Foresthill couple sues other foresthill couple for copying details of their renovatio

[james t kirk]

This Forest Hill couple sued their neighbours for $2.5 million over a house they claim was renovated to look like theirs
Jason and Jodi Chapnik, who live in a multi-million dollar home on Strathearn Rd., filed a lawsuit against their neighbours for remodeling a nearby property on Vesta Dr. to look “strikingly similar” to their house.

Homeowners at a Strathearn Rd. house, left, claim a Vesta Dr. house, right, copied their architect-designed home. Wood panels were mounted to prominent gables and window frames were painted blue at Strathearn Rd. The homeowners say this design was copied by Eric and Barbara Ann Kirshenblatt, who purchased, renovated, and later sold the Vesta Dr. house.
Homeowners at a Strathearn Rd. house, left, claim a Vesta Dr. house, right, copied their architect-designed home. Wood panels were mounted to prominent gables and window frames were painted blue at Strathearn Rd. The homeowners say this design was copied by Eric and Barbara Ann Kirshenblatt, who purchased, renovated, and later sold the Vesta Dr. house. (STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR)

By VJOSA ISAIStaff Reporter
Thu., Oct. 5, 2017
A Forest Hill couple took their neighbours to court for copying the look of their multimillion-dollar home.

Jason and Jodi Chapnik, who own the home on Strathearn Rd., near Bathurst and Eglinton Sts., alleged that a house on nearby Vesta Dr. was newly renovated to look “strikingly similar” to theirs — including using the same shade of blue and matching grey stonework.

The Chapniks filed a lawsuit against neighbour Barbara Ann Kirshenblatt, her builder husband and architect brother-in-law for copyright infringement in federal court, as well as the real estate agent who profited from the house’s recent sale and the anonymous contractors who worked on the house. They were seeking $1.5 million in damages, $20,000 in statutory copyright damages, $1 million in punitive damages, and a mandatory injunction on the defendant to change the design of the home.

According to a 2014 statement of claim, the Chapniks say their architect-designed home is “one of the most well-known and admired houses in the Cedarvale and Forest Hill neighbourhoods, in a large part due to its uniqueness.” They claim Kirshenblatt, who is “in the business of . . . flipping houses,” copied their home to increase her property value “while decreasing the value of the Plaintiff’s unique house.”

Raised stonework around the chimney is among the allegedly copied elements from the Strathearn Rd. house, left, at the Vesta Dr. house, right.
Raised stonework around the chimney is among the allegedly copied elements from the Strathearn Rd. house, left, at the Vesta Dr. house, right. (STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR)
Kirshenblatt denied copying the look of her neighbours’ home and said the house is actually inspired by Tudor stone cottages, of which multiple photographs were supplied in the statement of defence filed in court.

Further, she said, the features, including the “application of a single colour, such as blue, to windows, doors and stonework, and the application of ‘Tudor’ style stonework to a façade has been common to the trade for centuries, and is not protectable by copyright.”

The allegations were not proven in court. The parties agreed to settle out of court and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

“There is no admission of guilt or liability on the part of my clients, and they truly believe that they did nothing wrong,” said the Kirshenblatts’ lawyer, Jeremy Lum-Danson, in an email.

Link to rest of story:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...neighbours-duplicated-their-house-design.html

 

[james t kirk]

I'm sorry, but this is fucking ridiculous.

It's insane that the court's time is being wasted on this sort of nonsense.

From the article, it appears that the defendants have settled rather than drag it through the courts. That's unfortunate for them, and they have my sympathies.

Now I love residential architecture and construction. It's a passion of mine. I've been on the end of one hammer or another since I was 15 years old. I do all my own work unless I can't (like roofing. I draw the line at roofing.) I totally get being proud of your house.

But in my opinion, you can't claim ownership of an architectural style or a colour / stone combination. In looking at the photos, yes, there is a similarity, however, there would be thousands of similar houses in Toronto. It's an architectural style. Besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery isn't it.

What is it with some people that they call up their lawyer and sue every time they feel slighted.

 

[Mr Bret]

I was also amazed and dumbfounded when I read this article.
For the same reasons jtk mentioned.

Sounds to me like a couple of well to do whiners with too much money and too much time on their hands.

 

[Allwomen247]

First World Problems...ffs

SMH

Enjoy your thanksgiving punters

 

[Mr. Piggy]

Are these assholes Americans because those people will sue over the most ridiculous things.

 

[jimmylikes]

Are these assholes Americans because those people will sue over the most ridiculous things.

have you seen the personal injury ads all over Toronto?? The city is getting worse every year, we are becoming a greedy D-bag filled shithole city.....

 

[explorerzip]

Where's Judge Judy when you need her?

 

[Mr. Piggy]

have you seen the personal injury ads all over Toronto?? The city is getting worse every year, we are becoming a greedy D-bag filled shithole city.....

I don't live in Toronto and don't go there. I hate what it has become. The only Toronto I ever deal with is travelling across the 401 when going to London to visit.

 

[Perry Mason]

I'm sorry, but this is fucking ridiculous.

And that is putting it fuckingly mildly!

Perry

 

[oldjones]

I'm sorry, but this is fucking ridiculous.

It's insane that the court's time is being wasted on this sort of nonsense.

From the article, it appears that the defendants have settled rather than drag it through the courts. That's unfortunate for them, and they have my sympathies.

Now I love residential architecture and construction. It's a passion of mine. I've been on the end of one hammer or another since I was 15 years old. I do all my own work unless I can't (like roofing. I draw the line at roofing.) I totally get being proud of your house.

