Who owns CAD files – and can you license them for AI training?

Every firm that designs things sits on an archive of drawings and models, and AI companies now want that kind of data to train models that read, check and generate engineering geometry. Before any of it can be licensed, one question has to be answered: who owns CAD files – the firm, the client, or the person who drew them? Most pages stop at whether the client can reuse the drawings. This guide also answers the question that matters for a license: can the firm let a third party use its archive for AI training?

This guide describes how things generally work today. It is not legal advice. Every archive and every deal is different – what applies depends on your own contracts and files, and is assessed case by case. And that's what we're here for – we do the groundwork with you, involve the right experts when needed and put good deals on the table.

Who owns CAD files by default?

Under US copyright law, the author of a work owns the copyright from the moment it is created. Two things change who counts as the author, or who ends up holding the rights:

• Work made for hire. Under 17 U.S.C. §101, a work prepared by an employee within the scope of their employment is a work made for hire, and the employer is the author. That is why drawings and models staff made on the job are usually treated as the firm's.
• A written assignment. The author can transfer copyright to someone else, but a transfer of copyright has to be in writing and signed.

Paying for a design does not by itself transfer the copyright. Neither does possessing the files. As technology lawyer Michael Weinberg puts it, having a file and having the right to use it are two different things, and the use is "probably governed by copyright."

Work for hire CAD files from contractors

Independent contractors are where firms are most often caught out. The second branch of the work-made-for-hire definition covers commissioned work only in nine categories – such as a contribution to a collective work, part of an audiovisual work, a translation, a compilation, an instructional text or an atlas – and only if both parties sign a written agreement saying the work is made for hire.

A freelance drafter's CAD model often fits none of those categories. So a contract that says "work for hire" may not settle the question on its own, and whether there is also a written assignment of copyright matters. Freelancer and subconsultant agreements differ a lot here, which is one reason every archive is looked at on its own.

What copyright does and doesn't cover

Copyright protects the drawing or the file as an expression. It does not protect ideas, methods or systems as such. A design concept, a standard detail or the basic geometry that a part's function dictates may get little or no protection, even though the specific drawings and models that express them are protected. For architecture, the copyright statute protects the design of a building, including plans and drawings, but leaves out individual standard features.

Who owns architectural drawings? AIA B101 Article 7

Most US architecture projects use, or start from, the AIA B101 owner-architect agreement. Article 7 deals with copyrights and licenses. According to AIA's own help center, under B101-2017:

• The architect keeps copyright. The architect and its consultants are the authors and owners of their "Instruments of Service" – the drawings, models and other documents they produce – and retain all common law and statutory rights, including copyright.
• The owner gets a project license. The owner receives a nonexclusive license to use the instruments of service solely for constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the project.
• The license depends on the owner performing. It ends if the architect rightfully terminates the agreement for the owner's default. Otherwise the owner keeps it after the project is finished.
• Reuse without the architect has strings. If the owner keeps using the documents without retaining the architect, it releases and indemnifies the architect for that use. In some termination scenarios the owner pays a licensing fee.

B101 also expects the parties to agree on protocols for sharing digital data, often through AIA Document E203. E203 and any BIM protocol you signed are worth reading, because they may say how the model files themselves may be used.

Owners often rewrite Article 7

The standard form is a starting point, not a guarantee. Institutional owners such as universities, hospitals, public agencies and large developers often strike Article 7 and insert work-for-hire or assignment language, so the owner holds the copyright from the start. If that happened on a project, the firm may have no right to license those files at all, beyond whatever it kept for itself.

Some firms negotiate a carve-out to keep the right to reuse their standard, non-project-specific details. If you did, those details may be licensable even where the project-specific drawings are not.

Engineers: EJCDC and ConsensusDocs

Engineers face the same question under different forms. EJCDC owner-engineer agreements and the ConsensusDocs owner-design professional agreement generally let the design professional keep copyright and give the owner a limited license for the project, but the details differ. ConsensusDocs, for example, provides an option for the owner to acquire the copyright. And as with AIA, owners frequently edit the standard terms, so the signed version of each contract matters more than the standard form.

