Can SL architecture violate IP rights?

There is a fascinating debate currently raging on copyright/IP abuses in SL. That thread centers on specific artistic imagery being imported into SL, so I believe my concerns are different enough to warrant a separate discussion.

Just the other day, while browsing through images of architecture for reference purposes, I tripped across a photo of a building that blew my socks off. Simple lines, beautiful execution and exquisite setting. I would love to make an SL version of that building as a new project that would push my emerging skills as a builder inworld.

Obviously, given that I have no blueprints and not even a full view of the structure, I'd be creating a rough sketch of the original. And even then, there are limitations to what one can practically build with prims, plus there are adjustments to scale that must be made to accommodate AV camera movements, etc.

So does this count more as an homage to the architectural design than a "copy" of the building? To what degree is an architectural design considered to be protected? Could a virtual building ever violate that IP? And if so, how long would it take to become public domain?

I'm not interested in splitting hairs on this issue, or making excuses for IP abuse. My RL patner is an artist, and I have very real respect for her ownership rights. I DO NOT want to fudge the ethics just because it's more convenient to pretend I don't know better.

In my specific case, I'd love to add a notecard referencing the RL building that inspired my version (assuming I can build it to my satifisfaction). But if there is any valid concern over IP, then I won't even begin this project. The building is over 50 years old, but fairly well known, so it's not like I could do this without anyone seeing the similarity. Unless, of course, I do a really rotten job.

Comments?

I would think the only problem there might be for specific types of readily-identifyable commercial architecture. For example, if you tried to duplicate the McDonalds classic "Golden Arches" 50's style store.

Technically any architectural design is a copyrightable work. But as you said, if you're only working from a couple pictures, your resulting effort is only going to be ''inspired by" the original, and not a carbon copy.

Easiest way to calm your fears about the whole thing is to contact the building owner, explain the situation to them, and ask their permission to use the building's look in game. Ask about the architect and then contact them/their estate (it is over 50 years old so it may end up being the estate) and double check with them as well.

You may end up with a tour of the building (if local or you are willing to travel). Since it's a fairly well known building, you should be able to locate the owner fairly easily. If not let me know and I'll see what I can do to help (if in the U.S.)

A

I'm of a similar opinion, that making a building from pictures will be a perfectly fine "inspired by" homage, not a problematic copy.

Do note though that the real issue here isn't with copyright, it's more social pressure. Like, if you were to paint a recreation of the Mona Lisa you're not violating a copyright, but you could be tarred as a forger. Of course, the fact that you plan to hand out information cards to visitors about the real structure eliminates most of that concern; you're not claiming this is your design, you're up-front about how this is a recreation of an existing building that you love.

Heck, you may even want to name the building "an unofficial recreation of blah."

Is the architectural copyright for a visual representation of a structure or for the realized structure itself?

My impression is that making a SL version of a building is closer to taking a photo of the building or making a sketch of it. As far as I'm aware, anyone can photograph a building, then sell that photo without IP problems. They can paint it in oils and sell the painting.

So wouldn't a digital version of a building fall into that category? It's not as if anyone can really walk into it.

But I love Abba's idea of contacting the estate and asking for their blessings, if not their permission. Whether or not I had a legal standing for doing what I wanted, I'd prefer not to annoy or upset anyone over an inworld build

I've seen all kinds of buildings for sale in SL that are homages or representations to real structures. In the Gnubie store you can buy a representation of the CN Tower for L$1, or on SLExchange you can buy a representation of the Burg Al-Arab for...a lot more than L$1 (I forget how much). Two real, readily identifyable, unique RL architectural works.

I agree with the others - inspired by photos, making a reproduction or homage, you aren't attempting to pass it off as the original, or pass yourself off as the original architect. Giving out notecards is a great idea as well.

Personally, I wouldn't contact the building owners, if I were in your position. There's always a risk of an ignorant knee-jerk legal reaction.