But in my opinion, you can't claim ownership of an architectural style or a colour / stone combination. In looking at the photos, yes, there is a similarity, however, there would be thousands of similar houses in Toronto. It's an architectural style. Besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery isn't it.

What is it with some people that they call up their lawyer and sue every time they feel slighted.

I'm with you, I could have written your post almost word for word about myself, my love of houses and how they get made, maintained and rebuilt to be part of our lives in the villages we live in. And I certainly share your low opinion of this lawsuit and the wrong-headed sense of what we owe each other that lead to it. But I have to disagree somewhat with that one bit that I bolded, and not entirely because the sad truth is that any one can claim whatever they want. Nor because my 'building career' was often all about copying — and avoiding having the producer sued for it.

The complainants said that they talked with builders employed by the defendants who said they had been sent to their address with specific instructions to observe details the defendants wanted them to copy. I too would say they 'worked in a style', and it's legit to study examples of styles; you likely pick your builder because they're familiar with the style you're aiming at. But, if the testimony were to support that account, it would make copying something the defendants would have to disprove.

Through yesterday, two different law profs specializing in intellectual property and copyright were interviewed about the case on CBC and said — without commenting on the claim — that the design of a house is like any other design, insofar as it can be bought, sold or copied as any other intellectual property from a song to a sculpture, and that property right exists even if no one went to some office and registered it to acquire a special privilege like ©, or ™ or Patent Pending. Of course, expert witnesses a judge, a buncha lawyers would be required to sort all that out, but they do have a legal basis for making a claim.

The fact is, the two sides were content a settlement of this claim before it ever got to the full-blown hearing, so to my mind the best conclusion to draw is 'some people are really fussy about some things'. Mostly we figure out how to cope with them, but every now and them a belligerent bozo jumps up. A maxim to remember the next time you're moved to slap the shiny hood of the car that forced you to walk around it in a crosswalk.

 

[GameBoy27]

#foresthillproblems

 

[JohnHenry]

my guess is that most of the comments here come drom people who don't earn a living creating intellectual property.

 

[GameBoy27]

my guess is that most of the comments here come drom people who don't earn a living creating intellectual property.

So one has to be worried about getting sued if they have their driveway redone with same interlocking stone pattern as someone from a few blocks away?

I would bet that virtually nobody noticed the similarities between these two houses until the nothing better to do couple launched their lawsuit. Now everyone knows what litigious pricks they are. #foresthillproblems

 

[SchlongConery]

my guess is that most of the comments here come drom people who don't earn a living creating intellectual property.

Exactly.

However, I am not sure whether the plaintiff's actually owned the copyright to the house's design. Copyright belongs to the creator of an original work.

So unless the original architect transferred copyright to his client, and the copyright was specifically transferred to each subsequent owner I don't think that the current owners have the right to litigate copyright infringement of the original design. Only the original architect (and their estate) would have such copyright protection. As for the subsequent renovation, it again was designed by an architect and they likely retained copyright protection as is common business practice in architecture and design.

Using a particular shade of blue paint is also a non-starter. Only recently has colour been recognized as having some trademark rights. Nothing about copyright.

Was a weak case but was enough of a nuisance come to some sort of settlement. And earn some lawyers a hundred thousand or two.

 

[Conil]

Why settle out of court if the allegations were not proven in court?

 

[GameBoy27]

Why settle out of court if the allegations were not proven in court?

It's a form of extortion really. Sue them for a whack of money with the hopes they'll settle out of court. Both parties spend less on lawyers fees by avoiding court. They essentially wrote a cheque to make them go away.

 

[canada-man]

rich people problems YAWN!

 

[FAST]

It's a form of extortion. Sue them for a whack of money with the hopes they'll settle out of court. Both parties spend less on lawyers fees by avoiding going to court. They wrote a cheque to make them go away.

Yep,... supported by what our justice system has devolved into,... employing lawyers, and some who was once a lawyer, to run the shit show.

 

[oldjones]

Exactly.

However, I am not sure whether the plaintiff's actually owned the copyright to the house's design. Copyright belongs to the creator of an original work.

So unless the original architect transferred copyright to his client, and the copyright was specifically transferred to each subsequent owner I don't think that the current owners have the right to litigate copyright infringement of the original design. Only the original architect (and their estate) would have such copyright protection. As for the subsequent renovation, it again was designed by an architect and they likely retained copyright protection as is common business practice in architecture and design.

Using a particular shade of blue paint is also a non-starter. Only recently has colour been recognized as having some trademark rights. Nothing about copyright.

Was a weak case but was enough of a nuisance come to some sort of settlement. And earn some lawyers a hundred thousand or two.

If the complainants didn't actually own the design they paid their architect, Gordon Ridgely for, then that weakness in their case would likely have made the settlement very low indeed. But it's just as unlikely that their contract would have left copyright entirely with him — free to sell their design to others, as it would be for him to sign away all rights, letting the client allow his work to be copied, or distorted as they chose. That stuff gets spelled out at length, complete with phrases like "…all rights in perpetuity, in any medium existing or subsequently developed, in this or any universe, known or unknown."

As all the comments referring to style make clear, much depends on what someone meant by 'copy', and that ultimately winds up in court, or as you mentioned, settled to make the nuisance go away. Sadly, most of those settlements are confidential, and offer the wider world nothing to guide them.

Unless the lawyers on the paying side are corporate; then you can get memos requiring you to remove and replace curtains in all locations where you film, if the manufacturer printed their name along the selvage edge with that dreaded ©. And yes, you do have to check behind the lining. Every inch.

Or say you did.

 

[james t kirk]

my guess is that most of the comments here come drom people who don't earn a living creating intellectual property.

You'd be wrong.