I did sign documents stating that all of our work was the property of the school. I am pretty sure we had to do it for both undergrad and grad. This was surely to cover their buts when a maintenance man accidentally smashed a model here and there - happened all the time.
Bernini just called Calatrava, Childs and Shine on a conference call. He says he wants his twisting columns back- all 4 of them
Else to spite you he will have to sculpt you as a disgusted person looking at a disgusted person in a piss-water fountain looking at a disgusting building.
Trace: that type of paperwork was originally put in place to allow universites to profit from scientific and medical discoveries and products created/discovered under their auspices. It also allows the school to use students' work for publication/advertising/recruitment/accreditation purposes without having to get a release for each individual instance.
I think it's unlikely that Mr. Shine can win this case and I suspect he knows that. But a win in court is not the only positive end that could come of this.
Ted: this was not a thesis project (most students don't do a thesis at Yale.) It was an individual project done in a studio taught by Cesar Pelli.
- Yeah, ive been there, its not all that great. The structure is great but its out of context with the housing scheme next to it and the cladding is horrible...
shame on som and childs if they did lift shine's, but i still think this will be difficult to prove. and i doubt this will stop people from stealing ideas, stop students and architects working for som, or stop clients from seeking som's services. trust me, i am no fan of som. i declined an offer to work for their sf office in the mid 90s. best of luck to shine if this is true.
"shouldnt universities be the source and think tank for architects to view for inspiration? "
So...firms like SOM should be able to shop around universities for ideas that students produce, and then turn around and pay those same students peanuts to build those ideas? Umm...no
Universities are places for the profession to engage in discourse. If they are looking for ideas and inspiration for their own practices-then they need to HIRE someone and pay for their services.
"Childs seemed impressed by the work, the lawsuit states, and after the presentation, invited Shine to visit his office after graduation."
x
x
x
x
x
It seems that David Childs indeed tried to HIRE Tom Shine. The man knows a good deal when he sees one.
Not to second guess David Childs but now a $28,000-$150,000 a year salary sounds like a small price to have paid to properly ‘borrow’ the Tom Shine Design. That is a bargain price to pay for maintaining professional and ethical integrity.
It would be great to know what Daniel and George P are thinking about this one.
Let's be a bit generous as the kid shows some facility intigrating form and structure. We did say it had a beautiful shape and was great. He has potential...
...lets make it $31,500 and a company-logo stainless steel coffe mug for that kid.
Would it be fair/insightful to discuss the situtation if the table was turned. Shine sees Childs work in one of the typical waiting room architectural magazines, cuts it out, spray mounts it on Crescent board, and pins it to the wall for his Masters thesis.
Call a spade a spade or the spade the spade if you will. Same difference. If a design looked exactly the same then that person would be an arse for stealing that work,-Childs,' Rems, Zaha's or the work of any other person-and for presenting it as their very own.
Let us please be able to parse between normal and ordinary precedent research as part of a project's design process (goes on all the time) and outright scandalous thievery.
Give it your own unique signature or contribution that you have added to make it your own. Turn your porcelain urinal upside down or something. Serve it up with a twist.
Dont wade those still waters. A splitting of hairs as to how it twist is what got David Childs in his mess.
Bypass the 1.289 radians off-kilter urinal idea. i would instead suggest you consider submitting an interprative dance to express your creativity. Limber up.
I get your point, (was at a chiropractor yesterday). I'm trying to pin down something/process/idea that will take us off the merry go round.
In actuality, I meant 24 degrees 32 minutes 3 seconds instead of 25 degrees (I'm lazy)!
I'm another person whose time at Yale overlapped that of Mr. Shine. Some things details that might flesh out ideas about him and this project:
Several posts have referred to Mr. Shine as "the kid." In fact, he is in his 40s and had a successful career as a biochemist - or something similar - prior to his time at Yale. I believe he holds a number of patents for techniques for cell separation and other medical technologies. That being the case, he's probably more familiar with issues of intellectual property rights than most of us. I'm sure he is aware of and has weighed the odds, issues and possible outcomes.
The project completed in an advanced studio at Yale. As has been said before, it was not a thesis. The program was a skyscraper. Someone asked the question "why does the Olympics need a skyscraper?" Good quesation, but not one that affects the issues here. The student designed the project to meet the program requirements.
Yale records its final crits and for the last several years has included excerpts in the annual publication of student work, from which someone quoted above. Hence it is inarguable that Childs was present and admired the work. There most likely exists an audio or videotape of the entire crit, so the extent of the discussion, Childs' exposure to the project, and his opinions/observations may be demonstrated more clearly.
The two buildings are nearly identical. This is not merely a case of two "similar" designs. They are alike in scale, dimensions, direction and degree of twist, and practically any other criteria that one would use to tell two buildings apart. The similarities were not lost on many who saw Mr. Shine's project five years ago. I believe he has been encouraged to pursue this not only by former classmates but by certain Yale faculty and administration as well.
So, after the statement of LFLH, I must ask again, Where does one draw the line between a "this here" design and "that there" design?
Is it 93.5% the same or 93.6% the same and who is going to make the decision- A jury of peers (a farmer, a truck driver, and a candle stick maker)?
This has been and interesting topic. Thanks for shedding some light on the issue LFLH. I was wondering how a recent grad had the money and or the gumption to sue Mr. Childs. Your characterization of Mr. Shine seems to explain that.
I'm wondering what, if any documentation Childs had access to that allowed him to "duplicate" Shine's design. It seems to me that in order to effectively copy the tower in degree of twist scale dimensions etc. Childs would have needed Mr. Shine’s drawings. I think this is an important point. If the only exposure Childs had to the project was during Shines crit, he would have had to design the tower from memory alone. I feel that it would be extremely hard to replicate a design to an extent that it infringes on an existing design simply by memory alone.
