LE The CK and legal problems left and right

[colourwheel]

Congress doesn't appear to agree, or they'd not have amended the Copyright Act to allow for architectural works to be copyrighted.

 

Honestly If congress passed something to let someone copyright some building structure it was probably passed along from some company who contributes to a majority of repersentatives. Congress as a whole doesn't care about anything but gaining political respect and upholding promisses made to their major campaign contributors. I met with one of the Congressmen from my state during an election season 5 years ago. I asked him personally how he felt about an issue and asked if he was going to vote against the issue . He shook my hand and gave me a hug saying he would vote against it. So I voted for him. What do you know after he was elected two weeks in his term, he voted for it!

 

If congress passed something to help protect copyrights for building designs without patent to the design itself. It was only met for the company who initially spread the word to them to do so. This way it could stop developement from a competitor to gain a finacial lead. leading to the company to gain profit at an exponential growth with their competitor out of the picture for a year at most.

 

In a practical sense, Copyrighting a building design without some kind of financial motive behind it is pointless. There are no lawsuits in history dealing with buildings alone, only building plans.

 

I have less respect for political repressentives than those poor people on the streets trying to sell me those homeless newspaper saying they been selling these papers for years so they don't need to break the law for money. When I find out later from a friend who is a police officer, that the same person I bought that newspaper from was arrested a month ago for prostituting their 5 year old daughter with downsyndrome.

Edited February 15, 2012 by colourwheel

[Arthmoor]

Well, you do realize that in theory you could claim copyright on the physical building, don't you? Works of Art. A whole lot of people would probably look at you funny, and it's more or less impossible to pirate the building, but technically it can be done.

 

I'm sure that had some influence on why the actual drawn plans for the same thing have since been put under protection.

 

I very seriously doubt patents even enter into this since you'd need to have some sort of invention at play before that would matter. Unless you're talking about actual structural design concepts like buttressed arches or something. Or rubberized earthquake rollers under the floor. Something of that nature.

[colourwheel]

Well, you do realize that in theory you could claim copyright on the physical building, don't you? Works of Art. A whole lot of people would probably look at you funny, and it's more or less impossible to pirate the building, but technically it can be done.

 

I'm sure that had some influence on why the actual drawn plans for the same thing have since been put under protection.

 

I very seriously doubt patents even enter into this since you'd need to have some sort of invention at play before that would matter. Unless you're talking about actual structural design concepts like buttressed arches or something. Or rubberized earthquake rollers under the floor. Something of that nature.

 

The frank lloyd wright house that I lived in was built after they passed that stupid amended. The builder that took frank lloyd wright's design, even as copyrighted, didn't pay any royalities or need permission to devolope. Unless you follow a blueprint to the centimeter of the design, you could design and build a house to look like a mcdonalds and there would be nothing mcdonalds could do about it.

 

Like i said, the only reason why that "amended" was made was probably because a major campaign contributor passed it along to congress so they could profit by how utterly useless it would be to anyone other than their company at the time.

Edited February 15, 2012 by colourwheel

[bben46]

@Colourwheel:Having studied architecture at one time in my life, I envy you having lived in even a copy of a FLW house. :thumbsup: FLW did make some pretty amazing structures. (I have seen 6 of them).

 

The actual drawings (plans) of a structure are protected by copyright. However, the concept behind the design (glass walls ala FLW) may not be. But the building technique (Such as Falling Water house) may be patented. The new plan must have some substantial diference (or is supposed to) in a house plan that may be more difficult to enforce. I worked with large scale commercial where buildings tend to be unique.

[jaysus]

shes always making me jealous whatever she talks about :D

 

but a bben is right... kinda like i explaind earlier in a pm... at least in germany its that way, you can copyright plans or well they are automaticly copyrighted since 1989 or somin...

and you can patent detail solutions like beam joints, special screws, frameworks and such

 

if someone uses your detail solution they need to obtain the rights to do so, if they want to use your building plans they have to aswell however, and thats the harsh part, so far it has basicly never been applied in regards to plans afaik... for example does the german reichstag have a glass dome which is based on a plan by calatrava yet norman foster "stole" it (mind that foster is an exploiting hole of an A ...just btw... dont you ever take up a traineeship at his firm!)... but, since calatravas design is based on totally different environment and surrounding he didnt win the case, i honestly dont really get how they make such descicions so far but its kinda based on the idea that a building only is as it is in its current environment and you can only win the case if the new adaption of your design would dimish the effect of your protected building... as i said i dont quite understand it...

but in general, at least here in germany, youre usually on the loosing side if your buidling plan gets snatched and not transferred 100%

 

then you have those very xpensive plans made for those ugly subburb housing, to be mass produced, estate companies pay really large sums to architects for this kind of plan and those are heavily defended, not sure if there ever was a court case won but i would believe so...

