IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—W.D. Va.: Architectural firm’s copyright claims over homeowners’ use of plans and property photos dismissed, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The architectural firm could not pursue infringement claims over a building constructed and marketed within the scope of an express license.

A federal district court in Virginia has dismissed copyright and Lanham Act claims brought by an architectural and construction company against homeowners who completed a building using the company’s plans and subsequently operated it as a micro-wedding venue. The court found that the homeowners’ express license authorized them to use the architectural plans to construct the building and encompassed their right to photograph and market the completed property. The company’s reverse-passing-off claim also failed because the homeowners did not market architectural services or plans and their statements about designing aspects of the property were unlikely to confuse consumers (CS Custom Structures, Inc. v. Vaughan, No. 6:26-cv-00046-NKM-CKM (W.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2026)).

Dispute. CS Custom Structures, Inc. provided architectural and construction services to Mitchell and Meghan Vaughan for a property referred to as the “Cottage.” The Vaughans commissioned construction documents from Custom Structures but terminated the company during construction and hired another contractor to complete the project. They subsequently operated the Cottage as a micro-wedding business and posted photographs of the property on their website and social media accounts. Custom Structures separately sued the Vaughans in state court for breach of their construction agreement and brought the federal action asserting copyright and Lanham Act violations.

The asserted copyright covered the Cottage’s architectural and construction plans, including floor and roof plans, building and cabinetry elevations, schedules, sections, and other details. Custom Structures alleged that the Vaughans infringed its rights by using those plans after terminating the company and by posting photographs of the completed Cottage online. It also alleged that statements by the Vaughans taking credit for the Cottage’s design violated the Lanham Act.

Construction license. The court assumed that Custom Structures owned a valid copyright but found that the complaint and attached agreement established an express license permitting the Vaughans to use the plans. Under the agreement, they paid $6,600 for construction documents that they could use “solely with respect to this project.” Nothing conditioned that authorization on retaining Custom Structures through completion.

The court distinguished Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 1998), where evidence showed that an architect intended use of his copyrighted plans to depend on his continued involvement through project completion. Here, the agreement contained no comparable restriction. Although it prohibited reuse of the documents without written agreement, Custom Structures did not allege that the Vaughans reused the plans for another property or permitted someone else to do so. Their use of the commissioned plans to finish the Cottage therefore fell within the license.

Lanham Act. The reverse-passing-off claim also failed. Under Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), the Lanham Act protects the producer of goods offered for sale rather than the author of ideas embodied in those goods. Custom Structures did not allege that the Vaughans marketed its architectural plans as their own.

Even assuming the Lanham Act applied, Custom Structures failed to plausibly allege consumer confusion. The Vaughans allegedly claimed that they had performed “all the design work” and selected colors and textures, but they operated a micro-wedding business rather than an architectural, design, or construction business. The court found no plausible basis to infer that consumers seeking architectural services would approach the Vaughans to purchase Cottage plans.

Property photographs. The court separately addressed the claim that online photographs of the Cottage infringed Custom Structures’ architectural copyright. It declined to decide whether the Copyright Act’s Section 120(a) exception for pictorial representations of architectural works ordinarily visible from public places applied because the complaint alleged that the Cottage was not generally publicly viewable.

Instead, the court relied on the express license. Citing Nelson-Salabes, Inc. v. Morningside Development, LLC, 284 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2002), the court reasoned that architects can contractually restrict use of their copyrighted works, but the parties’ agreement contained no restriction preventing the Vaughans from photographing their completed property. The license to construct and enjoy the Cottage naturally encompassed photographing and marketing it as a wedding venue. The agreement also expressly permitted Custom Structures to use photographs of the project for its own marketing, reinforcing that the company did not retain exclusive ownership of images of the completed building. The court therefore granted the Vaughans’ motion and dismissed the action.

The Case is No. 6:26-cv-00046-NKM-CKM.

Judge: Moon, N.

Attorneys: Andrew Paul Connors (Darkhorse Law PLLC) for CS Custom Structures, Inc. Gavin Andrew Roe (Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black PLC) for Mitchell Vaughan.

Companies: CS Custom Structures, Inc.

Cases: Copyright VirginiaNews GCNNews