On the other hand, if it can be proven that Childs had access to and or used Shines drawings to replicate the design idea then that is a different matter. It's obvious that these two towers look similar, but to what extent. If Childs used Shines drawings to create his tower, he should indeed be roasted over a pit like the pig that he is. However, if the towers merely look similar because Childs attempted to design a copy from memory I think that there would be enough differences between the two to consider it and interpretation rather than a copy.
Furthermore, as many have mentioned above, I'm not sure Shine can even claim ownership to the design if in fact Yale considers all student work their property. If Shine would have been working at a firm at the time the firm would own the design not shine.
I look forward to seeing how this turns out. I feel another 200+ post topic developing.
The project I must admit is highly similar to say the least to that of Shine. I also must interject and add in the defense of Childs that which is twisted like the one in question must by default (because of covenience in dealing with gravitational forces) carry it's load thru the exterior. In other words my argument is the following: you get a slender tall building, than you twist it in plan, now, by default you carry it's load or most of it's load thru a diamond like shape meshed curtain wall (much like that of world trade center) so that it may conform to the twisting. My thesis is that anyy square building which is twisted in plan will look like this by default.
As a super highrise building, the design solution proposes an innovative mix of architecture, structure and mechanical systems. A beautiful expression of structure that braces the building continues to rise to the top truss with ephemeral cables that are found in the Brooklyn Bridge and that give opportunities to highlight the design with inspirational lighting.
Structure
Like the shell of a nautilus, the form of Freedom Tower develops from the logical development of structure. An innovative diagonal structural grid - or diagrid - encircles the perimeter of the tower and sets in motion the twisting of its form. Paired with a concrete core, the diagrid system lends substantial rigidity to the overall building structure while providing column-free interior spans for maximum flexibility.
Above the occupied spaces, the diagonal, twisting geometry of structure extends upward as a lacy system of steel cables. A contemporary descendant of the Brooklyn Bridge, the cable structure minimizes the lateral loads imparted by the wind while maximizing the amount of wind energy reaching the turbines inside. Supporting the cables like the masts of a sailboat are two circular structural cores containing elevators and stairs. Formed without cranes, these concrete masts will greatly improve the speed and safety of construction.
Let's take an iconic design, Falling Water, and with a similar site we will use the Falling Water design. What exactly needs to be done to make it NOT belong to FLW? ANYBODY?
Brian Frels: it's pretty easy to establish that Mr. Childs did have at least some images of Mr. Shine's project in his posession, because there are three images - including one that appears in one of the superimposes comparisons linked above - in the annual publication of student work "Retrospecta" which is distributed to all Yale Architecture alumni, faculty, "visitors", and others with relationships to the architecture program. This was distributed in the fall of 2000. Childs is also a Yale alum so would have automatically received this.
One of the articles above also states that Mr. Childs attempted to hire Mr. Shine. I think it's likely that if this "attempt" went beyond an off-hand conversation at the crit, that Mr. Shine may have submitted a portfolio and/or other visual materials to Mr. Childs.
Gustav: there are instances of courts deciding that rotating or "flipping" a design consitutes enough of a difference as to not constitute a copyright violation. By that standard there would be little hope for Mr. Shine in court. No argument there.
On the issue of who owns the design - Yale or Mr. Shine - Yale might win that should they choose to pursue the issue in the future. But, this doesn't automatically preclude Mr. Shine from suing SOM. One of the articles above states that Mr. Shine copyrighted the design in 2000 - so, for now, he is the owner on record for his design. Also, when universities do pursue matters of ownership, it is in order to collect profits - not to claim that the university designed the project. I think it's very unlikely that Yale would pursue this, but if they did they would credit Mr. Shine with the design - which is still more than Childs/SOM did!
I just got a chance to view the pictures ... frankly, if I was Mr. Shine, I'd be pissed off too. I know that everyone "borrows" ideas and builds on them but thats borderline plagiarism, IMO. If I did something like that in my studio, I know my professor and I would have a long talk afterwards
The difference between Childs and this Shine guy is that Childs has the power to get that monstrosity built. That's all that matters. Architecture is subtle thievery. Get over it.
i think there are a couple of legal distinctions that som/childs will probably try to make (let's play devil's advocate for satan himself):
first, it will be impossible to deny that childs was influenced (albeit heavily) by the work he saw. given the date between when he saw it and when he started working on freedom tower - 2.5-3+years(and the fact that the publication had placed the project in the 'public domain'), it can be reasonably surmised that som was merely building upon a set of ideas that were 'at large'. shine does own the copyright on the design, but does not (presumably) own a patent for the particular structural/architecturally unique facade. so, all som has to do is prove that the inherent copyright was not infringed. the primary focus of the alleged infringement rests upon the articulation of the skin and the idea of a tall building turning. shine would have no claim on the latter (even as a copyrighted work) because the idea is too vague and had been articulated prior to his work (see gehry's 1995 ustra office tower for example). the correlation between the skin concepts is eerily similar and would constitute grounds for a patent infringement, if that were held. however, there are differences and if som can prove that those subtleties are the result of a difference in the design approach (say in the actual nuts and bolts engineering work), then shine is going to lose on that count as well. the overall height and massing are similar, but that could be said for 1500 other tower buildings.
what shine will have to prove is that som maliciously intended to defraud shine by nicking the project's core concepts. since shine was not in a competitive situation (eg, they were both submitting for a competition and som had spies steal his ideas), and shine was not directly engaged by either som or anyone else in the wtc fiasco, then he should have no chance of winning his case.
however, he gets to humiliate som, make childs look like a complete artistic fraud, and gets recognition for himself. not a bad three way win for filing the suit...
bottom line is, most of the crockodile speeches of 9/11 rebuilt, turns out to be a cry for lawyers and developer politics, complete with architectural bends. i've not expected more than that, given the stakes involved.
architeke - actually, unless yale has an specific agreement in their student handbook/codes/bylaws, i would doubt very much whether that is the case. the default position of most schools is that the copyrights to all work lies with the student (and faculty, unless spelled out explicitly). most schools have provisions that allow them to hold actual artifacts - models, drawings, etc. - so that they can use them in various publications, for accreditation, and so on. usually, they don't have to get the student's permission to reproduce the images, nor pay any royalties or the like.
look, i hope childs gets his hands whacked hard enough that they will be very, very careful from now on. at least on this one, they got caught and they will take a hit on their credibility.