From what I've seen, it's enough to make your SL homage somewhat less detailed, give it a slightly different name, and make mention of the fact that it's an homage or was inspired by the original.

Of course the usual disclaimers apply - IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

-Atashi

Not a problem. Given that I'm a newbie builder, a less-detailed homage is probably the most to which I can aspire.

I think you're in the clear on this one. My understanding is that for old buildings (built before 1990) only the plans themselves are copyrighted, and not the buildings themselves. The law changes in 1990 so that new buildings is protected more comprehensively.

Watermelon appears to be right. I just did a quick google, and at least in the US, the law just changed to include architecture in 1990, from the US Copyright office's FAQ:

Yup, I'd say I'm definitely in the clear for this particular project.

The issue of SL buildings based on RL architecture post-1990 could still be debated though:



From my reading, the copyright is secured by the architectural drawing. But does it EXTEND to preventing other drawings of that design?

For now, I'll leave that to legal minds to parse. My very specific issue is settled to my satisfaction. Whew!

Now this i can Answer Authoritatively having once Trained and worked in the field of Architecture.

What you Generate will Not be an exact Duplicate of the Pictures you have seen, and without the Original Drawings or specs, it is Unlikely that it will be even close.
What you will have done is created a structure "Inspired by" the original, a system that has, Is, and always Will be Common in the field of Architectural design (Even the Current system of Copyrightable architectural design recognizes that a Copy has to be Pretty close to count as a Violation).
Architects "Steal" from each other like Crazy, and they always have. Unless it's an exact Duplicate, or so Close in design as to be almost indistinguishable, then the design is yours, and you have no worries.
Only Recently have Architects been able to Copyright thier work, so any Building over Fifteen or sixteen years old is fair game down to the Last Nail.

Angel.

So you've never actually BEEN to the Louvre then? Apparrently it's quite acceptable to set up an easel, right in the museum, and "study at the feet of the masters". Oh I'm certain there's a good deal of legal hoops that one must jump through, but I saw SEVERAL artists doing precisely as described, the last time I was there.

Copyright fails when you no longer "own" your artwork. An example is what happened to the Bayer company's trademark on the name "Aspirin". They lost their trademark on the name, because they did not agressively defend it. That's why Disney has to come down so hard on pancake shops.

Replicating a "Cultural icon" of a building.. is so very easily dealt with. Were you to replicate the eiffel tower for example.. put a plaque on it that gives the name of the building, it's actual location in the real world, the original architect's name, etc. Then add in "model constructed by" and stick your name on it.

It is true, that you could get into some weird areas.. but the law in the US is now so irrevocably convoluted thanks to the political climate of the last half a decade or more.. that corporations and corporate interests (like the MPAA and RIAA) can quite literally pursue you and jail you for something you didn't even do.

If you wanna make a model, I'd say go for it. it'll cost you $L 10 to upload a plaque that should indeed cover your "intent" to honour the work, not to claim it as your own. If they one day chat you up and ask you to remove it.. remove it.

None of the legendary works from the old Masters at the Louvre are copyrighted -- copyrights expire over time -- hence today those works may be reproduced by anyone.

Similary, the design of the Eiffel Tower was not copyrightable, and in any case such copyright would have expired many generations ago.

Aspirin is a trademark, not a copyright. Unlike copyrights, registered trademarks can last forever.

And in practice, copyrights cannot be lost by not "agressively defending" it (unlike trademarks.) Though that is theoretically possible, today the reality is our laws are structured to give an abundance of automatic protection to content creators, so losing a copyright due to neglect in defense would be unheard of.

Trademarks are treated differently. Bayer in fact fought hard to defend their patents and trademarks. But, a little event called World War I intervened, and thankfully Germany lost. Subsequently, assets of German companies (including Bayer's) were either sold off, or ceased to be recognized by Allied countries.

In the US, one company tried to secure Bayer trademarks for its own use, but without rights to the corresponding patents (which had expired), they ultimately failed.

In most countries, however, Bayer still owns the Aspirin trademark to this day.

-peekay