With respect to intellectual property, the author within the Consultant consortium is: X……….Architect ; Landscape Architect ; Planner.
The author is holder of all intellectual property rights in respect to the Works, including the design studies, reports, sketches, drawings, plans, models, built works… the subject of this Agreement.
<strong>Further information on Civil Law and Common Law</strong>
Copyright, as a legal concept, is subject to fundamental differences between the Civil Law and Common Law systems. These distinctions have a direct impact on how architects can protect their creations and negotiate contracts internationally. 
<u>Moral rights in Civil Law and Common Law</u>
<strong>In civil law systems</strong>, particularly in France (articles L.121-1 et seq. of the French Intellectual Property Code), an author's moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and imprescriptible. The architect, as the creator of the architectural work, retains the right to claim authorship and to oppose any distortion or modification that would compromise the integrity or spirit of the work.
<strong>Under Common Law</strong>, moral rights are more limited. For example, in the UK, it is recognised by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but can be waived contractually.
<strong>In the United States,</strong> the "work for hire" doctrine stipulates that the employer or sponsor of a work may be presumed to own the copyright from the moment of its creation, unless otherwise stipulated. Thus, unlike the Civil Law system, moral rights can be excluded contractually, as confirmed by American case law (Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).
<u>Ownership of rights and assignment regime 
</u><strong>In Civil Law countries</strong> such as France, the architect is by default the holder of the economic rights over their work, unless there is an express assignment clause. Article L.131-3 of the Intellectual Property Code requires a written assignment specifying the scope, purpose, territory, and duration of the rights transferred. Any vague or general clause is deemed unwritten. In Common Law, the logic is reversed: unless explicitly stated in the contract, the employer or client may claim ownership of the rights to a work created under a service contract. The concept of work for hire immediately assigns the ownership of rights to the commissioning party, unless a specific agreement provides otherwise. This position was confirmed by U.S. case law (CCNV v. Reid, 1989) and is common in architectural and engineering contracts.
<u>Reuse of plans and documents</u> 
<strong>In Civil Law countrie</strong>s, particularly in France, any reuse of an architectural project without the author’s consent constitutes an infringement of copyright and may lead to civil and criminal sanctions (Articles L.335-2 et seq. of the Intellectual Property Code). Thus, the unauthorised use of an architect’s plans for the construction of a project constitutes <strong>counterfeiting</strong>. 
In Common Law, the use of documents may be contractually regulated. In FIDIC contracts, notably the White Book, clause 1.07 provides that rights remain with the architect/engineer unless otherwise stipulated.
However, many engineering contracts grant broad rights of use to the project owner, including for potential modifications and extensions of the project, which may diminish the effective protection of designers. 
<u>Contractual framework and negotiation of rights</u>
In an international context, it is essential for architects and engineers to negotiate the extent of the rights granted from the pre-contractual phase. Detailed clauses regarding the following should be included:
- The scope of assignment of rights (exclusivity, duration, territory) in accordance with Civil Law requirements;
- The possibility for the client to reuse and adapt documents, taking into account the flexibility of Common Law;
- The explicit mention of intellectual property rights in execution contracts, inspired by FIDIC standards.