There is an Architect from Basel, Switzerland that has filed a patent regarding his design PileUp, some L-shaped forms that, as the name suggests, pile up within a certain scheme, say multi-family house.
Here some Info about that architect: swiss-architects-site, his pile-up project.
His idea is to create a double-height livingspace next to the normal-height apartment.
I myself find this is just nonsense, especially since there has been similar projects and references much earlier. Corbu had the same idea basically with the Unité.
you can always declare a copyright. doesn't mean much until it's tested, i.e., you claim infringement and it's tested in court. from cases i've seen, the copying has to be pretty blatant.
Wait ... some clarification here. According to Title 26 of the United States Code, a copyrightable works is "an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Every word in bold has a specific legal meaning.
One files for a copyright with the U.S. Copyright office for a fee, etc (this is different than from the process one uses to file a patent, trademark, or servicemark). And as Steven has suggested a copyright is "tested" in court ... but only if one goes to court. The minuted you assign a "c" to your work, there is a rebuttable presumption that it is indeed a copyrightable work. That means that unless proven otherwise in court, by a preponderance of evidence, your copyright is good against the whole world.
Copyright ownership also entails several different rights: reproduction, distribution, etc. There are the rights that are "reserved" when you see the statement "All rights reserved." These are also the rights that you can sell off to others for $$$$.
But from the case introduced in this thread, it sounds like you are talking about a patent case, as opposed to a copyright case.
Yeah, Chili ... the post says that the guy filed a patent ... patent law is completely different from copyright law. Yet the title to this post asks about copyright law. Clarification is needed.
I apologize about the probably misleading title.
Here some additional clarification-material:
Here is a link to the company that filed the patent (the company belongs to that very architect), it's also the developer for the PileUp-projects.
From that site: PILE UP® was registered for patenting throughout Europe and in the USA in 2003. The preliminary checks have been carried out. The patent covers the spatial concept with the high-ceilinged living and outer area, and the flexible floor plan structure on a single level - this is not a maisonette model. The patent applies for the construction of PILE UP® in all of its possible construction models.via
The name itself "PileUp" is a registered trademark (®).
patents are on mechanical items
copyrights are on printed materials
trademarks are logo/names
i'm working on a patent right now and it's a pain...... you have to cross-reference/document/write...... wording is tricky...etc...... plus its a bit expensive if you dont do it right the first time
the items on my website are under the creative commons law... i think i had to register my site or something....my web guy did it for me...there's a link on my site for it
we've (Architecture for Humanity) has been working over the last 6 months with the CC team to develop a specific licensing system to allow for designers to work globally and set their own copyright control. This will launch with the Open Architecture network in the spring 07....
Yeah I forgot exactly where in the book, but Creative Commons is mentioned in the "Design Like You Give a Damn." In the context, it seemed to make a lot of sense. I can see how it can be very useful in the future
Oct 6, 06 6:49 pm ·
·
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.
© Copyright your Design?
There is an Architect from Basel, Switzerland that has filed a patent regarding his design PileUp, some L-shaped forms that, as the name suggests, pile up within a certain scheme, say multi-family house.
Here some Info about that architect:
swiss-architects-site, his pile-up project.
His idea is to create a double-height livingspace next to the normal-height apartment.
I myself find this is just nonsense, especially since there has been similar projects and references much earlier. Corbu had the same idea basically with the Unité.
What do you think?
you can always declare a copyright. doesn't mean much until it's tested, i.e., you claim infringement and it's tested in court. from cases i've seen, the copying has to be pretty blatant.
Here is an article (pdf) about it, but in German - Sorry.
Wait ... some clarification here. According to Title 26 of the United States Code, a copyrightable works is "an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Every word in bold has a specific legal meaning.
One files for a copyright with the U.S. Copyright office for a fee, etc (this is different than from the process one uses to file a patent, trademark, or servicemark). And as Steven has suggested a copyright is "tested" in court ... but only if one goes to court. The minuted you assign a "c" to your work, there is a rebuttable presumption that it is indeed a copyrightable work. That means that unless proven otherwise in court, by a preponderance of evidence, your copyright is good against the whole world.
Copyright ownership also entails several different rights: reproduction, distribution, etc. There are the rights that are "reserved" when you see the statement "All rights reserved." These are also the rights that you can sell off to others for $$$$.
But from the case introduced in this thread, it sounds like you are talking about a patent case, as opposed to a copyright case.
So, this guy is seeking a patent for L shaped spaces?
Here are a few references that might be useful:
Copyright in Architectural Works
Intellectual Property: Trademark, Patent, and Copyright Basics
Copyright Claims in Architectural Works
Yeah, Chili ... the post says that the guy filed a patent ... patent law is completely different from copyright law. Yet the title to this post asks about copyright law. Clarification is needed.
I apologize about the probably misleading title.
Here some additional clarification-material:
Here is a link to the company that filed the patent (the company belongs to that very architect), it's also the developer for the PileUp-projects.
From that site:
PILE UP® was registered for patenting throughout Europe and in the USA in 2003. The preliminary checks have been carried out. The patent covers the spatial concept with the high-ceilinged living and outer area, and the flexible floor plan structure on a single level - this is not a maisonette model. The patent applies for the construction of PILE UP® in all of its possible construction models. via
The name itself "PileUp" is a registered trademark (®).
so much for the clarification, I hope that helps.
I just have the impression that it is utter nonsense, also regarding the SanaaGifu-project.
yeah im sure thats never been done b4. oh by the way i invented that b4 thing...
patents are on mechanical items
copyrights are on printed materials
trademarks are logo/names
i'm working on a patent right now and it's a pain...... you have to cross-reference/document/write...... wording is tricky...etc...... plus its a bit expensive if you dont do it right the first time
b
better trademark that vado b4 it's too late.
check out creative commons. we've been working on a designer focused license for building in the developing world....
the items on my website are under the creative commons law... i think i had to register my site or something....my web guy did it for me...there's a link on my site for it
we've (Architecture for Humanity) has been working over the last 6 months with the CC team to develop a specific licensing system to allow for designers to work globally and set their own copyright control. This will launch with the Open Architecture network in the spring 07....
stay tuned.
Yeah I forgot exactly where in the book, but Creative Commons is mentioned in the "Design Like You Give a Damn." In the context, it seemed to make a lot of sense. I can see how it can be very useful in the future
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.