Professional people who commit plagiarism are socially irresponsible and are not suitable to occupy professional roles in society. Professional people committing acts of plagiarism in today’s society while occupying a professional role are unethical and irresponsible. Using examples and analysing relevant materials this essay argues this point in relation to the building and construction management field, more specifically in the areas of design, engineering and architecture. Plagiarism, in this industry is a problem in the areas of regulations and copyright.
In 1968 the copyright act was implemented; incorporating design and engineering (“Commonwealth Consolidated Acts,” n.d., para. 8). The act ranges in material from sketches and models to detailed plans and also buildings themselves (“Australian Copyright Council,” 2012, p.1). This is broadly acknowledged and accepted throughout both fields as they are required to have an understanding of legislation and regulations (Cooke, 2001, p. 2). However, cases of breaching the act and committing plagiarism are still reported (“Calson Analytics,” 2010, para. 4; “Wow Factor,” 2007, para. 1-3; “Federal Court of Australia,” 2010, p. 1; “Middletons Straight Talking,” 2011, p.1).
In the case of the Hotel John Marshall, Commonwealth Architects filed a law suit against the owners and developers of the hotel and the architecture firm Joy Trammell and Rubio for copying and taking payment for their designs in 2010 (“Richmond BizSense,” May, 2010, para. 1-2). It was Commonwealth Architects who won this case against Joy Trammell and Rubio (“Richmond BizSense,” September, 2010, para. 1-2). The Court of Law has punished the actions of Joy Trammell and Rubio therefore, the act is seen by the

Court as unsuitable and unethical practice. (“Richmond BizSense,” September 10, 2010, para. 11).
Another example of plagiarism in the building and construction field is in the area of house plans and designs. In this case Tolmark Homes Pty. Ltd. provided a potential prospect with a quote and plans of one of their standard homes. The prospect took away the plans to decide on course of action in which she declined the proposal. But on the companies usual follow up they found the client had controversially engaged another builder and constructed the house with Tolmark Homes exact design (“Australian financial Services Directory,” 2000, para. 14). Tolmark Homes challenged her regarding the copyright infringement. The client refused and the dispute was taken to court (“High Court, Sydney Register,” p.9. para. 3). Tolmark Homes won the action. She had to pay the $3,000 plus interest, all the court costs and solicitor's costs totalling around $42,000 (“Australian financial Services Directory,” 2000, para. 19). The court’s decision outlines that even individuals as well as professional companies are still liable for their actions regarding copyright infringement law and could be deemed more socially irresponsible because they solely bare the punishment and responsibility rather than companies who are not solely liable and more likely to share the punishment and responsibility.
In today’s society the courts of law punishes acts of plagiarism and copyright infringement committed in the building and construction industry. Those