In a 2025 case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that real estate
agents did not infringe on a designer's copyright by using floor plans in marketing
homes for sale. The court found the agents' use to be fair use, highlighting both the
transformative, informational nature of the floor plans and the absence of any
demonstrated harm to the market for the original designs. The case is Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House
of Brokers Realty, Inc., 126 F.4th 589 (8th Cir. 2025).
Background
A residential home designer, Designworks Homes, Inc., sued real
estate agents, alleging copyright infringement and arguing that there was an
unauthorized use of the architectural designs. Designworks had properly registered
the original home designs and their derivatives with the US Copyright Office,
including both photographs and detailed construction plans. The designs were notable
for their unique features.
In 2010, a real estate agent listed one of Designwork's homes for sale. To help market the property, the agent hand-drew a floor plan depicting a top-down, two-dimensional outline of the home's layout, including the arrangement and approximate dimensions of each room. This floor plan was included in the online listing. The home was eventually sold, but the listing and its floor plan remained available online for several years after the sale.
A second situation arose in 2017, when a different agent listed another home designed by Designworks. In this instance, a contractor prepared a floor plan in a format and with a similar level of detail to the earlier listing. This agent also included the floor plan in the online listing for the property.
Designworks alleged that the conduct of both agents—creating and publishing floor plans derived from the copyrighted designs—constituted "direct, contributory, and vicarious" copyright infringement.
In response, the agents raised the defense of fair use, arguing
that their use of the floor plans was permissible under copyright law. They also
invoked a provision of the Copyright Act that limits the scope of protection for
architectural works once constructed, specifically noting that the copyright owner
cannot prevent the making, distribution, or public display of pictorial
representations (such as photographs or drawings) of buildings that are in or
visible from public places.
The Court's Analysis
The Eighth Circuit found the agents' conduct constituted "fair
use" under copyright law, and as a result, the use was not considered infringement.
The court's analysis provides some insight into how the fair use doctrine applies to
architectural works.
The court applied the following four statutory fair use
factors.
Purpose and Character of Use
First, the court considered whether the agents' use of the floor plans was commercial or served a new, transformative purpose. Although the floor plans were used in commercial real estate listings, the court found the use was transformative because the floor plans informed potential buyers about the layout and dimensions of existing homes, a purpose distinct from the original intent of the designs, which was to facilitate construction. The transformative nature of the use, which provided new, functional information, outweighed the commercial component.
Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Second, the court recognized that the original designs contained both creative and utilitarian elements. While creative works generally receive stronger protection, the fact that these designs had already been built and made available to the public lessened the weight of this factor against fair use.
Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
Third, the agents reproduced only what was necessary to convey the top-down, two-dimensional floor plans. They did not copy the full scope of creative, three-dimensional details present in the original architectural plans. The court found that the extent of copying was reasonable and tailored for the informational purpose.
Effect on the Market for the Original Work
Finally, and of note, the court found no evidence that the use of floor plans
in resale listings harmed the market for the designer's original works or for
new home construction. Any potential harm to a hypothetical market for licensing
floor plans for resale was deemed speculative, especially since the designer had
never entered that market. In fact, the court noted that making floor plans
available in resale listings could enhance the value and marketability of the
original homes.
Takeaways
This case underscores some key legal considerations in understanding the boundaries of copyright protection for architectural works in the Byzantine area of intellectual property. Here are two significant takeaways from this opinion.
First, when third parties use design elements for new,
informational purposes, as in this case, to help buyers understand an existing
home's layout, such uses may be considered transformative and, therefore, protected
under fair use.
Two, once a design is embodied in a constructed building and made accessible to the public, copyright protection against certain downstream uses may be limited, especially in factual scenarios like this case, for resale marketing.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.
In a 2025 case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that real estate agents did not infringe on a designer's copyright by using floor plans in marketing homes for sale. The court found the agents' use to be fair use, highlighting both the transformative, informational nature of the floor plans and the absence of any demonstrated harm to the market for the original designs. The case is Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., 126 F.4th 589 (8th Cir. 2025).
Background
A residential home designer, Designworks Homes, Inc., sued real estate agents, alleging copyright infringement and arguing that there was an unauthorized use of the architectural designs. Designworks had properly registered the original home designs and their derivatives with the US Copyright Office, including both photographs and detailed construction plans. The designs were notable for their unique features.
In 2010, a real estate agent listed one of Designwork's homes for sale. To help market the property, the agent hand-drew a floor plan depicting a top-down, two-dimensional outline of the home's layout, including the arrangement and approximate dimensions of each room. This floor plan was included in the online listing. The home was eventually sold, but the listing and its floor plan remained available online for several years after the sale.
A second situation arose in 2017, when a different agent listed another home designed by Designworks. In this instance, a contractor prepared a floor plan in a format and with a similar level of detail to the earlier listing. This agent also included the floor plan in the online listing for the property.
Designworks alleged that the conduct of both agents—creating and publishing floor plans derived from the copyrighted designs—constituted "direct, contributory, and vicarious" copyright infringement.
In response, the agents raised the defense of fair use, arguing that their use of the floor plans was permissible under copyright law. They also invoked a provision of the Copyright Act that limits the scope of protection for architectural works once constructed, specifically noting that the copyright owner cannot prevent the making, distribution, or public display of pictorial representations (such as photographs or drawings) of buildings that are in or visible from public places.
The Court's Analysis
The Eighth Circuit found the agents' conduct constituted "fair use" under copyright law, and as a result, the use was not considered infringement. The court's analysis provides some insight into how the fair use doctrine applies to architectural works.
The court applied the following four statutory fair use factors.
Purpose and Character of Use
First, the court considered whether the agents' use of the floor plans was commercial or served a new, transformative purpose. Although the floor plans were used in commercial real estate listings, the court found the use was transformative because the floor plans informed potential buyers about the layout and dimensions of existing homes, a purpose distinct from the original intent of the designs, which was to facilitate construction. The transformative nature of the use, which provided new, functional information, outweighed the commercial component.
Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Second, the court recognized that the original designs contained both creative and utilitarian elements. While creative works generally receive stronger protection, the fact that these designs had already been built and made available to the public lessened the weight of this factor against fair use.
Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
Third, the agents reproduced only what was necessary to convey the top-down, two-dimensional floor plans. They did not copy the full scope of creative, three-dimensional details present in the original architectural plans. The court found that the extent of copying was reasonable and tailored for the informational purpose.
Effect on the Market for the Original Work
Finally, and of note, the court found no evidence that the use of floor plans in resale listings harmed the market for the designer's original works or for new home construction. Any potential harm to a hypothetical market for licensing floor plans for resale was deemed speculative, especially since the designer had never entered that market. In fact, the court noted that making floor plans available in resale listings could enhance the value and marketability of the original homes.
Takeaways
This case underscores some key legal considerations in understanding the boundaries of copyright protection for architectural works in the Byzantine area of intellectual property. Here are two significant takeaways from this opinion.
First, when third parties use design elements for new, informational purposes, as in this case, to help buyers understand an existing home's layout, such uses may be considered transformative and, therefore, protected under fair use.
Two, once a design is embodied in a constructed building and made accessible to the public, copyright protection against certain downstream uses may be limited, especially in factual scenarios like this case, for resale marketing.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.