 

you also have this thing i dont understand either, but in the context of "the building shall not become defamatory towards the designer" (or somin along those lines), the architect can actually decide what happens with his buildings, how they are presented and so on even if the actual owner has a different opinion, i mentioned that to colour yet, worked on a tadao ando museum during a traineeship (not at foster lol) and he made the descicions, the owner couldnt change light rails, or lightning dispersers (thats the word? lol no idea XD), make photos of her own and publish them in her books or somin, it all had to go through ando... he had to keep his image and the owner of that building even tho she actually payed for it all had to go along whatever lunatic idea he had that day... (8m wide floor screed plates for example which are totally nuts... you need expansion seams or they break ...and they did... well thats what you get when a boxer tries to be an architect XD... hes a nice guy though :P)

 

anyway.. thats a whole new topic :D

guess we can spend a few dozen more pages on games and their copyrights still until we get back here and decide who owned the rights to the pyramids in the first place! (at least i know how they buildt them... the real secret ;)...that doesnt involve aliens or somin weird like huge ramps that explain jack... aww ok... hollow blocks... light as a feather (go there and check it yourself)... just mention me in your book -.-... and find out how they made em hollow)

[colourwheel]

@Colourwheel:Having studied architecture at one time in my life, I envy you having lived in even a copy of a FLW house. :thumbsup: FLW did make some pretty amazing structures. (I have seen 6 of them).

 

The actual drawings (plans) of a structure are protected by copyright. However, the concept behind the design (glass walls ala FLW) may not be. But the building technique (Such as Falling Water house) may be patented. The new plan must have some substantial diference (or is supposed to) in a house plan that may be more difficult to enforce. I worked with large scale commercial where buildings tend to be unique.

 

lol you wouldn't be so envious knowing that the house cost almost 2 times more to build then what my family got when selling it. the fact it was near the shores of lake erie didn't help concidering the land was receeding to the water over a time periods of 10 years. from the time my family bought the land to when they sold it, 1/32 near the shore line clift that was originally bought was already in lake erie, even though it was 5 acres it would only be a matter of time before the actual house would be in lake erie.

Edited February 15, 2012 by colourwheel

[jaysus]

well thats the problem... many of the famous architects had to learn their craft at some point XD

and not every architect is equal to the combined might of the bauhaus of the 20ties... basicly none ever since, the new one is a farce and a single team of architects simpyl cant accomplish what they did back then, whole concepts for things, with only the best selection of i dunno a hundred or so different clever minds for each project... and they got it done including still standing copyrights XD ...a hundred years back...

not saying there aint individual great architects left or somin but you cant compare one mind to that of many in the way of old cathedral or dome builders, ...well, nasa and the like maybe...

 

lol but offtopic XD

[Astymma]

I really have to say that with very few exceptions in this thread, there's quite a bit of ignorance about how copyright, licensing and explicit/implicit rights work. When you create a new mod for Skyrim, you've created a derivative work of mixed ownership. Your mod cannot function without their game, it utilizes a significant number of trademarked terms, it derives nearly all of its content from copyrighted materials... it's derivative. Their CK EULA matches with this... the esp/esm you create they are perfectly within their rights to grant themselves a license over. They do not and cannot do the same with assets you create outside of the CK and with other tools. That's why the SW EULA differs, you are accepting that by using this distribution medium, you are also granting them a license to use your materials as they please which is extremely common btw. Second Life works exactly the same way and millions of real dollars change hands every month there based on this accepted standard of intellectual property creation within a "game envrionment" with hosting costs assumed by a corporation and assets created by users.

 

I don't see anything at all abnormal or even reprehensible about either EULA, they're both fairly standard and both have existing precedent.

 

I really don't think people understand that these companies have already granted you an enormous amount of rights to create content to begin with. The creation of derivative works is a right being granted to you without a licensing fee attached. You are creating a legal derivative work where the company retains license over a portion of the material but not any assets you've created for the material such as textures and meshes (unless they were modifications of vanilla assets). Try to remember this when you bash companies for having EULAs that grant them licensing rights... they could have just as easily not allowed any derivative works at all or required you to pay for a license of their materials to create a derivative work.

[colourwheel]

It's actually quite easy to bash a company when you go onto their official forums as a guest and read about how they bash the work you do, coming dirrectly from people who worked on the game. Granted the threads still might not be there anymore and maybe the work i've personally have done in the past isn't lore-friendly, but it's always funny when you find something someone post about your work in a negative way Claiming "It's modders like (so-and-so) who are ruining the games reputation and killing the immersiveness that was intended." or something like that. lol They probably say this if you changed something to the game they personally worked on and completely removing most or all their work they did to the game. lol

 

Edit: Don't mind me though i been just very moody as of late and frustrated with skyrim.

Edited February 18, 2012 by colourwheel

[Astymma]

It's actually quite easy to bash a company when you go onto their official forums as a guest and read about how they bash the work you do, coming dirrectly from people who worked on the game. Granted the threads still might not be there anymore and maybe the work i've personally have done in the past isn't lore-friendly, but it's always funny when you find something someone post about your work in a negative way Claiming "It's modders like (so-and-so) who are ruining the games reputation and killing the immersiveness that was intended." or something like that. lol They probably say this if you changed something to the game they personally worked on and completely removing most or all their work they did to the game. lol

 

Edit: Don't mind me though i been just very moody as of late and frustrated with skyrim.

 

Well, individual employees are one thing and bashing them back is called for in many cases, but bashing a company due to the actions of a few employees isn't always called for. In many cases if enough evidence of their bad behavior is thrust tactfully into the faces of a company, they'll do something about it...