Owning the copyright isn't the whole answer

Even when the firm clearly owns the copyright, other obligations can block a license. These are the ones that most often decide the outcome.

NDAs and confidentiality clauses. Many professional services agreements and client NDAs say project documents and client information are confidential and may only be used for the project. A confidentiality clause can stop you from sharing files you own. Read the definition of "confidential information" carefully: some cover only what the client handed over, others cover everything produced on the project.

Client trade secrets in manufacturing CAD. In product and manufacturing work, the model often embodies the client's know-how: tolerances, materials, a proprietary mechanism, a part that hasn't launched. Even if your firm drew it, licensing it could expose the client's trade secrets. Those files are usually left out, or included only with the client's written consent.

Government contract data rights. Work done under US defense contracts may be subject to DFARS 252.227-7013, which governs rights in technical data, and other federal contracts have their own data rights clauses. Archives that include government work are typically looked at separately, case by case.

Export controls. Defense and dual-use designs can be export-controlled, which affects whether they can be shared with a buyer at all. We cover that, and how to clean up files, in our guide on preparing CAD files for AI licensing.

Third-party content in the archive

Most CAD archives contain geometry nobody at the firm drew: fasteners, bearings, motors, fixtures and furniture downloaded from manufacturer sites and part libraries such as TraceParts or McMaster-Carr. Those models come with their own terms, and they are often restrictive.

One manufacturer's file license, for example, grants a limited, non-transferable right to use its 2D and 3D files for internal design on a specific project, and forbids selling, licensing or distributing the files, or uploading them to any third-party platform or library (Artos file license). McMaster-Carr presents its models as a way to help customers choose products.

A license to use a file generally doesn't include the right to license it on. In practice, vendor and library parts are usually stripped out of a dataset, not licensed. Buyers rarely mind: the value is in your own design work, not a catalog bolt.

What this means for an AI license

Every archive and every deal is different, but the outcome is usually a selection, not the whole archive:

• Work you clearly own – made by employees, or by contractors with a signed assignment, on projects where the contract left you the copyright.
• Without restrictive confidentiality terms – no NDA or clause that limits use to the project, or a client who has agreed in writing.
• With client identifiers removed – client names, addresses, title blocks, project numbers and site details stripped out. Where names of people appear, for instance in title blocks or revision notes, see our guide on data privacy and AI training.
• Without third-party parts – vendor and library models removed.

The license itself should match how you work: non-exclusive by default, so you can license the same data to others, limited in scope, time and use, and you keep ownership. Read more about how that works on data licensing, and what a well-documented selection is worth in how much is CAD data worth.

Can I sell client drawings? The questions that come up per contract

These are the questions that typically come up for each project or client contract. The answers differ from case to case:

How we help

We check rights first, before anything is shared. You describe your archive in a short form without sending any files – disciplines, years, file formats and the kinds of contracts you work under – and we get back to you within 48 hours on business days. We then go through ownership, contract terms and third-party content with you, and tell you early if part of the archive can't be licensed.

Nothing leaves your systems until there is a non-disclosure agreement and you have approved a concrete offer. You approve every deal, the license is non-exclusive by default, and you keep ownership. The assessment is free, and we are only paid when a deal goes through. Read more about how to license your CAD archive.

Summary

CAD files employees made on the job are usually the firm's, while contractor work often depends on a signed assignment. Under the standard AIA B101 the architect keeps copyright and the client gets a project-limited license, but owners often rewrite that clause. NDAs, client trade secrets, government data rights and vendor part licenses can also affect what can be licensed. Every archive and every deal is different; the typical outcome is a selection of work with clear rights, with identifiers and third-party parts removed. If you're considering selling CAD data to AI companies, the contracts are where the assessment starts.