Listen to me nobody has a copyright on gravity. And anytime you twist a building it is highly likely that it will en up looking like the one Shine designed. He doesn't have a case, all they need to is bring in an experienced structural engineer and that will be the end of that song.
You must surely play an intellectual property attorney on TV with the way you have expertly mangled and brutishly violated distinct legal diction in your previous post. While your “devil’s advocacy†provides good stage play banter, it is misdirected:
1) Publishing a UNIQUE entity does not make it part of the public domain. In fact, the mere act of producing a NOVEL entity copyrights it. No tower in the world looked like the Tom Shine Design before he created it. The total and uncanny resemblance of the David Childs design infringes on the Tom Shine copyright.
2) Since this not a Perry Mason murder mystery, “malicious intent†does not legally factor in this. All Thomas Shine has to prove is SIMILARITY between the “twin towers.†Clearly some similarity is there.
Further, from previous articles, I don’t believe that it is Tom Shine’s intent to, as you suggest, “humiliate SOM†or “make Childs look like a complete artistic fraud.†A legal lawsuit of this magnitude does not get filed overnight out of thin air and definitely not without many prior discussions and negotiations with the SOM legal team. Im sure, SOM and David Childs probably had the opportunity to properly credit the Tom Shine Design before. If someone stole your design and presented it as their very own, the most important thing would be to receive the due and just credit you deserve.
to answer your statements:
1. i am completely aware of the moment when a copyright is established and never suggested otherwise in my comments. there is a difference, though, throughout case history in architectural design matters about what constitutes a breach of copyright. maybe mr. shine will get lucky and overturn a lot of legal precedence. also, i never disagreed that the designs were very similar, but similar by itself won't win 98% of the time. and, by the way, publishing IS what places a work in the public domain, regardless of it's uniqueness. in fact, it should HELP mr. shine's case significantly. (it will overcome a lot of he said/i don't remember it conversation).
2. perry mason? look, if all we had to do is prove similarity as a distinguishing factor alone, no one could ever design a generic, 80 story tower with curtain wall ever again without owing someone something somewhere. and, 'intent' does play a huge role in copyright law, especially if it was som's 'intent' to profit off of tom shine's work illegally. if it can be proven that som knowingly took the shine design (INTENTionally) as a starting point for the design, this case is over.
finally, would you just relax a little and understand that the three sentiments i concluded with represent exquisite by-products of his actions? i don't know mr. shine, don't have a clue as to what is actual motivations are, and am not so stupid as to think that he's just flying on a wild hair in filing the lawsuit. i certainly expect that he's done everything you mentioned and hopefully more. but, i suspect there is a reason that som hasn't 'properly' credited mr. shine's design and the hunch is that their legal team knows it's going to win. all i was trying to devilishly do was to try and think about how the som team was going to approach it's strategy. (this is not a slam dunk case for mr. shine or else som would have settled a long time ago).
and one last thought - most everyone on this post so far (myself included) is with your boy on this one - he got hosed, badly. so take 2 seconds to step back and really examine where they are coming from before you crank up the snark factor, ok?
My hands never touched the irascibility dial. All the discussion is in good-natured fun-not even Boston Legal has an IP attorney. If it will salve your pain, I retract the television attorney comments. I definitely appreciate the perspective that your commentary has added. I just simply wanted to add towards clarifying some terminology.
And basically we are on the same page. Having published the design "should HELP mr. shine's case significantly." and i once again completely agree with you that, "if it can be proven that som knowingly took the shine design (INTENTionally) as a starting point for the design, this case is over." We might not be able to exactly define copyright infringement/ pornography, but we all know it when we see it.
I barely know Tom Shine, but he should be everyones "boy." In a profession where our unique creative abilities factor enormously into our final products, everyone should support the legal protection of Architects' design work. And perhaps the courts have ruled in the past, as someone suggested above, that simply exactly mirroring an architectural plan sidesteps that design's legal protection. Well, I strongly believe that it is perversely unethical for anyone to steal an idea and attempt to pass it of as their own.
Whatever happens, it's a fascinating story to follow. Meanwhile, I'm going to have myself a nice cold beverage.
"if it can be proven that som knowingly took the shine design (INTENTionally) as a starting point for the design, this case is over."
How can this be proven. Will one of the som employ rat on the child?
If this gets publicity, win or loose, it is the end for the angry child. Front page of a NY paper aught to do it.
Let’s pretend someone is at their local coffee shop drinking a cup of coffee and working on their laptop. A stranger comes up and forcefully grabs the still-filled cup, mouse and computer and proceeds to race away as if they themselves owned the items. A theft has happened. Should we caution the victim against pointing out, “hey that’s MY computer†for fear they may appear, as you suggest, “petty and immature?â€Â
Perhaps you should rethink your ideas about “Architecture†being the victim in the case of Tom Shine. David Childs has stolen a unique design that someone else authored and has attempted to pass it off as his very own creation. Meier has at least paid his respects to and acknowledged his muse. Childs has not made a single mention of being the least bit influenced by the Tom Shine Design. That David Childs was presented the design and was fond of it is documented (see the Retrospects posting on 11/09/04 13:30.) The similarities in the 2 designs are undeniable. The side by side Photoshop comparisons of the Shine to SOM knock-off are uncanny.
