California Surveyors Forums

I have been told by the local City Attorney's office that it would be necessary for me to obtain a release from the company I was employed by to use the Tentative Tract Map prepared under my direction and that contains my registration seal while in their employ. This is as a result of the application being submitted in the name of the company I was working for at the time. My contention is that the map is my work product. The city agrees with my position but is concerned over a potential copyright lawsuit issue by the subject company.

My question is, (1) Who owns the map? (2) Can I proceed with the improvement plans and the final map without any release? Normally his would not be a problem but the company wants the work. In fact they approached the original owner, my client inquiring as to that fact and was rejected.

The city agrees with my position but is concerned over a potential copyright lawsuit issue by the subject company.

The question may come down to who owns the rights to the subdivision design (actual lot layout), as that's probably subject to copyright. If your client has paid all the fees to date, that give him a strong claim to the design. Is he willing to threaten legal action against the design firm unless they sign a copyright release?

Who paid for the TM? Did they pay their bill? Have any entitlements been approved for the landowner/developer in connection with the TM? In what way are you planning to use the TM?

Typically, ownership of the work product remains with the company that prepared it. If you were an employee, you may have been in responsible charge, but as an employee, the work product is not yours. If any property development rights have been granted by the local agency, those rights belong to whoever they were granted to.

Look to the original contract to see if the company reserved ownership of the CAD file of the map. If not, then likely it is owned by the developer and they can give you the CAD file to work from. You may have employment contract issues, but that wouldn't be the city's concern.

Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is okay ** to redraw the TM as a final map, so long as it doesn't look the same. If you hadn't been an employee of that company, it wouldn't be an issue.

** from a copyright class I took at a CLSA conference around 2003.

Facts cannot be copyrighted, but a TM isn't simply the reporting of existing facts, it is also, and primarily a conceptual design for lot layout and property improvement. That design is intellectual property. However, if the TM has been approved, then it's a matter of public record and further design according to the approved entitlements and the TM are fine. Recreating the lot layout on a different title block in order to obtain TM approval would be copyright infringement. I believe that there is a CA case exactly on point, but I don't have time to look for it now. I'll post it if I find it later.

OP wrote this is for a final map.

Duplicate post

Here's a link to a District Court case that addresses copyright issues of an approved tentative map. http://www.leagle.com/decision/19858996 ... NER,%20INC.

Defendant used a copyrighted tentative map to develop their property. Plaintiff sued. The jury in the lower court found that there was a valid copyright on the tentative map, but defendant did not infringe on the copyright. To try and prevent future lawsuits, defendant appealed the decision to the higher court hoping to overturn the portion of the ruling that said there was a valid copyright. Defendant was overruled on that point, but the fact that you can develop according to an approved tentative map without infringing on a copyright still stood.

I don't see why the City Attorney's office would require you to provide anything. Approving a final map is an administrative act. If you submit a final map in conformance with the tentative map, the City has no choice but to approve the final map. Unless there is a map condition or muni code requirement that addresses copyright infringement, they have no business asking for that.

Well, there's a policy that addresses copyright infringement for this site, so anything is possible. Let's just blame the MPAA & RIAA.