Neighbour’s Doppelganger French Provincial Style Home a Breach of Copyright

A recent decision in the Queensland Supreme Court has underlined some interesting issues in the area of copyright law, particularly for proud home owners hoping to protect the uniqueness of their home!

In Coles v Dormer [2015] QSC 224, a couple who replicated the French provincial style of their neighbour’s house was found to be in breach of copyright, and ordered to strip out certain architectural features as a result.

Mr and Mrs Coles, the Plaintiffs, purchased a unique house in Port Douglas which was described as “French provincial style with a Caribbean influence” for $1,150,000.  The house was strikingly novel in the area, boasting corbelling around the doors and windows, dormer lofts on top of the roof, full circle windows at the front, and a beautiful French provincial façade.

The Sellers, Mr and Mrs Spicer, had been intimately involved in the design of the house and had engaged the assistance of a building designer, Mr Skyring, to realise the construction of their dream home.

At the time of selling the house, Mrs and Mrs Coles competed in a bidding war against another couple for the purchase:  Mr and Mrs Breden.

Disappointed after losing the purchase of the home they so enamoured, the Breden’s resolved to replicate it and purchased a vacant block of land 3 houses away and contracted the same builders as the original house.  Conveniently, the builders had retained copies of the original house plans and were able to refer to those to imitate its design.

After hearing about the Breden’s intentions, the Coles took steps to ensure their house would be the only house of its design in the area.  They approached the builders of the Breden’s new home and obtained their agreement to alter the façade so it did not bear a resemblance to their own.  The Coles took a further precaution and organised for Mr Skyring (the original building designer) to assign his copyright in the house plans to them.

The Coles’ attempts to thwart the replication of their home were unsuccessful; the builders dishonoured the alleged agreement and proceeded to construct an exact doppelganger of the house.

After overcoming initial questions about the ownership of the copyright, Justice Henry was satisfied that the Coles’ owned the copyright and that there was a substantial copying of the house plans of both the exterior and the interior layout: “the visual comparison overlays demonstrate much more effectively than words that there are extensive and significant points of replication and similarity as between the Breden and Skyring house plans… the elements of similarity are so pervasive as to compel the conclusion that the Breden house plans are a reproduction of a substantial part of the Skyring house plans.”

In circumstances where the Bredens’ and their builders had blatantly disregarded the Coles’ lawful right to protect their copyright, and “knowingly continuing with the construction of a nearly identical residence” – Justice Henry ordered for the removal of many of the novel exterior features, such as the circular windows and dormer roofs.