Being inspired by and “creative loans†are one thing but in this case SOM and David Childs have committed outright intellectual burglary. If there is a risk, as you fear, of reducing the stature of “Architecture†it would be only because the Architectural profession finds it convenient to disregard their ethical responsibilities. I hope that Architects have not changed to the point where they now condone design plagiarism and fraud. No architect no matter how famous they may be has a free pass to steal. It is the entire professions ethical responsibility to support the legal protection of Architects' original design work.
And I would say that Tom Shine has been anything but “mean-spirited†as you suggest. In fact the archrecord article explains Tom Shine’s hesitancy to file suit, attempts at private settlement and simple desire to have his original idea and design credited:
“No one undertakes suing a multi-national corporation lightly, and you can’t help but feel vulnerable,†notes Shine, who was born in England but is now a U.S. citizen. “But it’s not easy for me to just walk away and let it go.†He mentions that he and his lawyer tried several times to settle the issue with SOM outside of court, but that that the firm was unreceptive.
His lawyer, Andrew Baum, of New York firm Darby & Darby, stresses that the lawsuit is not intended to affect the building process at Ground Zero. “We’re not trying to interfere with the construction of this building, and we’re not trying to change the plans. We’re looking for fair recognition of Thomas’s contribution and fair compensation for his original work,†he says.
I don’t think your words “petty,†“immature†or “mean-spirited†in any way apply to the litigant.
Let’s look down the street at the person running off with the computer, mouse cord ominously flapping in the wind as if it were a tail. Perhaps it is time for the “perpetrator†to pay back his ill gained “loan.†The Bank of Ethics justly calls its loan due.
Since when do ethics have a substantive role to play in a lawsuit? Sure there are remarkable similarities in the two towers, but whether that will play out in court is questionable. Mr. Shine (what a name for this case) and his NY attorney know that. What is their goal here? I wonder if this is now personal. From what I have heard David Child may be a first class prick. If embarrassment was the goal - Step One complete. Step Two - You fill in the blank.
Certainly more questions than answers at this point.
How do you explain Gus' role in this. He is by all accounts quite a remarkable engineer and quite capable of creating all manner of elegant high rise solutions. I thought much of this tower's design was attributed to him. Was that an alibi for SOM? Why would Gus be a part of that?
What a venue to choose to plagiarize someone's tower design. Surely this is one of the most public projects in modern history. If this tower was not designed and documented before Mr. Shine’s than at the very least SOM owes one hell of an apology to Thom Shine and the people of New York.
Case closed. Wouldn’t that be nice? Those words would bring closure to this issue, but they are not likely to be spoken for the public’s consumption anyway.
Neither SOM and Child, nor their lawyers are stupid, so they must have some spin with traction. It will be interesting to see what that is. Hopefully the successful legal argument won’t be “We accidentally copied that design.â€Â
All I can say for Shine is that he and his lawyer better have covered their asses! If SOM can prove that someon, anyone, had a similar design before Shine, then the case is out and Shine's career foiled.
I am surprised it elevated to this, to be honest. SOM must feel pretty confident or they would have paid Shine off. On the other hand, if Shine truly wants credit and not money, hat's off to him and I hope he gets it (assuming his claims are legit, of course).
I'd actually think that could have a positive impact on architecture, at least after the dust settles. The public will be aware that the design is the most important part and that not anyone can just design something (contrary to what many think, including the AIA), even if they are an architect.
I'd like to see design at the fore front of public discussions and credit given, and hopefully compensation, to those that deserve it.
Isn't it kind of ironic that the design we're talking about here isn't really all that interesting or sophisticated?
It's a tower - with a sheath of diagonals forming a structural frame - slightly twisted. This is similar to the earlier thread about bendy buildings. Childs may be a sleazeball, but the premise of this project is too basic to be intellectual property.
SW:
In vernacular, this project sucks a big fat egg.
Architects know it and the 99% of the general public (world) knows it.
Loser project, I don't care who owns the unintellectual property.
Maybe this project will die it's deserved death with this law suit, please, please die, now.
i have to agree with steven,
they are similar, but it's like comparing a wal-mart and a k-mart, yeah, they're strikingly similar, but, come on, there's nothing groundbreaking about the design, either technically or formally to make it that unique, and frankly it looks straight out of the 60's (which is prob. where he got idea in first place, it looks familiar to me..i'll do a little digging)
.....what's next, suing someone who spec'd the same glass as you?
looks like SOM is an SOB
I did sign documents stating that all of our work was the property of the school. I am pretty sure we had to do it for both undergrad and grad. This was surely to cover their buts when a maintenance man accidentally smashed a model here and there - happened all the time.
Bernini just called Calatrava, Childs and Shine on a conference call. He says he wants his twisting columns back- all 4 of them
Else to spite you he will have to sculpt you as a disgusted person looking at a disgusted person in a piss-water fountain looking at a disgusting building.
<img src=http://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/HumPix/Bernini,%20Baldacchino.JPG>
noguchi should sue calatrava
link
Trace: that type of paperwork was originally put in place to allow universites to profit from scientific and medical discoveries and products created/discovered under their auspices. It also allows the school to use students' work for publication/advertising/recruitment/accreditation purposes without having to get a release for each individual instance.
