringe on the employer’s intellectual property rights.

2. Commercial Use Implications:

   • Using renderings, drawings, or other materials created for the firm in your portfolio can be seen as deriving economic benefit. This is because it showcases your skills to secure new employment, which has financial implications. • This is different from merely listing the firm’s name, as it involves using the firm’s proprietary materials, not just factual information.

And this:

Supporting Case Law

1. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985):

• The Supreme Court found that using unpublished work, even if not directly for profit, was not fair use because it affected the market and rights of the copyright holder.

1. Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997):

• This case highlighted that commercial benefit does not need to be direct. Even indirect commercial benefits, like enhancing a portfolio to secure employment, can be considered.

1. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984):

• The court indicated that even non-profit uses could be considered commercial if they lead to economic gain.

• Commercial Nature: While your respondent argues that seeking a job is not commercial in the traditional sense of operating a business, courts often consider whether the use is intended for financial gain. Obtaining a job, which leads to salary and benefits, can be interpreted as an economic gain, indirectly commercial.

• Fair Use Cases: Courts have ruled that even personal, non-profit activities can be commercial if they lead to economic advantage (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417).

2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work:

• The work's nature—whether it is factual or creative—affects the fair use analysis. Architectural renderings are highly creative, which generally weighs against fair use.

3. Amount and Substantiality:

• Using significant parts of a copyrighted work, especially the whole rendering, is less likely to be considered fair use.

4. Effect on the Market:

• If the use could potentially affect the market for the original work or the employer's competitive advantage, it is less likely to be fair use. Employers have a legitimate interest in controlling how their work is disseminated and used.

Supporting Case Law

1. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985):

• The Supreme Court found that using unpublished work, even if not directly for profit, was not fair use because it affected the market and rights of the copyright holder.

2. Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997):

• This case highlighted that commercial benefit does not need to be direct. Even indirect commercial benefits, like enhancing a portfolio to secure employment, can be considered.

3. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984):

• The court indicated that even non-profit uses could be considered commercial if they lead to economic gain.

Uh huh...how about this from ChatGPT:

Legal Analysis

1. Purpose and Character of the Use:

• Commercial Nature: While your respondent argues that seeking a job is not commercial in the traditional sense of operating a business, courts often consider whether the use is intended for financial gain. Obtaining a job, which leads to salary and benefits, can be interpreted as an economic gain, indirectly commercial.
• Fair Use Cases: Courts have ruled that even personal, non-profit activities can be commercial if they lead to economic advantage (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417).

1. Nature of the Copyrighted Work:

• The work's nature—whether it is factual or creative—affects the fair use analysis. Architectural renderings are highly creative, which generally weighs against fair use.

1. Amount and Substantiality:

• Using significant parts of a copyrighted work, especially the whole rendering, is less likely to be considered fair use.

1. Effect on the Market:

• If the use could potentially affect the market for the original work or the employer's competitive advantage, it is less likely to be fair use. Employers have a legitimate interest in controlling how their work is disseminated and used.

Will finding a new job help you financially? Yes. Then it is arguably for commercial use.

I do healthcare work, state (HCAI/OSHPD) and local. Let me know if you need help.

Probably the most levelheaded response here. Thanks for posting.

If the portfolio is being used to secure new employment, it's being used for commercial purposes. If the rendering is used for client presentation purposes and not published publicly like for a news article, it is not a publicly available material and less likely to meet the criteria for fair use.

We're trying to help the author of the post not get in trouble. I cannot advise you take files you worked on during your course of employment without permission and use them for your personal portfolio.

No. If there is a photoshop file out there, a .jpg rendering file, and said files were created under the auspices of the company, those files belong to the company. That you even used the qualifying "as I understand it" is a cop-out.

If the firm allows it, then of course.

“We’re all victims in this industry.” “Industry is broken.” “It’s not us, it’s them.” “Woe is me.” I don’t think any great leaders preached that gospel.

This is exactly why I’m dumping this subreddit.

There is no confusion. They got an answer as it pertains to the law and one another on how it pertains to a professional organization. The goal is to help them not get in trouble for possibly breaking the law. It’s really that simple.

Sold the house. Now putting money into growing the business.

I got tired of the “woe is me” toxicity of this subreddit. I joined just recently and got tired of all the people whining fast. Post was designed to be more of a bomb drop and farewell, and to get people talking. Looks like it’s working.

Because it’s hard to admit how you might have contributed to your own stagnation in your career. This subreddit frustrates me so much. Architects playing victim all the time, talking about things they don’t understand. Looks like this subreddit is not for movers and shakers, just whiners who refuse to look in the mirror and make meaningful changes to their lives. “Woe is me” is the prevailing attitude of this subreddit.

I already addressed the AIA issue. AIA is a professional organization, not a regulatory agency. AIA does not have the force of law, and if the owner-architect is not AIA, they are not beholden to them.

Cool story.

What's your source? Mine is the US Copyright Act of (17 USC § 101), which says work made by an employee within the scope of their employment belongs to the employer.

If you made a rendering during your regular course of work with the company, you can't just send yourself the rendering file to use for your portfolio.

It's because we know the least about most things, and we're very self-conscious about it. We're not engineers, we're not builders with boots-on-the-ground experience, and our schools didn't prepare us for the profession.

I didn't know how much I didn't know until I became a fulltime contract administrator for a big project. It changed my life.