I think it's unlikely that Mr. Shine can win this case and I suspect he knows that. But a win in court is not the only positive end that could come of this.
Ted: this was not a thesis project (most students don't do a thesis at Yale.) It was an individual project done in a studio taught by Cesar Pelli.
"elsewhere... without the curtain wall."
- Yeah, ive been there, its not all that great. The structure is great but its out of context with the housing scheme next to it and the cladding is horrible...
ormolu, what is the good that could come of this? i just don't see any.
The good that would come of this is that architects will learn that you cant simply steal an idea from someone else and pass it off as your own.
Architectural Record's story
you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time.
shame on som and childs if they did lift shine's, but i still think this will be difficult to prove. and i doubt this will stop people from stealing ideas, stop students and architects working for som, or stop clients from seeking som's services. trust me, i am no fan of som. i declined an offer to work for their sf office in the mid 90s. best of luck to shine if this is true.
"shouldnt universities be the source and think tank for architects to view for inspiration? "
So...firms like SOM should be able to shop around universities for ideas that students produce, and then turn around and pay those same students peanuts to build those ideas? Umm...no
Universities are places for the profession to engage in discourse. If they are looking for ideas and inspiration for their own practices-then they need to HIRE someone and pay for their services.
"Childs seemed impressed by the work, the lawsuit states, and after the presentation, invited Shine to visit his office after graduation."
x
x
x
x
x
It seems that David Childs indeed tried to HIRE Tom Shine. The man knows a good deal when he sees one.
Not to second guess David Childs but now a $28,000-$150,000 a year salary sounds like a small price to have paid to properly ‘borrow’ the Tom Shine Design. That is a bargain price to pay for maintaining professional and ethical integrity.
It would be great to know what Daniel and George P are thinking about this one.
with $28,000 being the more likely salary....
Let's be a bit generous as the kid shows some facility intigrating form and structure. We did say it had a beautiful shape and was great. He has potential...
...lets make it $31,500 and a company-logo stainless steel coffe mug for that kid.
Would it be fair/insightful to discuss the situtation if the table was turned. Shine sees Childs work in one of the typical waiting room architectural magazines, cuts it out, spray mounts it on Crescent board, and pins it to the wall for his Masters thesis.
Gustav,
Call a spade a spade or the spade the spade if you will. Same difference. If a design looked exactly the same then that person would be an arse for stealing that work,-Childs,' Rems, Zaha's or the work of any other person-and for presenting it as their very own.
Let us please be able to parse between normal and ordinary precedent research as part of a project's design process (goes on all the time) and outright scandalous thievery.
Give it your own unique signature or contribution that you have added to make it your own. Turn your porcelain urinal upside down or something. Serve it up with a twist.
At what point does one cross the line of unique signature/contribution?
Does the urinal need to be rotated all of 180 degrees or would 25 degrees do?
Gustav,
Dont wade those still waters. A splitting of hairs as to how it twist is what got David Childs in his mess.
Bypass the 1.289 radians off-kilter urinal idea. i would instead suggest you consider submitting an interprative dance to express your creativity. Limber up.
I get your point, (was at a chiropractor yesterday). I'm trying to pin down something/process/idea that will take us off the merry go round.
In actuality, I meant 24 degrees 32 minutes 3 seconds instead of 25 degrees (I'm lazy)!
I'm another person whose time at Yale overlapped that of Mr. Shine. Some things details that might flesh out ideas about him and this project:
Several posts have referred to Mr. Shine as "the kid." In fact, he is in his 40s and had a successful career as a biochemist - or something similar - prior to his time at Yale. I believe he holds a number of patents for techniques for cell separation and other medical technologies. That being the case, he's probably more familiar with issues of intellectual property rights than most of us. I'm sure he is aware of and has weighed the odds, issues and possible outcomes.
The project completed in an advanced studio at Yale. As has been said before, it was not a thesis. The program was a skyscraper. Someone asked the question "why does the Olympics need a skyscraper?" Good quesation, but not one that affects the issues here. The student designed the project to meet the program requirements.
Yale records its final crits and for the last several years has included excerpts in the annual publication of student work, from which someone quoted above. Hence it is inarguable that Childs was present and admired the work. There most likely exists an audio or videotape of the entire crit, so the extent of the discussion, Childs' exposure to the project, and his opinions/observations may be demonstrated more clearly.
The two buildings are nearly identical. This is not merely a case of two "similar" designs. They are alike in scale, dimensions, direction and degree of twist, and practically any other criteria that one would use to tell two buildings apart. The similarities were not lost on many who saw Mr. Shine's project five years ago. I believe he has been encouraged to pursue this not only by former classmates but by certain Yale faculty and administration as well.
So, after the statement of LFLH, I must ask again, Where does one draw the line between a "this here" design and "that there" design?
Is it 93.5% the same or 93.6% the same and who is going to make the decision- A jury of peers (a farmer, a truck driver, and a candle stick maker)?
This has been and interesting topic. Thanks for shedding some light on the issue LFLH. I was wondering how a recent grad had the money and or the gumption to sue Mr. Childs. Your characterization of Mr. Shine seems to explain that.
I'm wondering what, if any documentation Childs had access to that allowed him to "duplicate" Shine's design. It seems to me that in order to effectively copy the tower in degree of twist scale dimensions etc. Childs would have needed Mr. Shine’s drawings. I think this is an important point. If the only exposure Childs had to the project was during Shines crit, he would have had to design the tower from memory alone. I feel that it would be extremely hard to replicate a design to an extent that it infringes on an existing design simply by memory alone.
On the other hand, if it can be proven that Childs had access to and or used Shines drawings to replicate the design idea then that is a different matter. It's obvious that these two towers look similar, but to what extent. If Childs used Shines drawings to create his tower, he should indeed be roasted over a pit like the pig that he is. However, if the towers merely look similar because Childs attempted to design a copy from memory I think that there would be enough differences between the two to consider it and interpretation rather than a copy.
Furthermore, as many have mentioned above, I'm not sure Shine can even claim ownership to the design if in fact Yale considers all student work their property. If Shine would have been working at a firm at the time the firm would own the design not shine.
I look forward to seeing how this turns out. I feel another 200+ post topic developing.
The project I must admit is highly similar to say the least to that of Shine. I also must interject and add in the defense of Childs that which is twisted like the one in question must by default (because of covenience in dealing with gravitational forces) carry it's load thru the exterior. In other words my argument is the following: you get a slender tall building, than you twist it in plan, now, by default you carry it's load or most of it's load thru a diamond like shape meshed curtain wall (much like that of world trade center) so that it may conform to the twisting. My thesis is that anyy square building which is twisted in plan will look like this by default.
Design Plan for Freedom Tower
Design Fact Sheet
As a super highrise building, the design solution proposes an innovative mix of architecture, structure and mechanical systems. A beautiful expression of structure that braces the building continues to rise to the top truss with ephemeral cables that are found in the Brooklyn Bridge and that give opportunities to highlight the design with inspirational lighting.
Structure
Like the shell of a nautilus, the form of Freedom Tower develops from the logical development of structure. An innovative diagonal structural grid - or diagrid - encircles the perimeter of the tower and sets in motion the twisting of its form. Paired with a concrete core, the diagrid system lends substantial rigidity to the overall building structure while providing column-free interior spans for maximum flexibility.
Above the occupied spaces, the diagonal, twisting geometry of structure extends upward as a lacy system of steel cables. A contemporary descendant of the Brooklyn Bridge, the cable structure minimizes the lateral loads imparted by the wind while maximizing the amount of wind energy reaching the turbines inside. Supporting the cables like the masts of a sailboat are two circular structural cores containing elevators and stairs. Formed without cranes, these concrete masts will greatly improve the speed and safety of construction.
Let's take an iconic design, Falling Water, and with a similar site we will use the Falling Water design. What exactly needs to be done to make it NOT belong to FLW? ANYBODY?
Brian Frels: it's pretty easy to establish that Mr. Childs did have at least some images of Mr. Shine's project in his posession, because there are three images - including one that appears in one of the superimposes comparisons linked above - in the annual publication of student work "Retrospecta" which is distributed to all Yale Architecture alumni, faculty, "visitors", and others with relationships to the architecture program. This was distributed in the fall of 2000. Childs is also a Yale alum so would have automatically received this.
One of the articles above also states that Mr. Childs attempted to hire Mr. Shine. I think it's likely that if this "attempt" went beyond an off-hand conversation at the crit, that Mr. Shine may have submitted a portfolio and/or other visual materials to Mr. Childs.
Gustav: there are instances of courts deciding that rotating or "flipping" a design consitutes enough of a difference as to not constitute a copyright violation. By that standard there would be little hope for Mr. Shine in court. No argument there.
On the issue of who owns the design - Yale or Mr. Shine - Yale might win that should they choose to pursue the issue in the future. But, this doesn't automatically preclude Mr. Shine from suing SOM. One of the articles above states that Mr. Shine copyrighted the design in 2000 - so, for now, he is the owner on record for his design. Also, when universities do pursue matters of ownership, it is in order to collect profits - not to claim that the university designed the project. I think it's very unlikely that Yale would pursue this, but if they did they would credit Mr. Shine with the design - which is still more than Childs/SOM did!
I just got a chance to view the pictures ... frankly, if I was Mr. Shine, I'd be pissed off too. I know that everyone "borrows" ideas and builds on them but thats borderline plagiarism, IMO. If I did something like that in my studio, I know my professor and I would have a long talk afterwards
The difference between Childs and this Shine guy is that Childs has the power to get that monstrosity built. That's all that matters. Architecture is subtle thievery. Get over it.
except this thievery wasn't subtle.
i think there are a couple of legal distinctions that som/childs will probably try to make (let's play devil's advocate for satan himself):
first, it will be impossible to deny that childs was influenced (albeit heavily) by the work he saw. given the date between when he saw it and when he started working on freedom tower - 2.5-3+years(and the fact that the publication had placed the project in the 'public domain'), it can be reasonably surmised that som was merely building upon a set of ideas that were 'at large'. shine does own the copyright on the design, but does not (presumably) own a patent for the particular structural/architecturally unique facade. so, all som has to do is prove that the inherent copyright was not infringed. the primary focus of the alleged infringement rests upon the articulation of the skin and the idea of a tall building turning. shine would have no claim on the latter (even as a copyrighted work) because the idea is too vague and had been articulated prior to his work (see gehry's 1995 ustra office tower for example). the correlation between the skin concepts is eerily similar and would constitute grounds for a patent infringement, if that were held. however, there are differences and if som can prove that those subtleties are the result of a difference in the design approach (say in the actual nuts and bolts engineering work), then shine is going to lose on that count as well. the overall height and massing are similar, but that could be said for 1500 other tower buildings.
what shine will have to prove is that som maliciously intended to defraud shine by nicking the project's core concepts. since shine was not in a competitive situation (eg, they were both submitting for a competition and som had spies steal his ideas), and shine was not directly engaged by either som or anyone else in the wtc fiasco, then he should have no chance of winning his case.
however, he gets to humiliate som, make childs look like a complete artistic fraud, and gets recognition for himself. not a bad three way win for filing the suit...
indeed.
Whatever the legal outcome, I would wager most people agree Childs has his karmic cards stacked against himself.
bottom line the design belongs to the school
bottom line is, most of the crockodile speeches of 9/11 rebuilt, turns out to be a cry for lawyers and developer politics, complete with architectural bends. i've not expected more than that, given the stakes involved.
architeke - actually, unless yale has an specific agreement in their student handbook/codes/bylaws, i would doubt very much whether that is the case. the default position of most schools is that the copyrights to all work lies with the student (and faculty, unless spelled out explicitly). most schools have provisions that allow them to hold actual artifacts - models, drawings, etc. - so that they can use them in various publications, for accreditation, and so on. usually, they don't have to get the student's permission to reproduce the images, nor pay any royalties or the like.
look, i hope childs gets his hands whacked hard enough that they will be very, very careful from now on. at least on this one, they got caught and they will take a hit on their credibility.
Listen to me nobody has a copyright on gravity. And anytime you twist a building it is highly likely that it will en up looking like the one Shine designed. He doesn't have a case, all they need to is bring in an experienced structural engineer and that will be the end of that song.
G-Love,
You must surely play an intellectual property attorney on TV with the way you have expertly mangled and brutishly violated distinct legal diction in your previous post. While your “devil’s advocacy†provides good stage play banter, it is misdirected:
1) Publishing a UNIQUE entity does not make it part of the public domain. In fact, the mere act of producing a NOVEL entity copyrights it. No tower in the world looked like the Tom Shine Design before he created it. The total and uncanny resemblance of the David Childs design infringes on the Tom Shine copyright.
2) Since this not a Perry Mason murder mystery, “malicious intent†does not legally factor in this. All Thomas Shine has to prove is SIMILARITY between the “twin towers.†Clearly some similarity is there.
Further, from previous articles, I don’t believe that it is Tom Shine’s intent to, as you suggest, “humiliate SOM†or “make Childs look like a complete artistic fraud.†A legal lawsuit of this magnitude does not get filed overnight out of thin air and definitely not without many prior discussions and negotiations with the SOM legal team. Im sure, SOM and David Childs probably had the opportunity to properly credit the Tom Shine Design before. If someone stole your design and presented it as their very own, the most important thing would be to receive the due and just credit you deserve.
an tv intellectual property attorney???? ouch....
to answer your statements:
1. i am completely aware of the moment when a copyright is established and never suggested otherwise in my comments. there is a difference, though, throughout case history in architectural design matters about what constitutes a breach of copyright. maybe mr. shine will get lucky and overturn a lot of legal precedence. also, i never disagreed that the designs were very similar, but similar by itself won't win 98% of the time. and, by the way, publishing IS what places a work in the public domain, regardless of it's uniqueness. in fact, it should HELP mr. shine's case significantly. (it will overcome a lot of he said/i don't remember it conversation).
2. perry mason? look, if all we had to do is prove similarity as a distinguishing factor alone, no one could ever design a generic, 80 story tower with curtain wall ever again without owing someone something somewhere. and, 'intent' does play a huge role in copyright law, especially if it was som's 'intent' to profit off of tom shine's work illegally. if it can be proven that som knowingly took the shine design (INTENTionally) as a starting point for the design, this case is over.
finally, would you just relax a little and understand that the three sentiments i concluded with represent exquisite by-products of his actions? i don't know mr. shine, don't have a clue as to what is actual motivations are, and am not so stupid as to think that he's just flying on a wild hair in filing the lawsuit. i certainly expect that he's done everything you mentioned and hopefully more. but, i suspect there is a reason that som hasn't 'properly' credited mr. shine's design and the hunch is that their legal team knows it's going to win. all i was trying to devilishly do was to try and think about how the som team was going to approach it's strategy. (this is not a slam dunk case for mr. shine or else som would have settled a long time ago).
and one last thought - most everyone on this post so far (myself included) is with your boy on this one - he got hosed, badly. so take 2 seconds to step back and really examine where they are coming from before you crank up the snark factor, ok?
G-love (and where is the Special Sauce?),
My hands never touched the irascibility dial. All the discussion is in good-natured fun-not even Boston Legal has an IP attorney. If it will salve your pain, I retract the television attorney comments. I definitely appreciate the perspective that your commentary has added. I just simply wanted to add towards clarifying some terminology.
And basically we are on the same page. Having published the design "should HELP mr. shine's case significantly." and i once again completely agree with you that, "if it can be proven that som knowingly took the shine design (INTENTionally) as a starting point for the design, this case is over." We might not be able to exactly define copyright infringement/ pornography, but we all know it when we see it.
I barely know Tom Shine, but he should be everyones "boy." In a profession where our unique creative abilities factor enormously into our final products, everyone should support the legal protection of Architects' design work. And perhaps the courts have ruled in the past, as someone suggested above, that simply exactly mirroring an architectural plan sidesteps that design's legal protection. Well, I strongly believe that it is perversely unethical for anyone to steal an idea and attempt to pass it of as their own.
Whatever happens, it's a fascinating story to follow. Meanwhile, I'm going to have myself a nice cold beverage.
"if it can be proven that som knowingly took the shine design (INTENTionally) as a starting point for the design, this case is over."
How can this be proven. Will one of the som employ rat on the child?
If this gets publicity, win or loose, it is the end for the angry child. Front page of a NY paper aught to do it.
To pursue this matter through the courts reduces architecture to that of a fashion parade and makes the litigant appear to be petty and immature.
A quick look at Koolhaas and Meier will expose early Corb inspiration although I don’t see the Corb foundation contemplating legal action.
Creative ‘loans’ are best acknowledged by the perpetrator and attributed by others, not mean-spiritedly claimed by the aggrieved.
(Adapted from comment by Richard Weston, Cardiff School of Arch)
Libeskind has gotta love this. The PBS documentary made Childs look like a complete dick. Karma?
BOTS:
It almost seems to be Childs karma that is being litigated: his attitude towards the use of the existing fabric.
Bots,
Let’s pretend someone is at their local coffee shop drinking a cup of coffee and working on their laptop. A stranger comes up and forcefully grabs the still-filled cup, mouse and computer and proceeds to race away as if they themselves owned the items. A theft has happened. Should we caution the victim against pointing out, “hey that’s MY computer†for fear they may appear, as you suggest, “petty and immature?â€Â
Perhaps you should rethink your ideas about “Architecture†being the victim in the case of Tom Shine. David Childs has stolen a unique design that someone else authored and has attempted to pass it off as his very own creation. Meier has at least paid his respects to and acknowledged his muse. Childs has not made a single mention of being the least bit influenced by the Tom Shine Design. That David Childs was presented the design and was fond of it is documented (see the Retrospects posting on 11/09/04 13:30.) The similarities in the 2 designs are undeniable. The side by side Photoshop comparisons of the Shine to SOM knock-off are uncanny.
Being inspired by and “creative loans†are one thing but in this case SOM and David Childs have committed outright intellectual burglary. If there is a risk, as you fear, of reducing the stature of “Architecture†it would be only because the Architectural profession finds it convenient to disregard their ethical responsibilities. I hope that Architects have not changed to the point where they now condone design plagiarism and fraud. No architect no matter how famous they may be has a free pass to steal. It is the entire professions ethical responsibility to support the legal protection of Architects' original design work.
And I would say that Tom Shine has been anything but “mean-spirited†as you suggest. In fact the archrecord article explains Tom Shine’s hesitancy to file suit, attempts at private settlement and simple desire to have his original idea and design credited:
“No one undertakes suing a multi-national corporation lightly, and you can’t help but feel vulnerable,†notes Shine, who was born in England but is now a U.S. citizen. “But it’s not easy for me to just walk away and let it go.†He mentions that he and his lawyer tried several times to settle the issue with SOM outside of court, but that that the firm was unreceptive.
His lawyer, Andrew Baum, of New York firm Darby & Darby, stresses that the lawsuit is not intended to affect the building process at Ground Zero. “We’re not trying to interfere with the construction of this building, and we’re not trying to change the plans. We’re looking for fair recognition of Thomas’s contribution and fair compensation for his original work,†he says.
I don’t think your words “petty,†“immature†or “mean-spirited†in any way apply to the litigant.
Let’s look down the street at the person running off with the computer, mouse cord ominously flapping in the wind as if it were a tail. Perhaps it is time for the “perpetrator†to pay back his ill gained “loan.†The Bank of Ethics justly calls its loan due.
Since when do ethics have a substantive role to play in a lawsuit? Sure there are remarkable similarities in the two towers, but whether that will play out in court is questionable. Mr. Shine (what a name for this case) and his NY attorney know that. What is their goal here? I wonder if this is now personal. From what I have heard David Child may be a first class prick. If embarrassment was the goal - Step One complete. Step Two - You fill in the blank.
Certainly more questions than answers at this point.
How do you explain Gus' role in this. He is by all accounts quite a remarkable engineer and quite capable of creating all manner of elegant high rise solutions. I thought much of this tower's design was attributed to him. Was that an alibi for SOM? Why would Gus be a part of that?
What a venue to choose to plagiarize someone's tower design. Surely this is one of the most public projects in modern history. If this tower was not designed and documented before Mr. Shine’s than at the very least SOM owes one hell of an apology to Thom Shine and the people of New York.
Case closed. Wouldn’t that be nice? Those words would bring closure to this issue, but they are not likely to be spoken for the public’s consumption anyway.
Neither SOM and Child, nor their lawyers are stupid, so they must have some spin with traction. It will be interesting to see what that is. Hopefully the successful legal argument won’t be “We accidentally copied that design.â€Â
Again, from the Architectural Record article:
"fair recognition"
And the plot thickens...
All I can say for Shine is that he and his lawyer better have covered their asses! If SOM can prove that someon, anyone, had a similar design before Shine, then the case is out and Shine's career foiled.
I am surprised it elevated to this, to be honest. SOM must feel pretty confident or they would have paid Shine off. On the other hand, if Shine truly wants credit and not money, hat's off to him and I hope he gets it (assuming his claims are legit, of course).
I'd actually think that could have a positive impact on architecture, at least after the dust settles. The public will be aware that the design is the most important part and that not anyone can just design something (contrary to what many think, including the AIA), even if they are an architect.
I'd like to see design at the fore front of public discussions and credit given, and hopefully compensation, to those that deserve it.
Isn't it kind of ironic that the design we're talking about here isn't really all that interesting or sophisticated?
It's a tower - with a sheath of diagonals forming a structural frame - slightly twisted. This is similar to the earlier thread about bendy buildings. Childs may be a sleazeball, but the premise of this project is too basic to be intellectual property.
SW:
In vernacular, this project sucks a big fat egg.
Architects know it and the 99% of the general public (world) knows it.
Loser project, I don't care who owns the unintellectual property.
Maybe this project will die it's deserved death with this law suit, please, please die, now.
i have to agree with steven,
they are similar, but it's like comparing a wal-mart and a k-mart, yeah, they're strikingly similar, but, come on, there's nothing groundbreaking about the design, either technically or formally to make it that unique, and frankly it looks straight out of the 60's (which is prob. where he got idea in first place, it looks familiar to me..i'll do a little digging)
.....what's next, suing someone who spec'd the same glass as you?
everybody is on the steal!
30St Mary's Axe = Bruno Taut’s glass pavilion in the 1914 Werkbund Exhibition
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.