is this built-in meta-irony that you are crowd-sourcing questions on authorship and original thought ? or are you just lazy?

Touche', and ouch!

msudon I guess I don't see the irony in my sincere post. The nect has historically been a good source for me when i begin my research.

oh sorry. well-allow me to introduce another angle. I maintain the irony is there (intended or not) and could make for a really interesting take on the topic. you mentioned the topic is copyright in architecture and its legal process-how is this being affected by the changing popular definition of copyright?

How does the traditional copyright process stand after Perez Hilton wins court cases expanding the definition of fair use? Shepard Fairley and the AP duking it out? The RIAA is still trying to sue the first and only person for p2p file-sharing. Richard Prince is a art superstar for re-using corporate imagery and creates tertiary markets/economies from his appropriated works. Google News. Huffington Post. Free-minum software. My point is the very idea of copyright/ownership is in flux.

Does Architecture still subscribe/follow an outdated definition of "copyright? What is the current state of copyright procedure? HAS ARCHITECTURE EVOLVED WITH MEDIA? Should we all make guggenheims covered in MS painted cocks? (frank gehry+perez hilton zinger)

Its kinda par-for-course "new media" discussion, but it could be interesting applied to architecture as a transactional process. when I was in school (recently), people were all about how media shapes program/materials/form- but you could expand the discussion to include media/evolving types of media that change how we make/practice Architecture. This can quickly dissolve in to cliche-ridden rant about nothing, which is why I roll my eyes. sorry. basically journalism has been experiencing this for awhile and Architecture as a discipline mostly oblivious. or is it? I dunno.

the fact that you crowd-sourced this essay is hilarious-shows how you, yourself, have developed alternate strategies to accompany alternate media i.g. online forums/web 2.0 interfaces. you are the perfect-if oblivious-entity to write about changing copyright in contemporary architecture.


irony. new media. open source. crowd-sourced architecture. appropriation. consumables. go!

also- maybe I am missing something because your prompts above thrust towards a different topic than explicit copyright in architecture.......

odd. although the questions you pose above might bear a secondary relationship to the topic, none of them actually address it. getting in through your subjectmatter through them would be akin to entering a house through a bedroom window...important but not made for access or exit.

just to finish the thought and beat the horse; an analogous relationship could be Gawker : New York Times- NYT crowd-sources some articles, effectively saying "hay what do you'all think"=news they print, while chastising Gawker, technically a blog, for being a blog and not based in reporting/facts/truth.

Is a design that samples bits from other buildings biting copyright? or merely appropriating inspiration?

also how does copyright figure into AIA Standards/ generally agreed-on details, and the whole idea that we represent reality when we draw? if we are all representing reality, shit has got to repeat and does not occur in unique situations. "you are only person ever to draw a 3' stair"
well shit-now I want to ponder this. AH if only school was real life.

also, think about Forever 21/ H & M that are constantly getting sued by the biggest fashion designers. there have been some landmark rulings that really change how closely fashion can resemble other fashion. there has got to be some precedent there. (as its a creative thing too)

it seems impossible to copyright already established architectural aesthetics. Take classical moldings for example that come in similar varieties and are provided by an endless amount of manufacturers.

The thing is at times architecture evolves collectively. Imagine if Corb tried to patent "modernist architecture" too many people were involved. And its something that happens throughout history. its difficult to patent an aesthetic, but it can be more difficult for a copy -cat to evolve and design in the same fashion of the creator. thats why the creator can always come ahead regardless of copyright, can someone do Zaha like Zaha does?

i think B.Fuller was able to secure patents, but his advances were very specific. in that case, it would be easier to copyright technology-based creations, but these become outdated fast. a little change here or there and its a new system. how closely can one creation resemble another?

If your suggesting the patenting of "social identity as it is created by designers". I'd say to look at New Urbanism. I dont know if they've tried to patent any of their work, but they sure do seem to preach of social reform and do come up with urban strategies. Along that logic, could any urban strategy be patented? seems like that would just monopolize design, the profession relies on precedents a lot.

great stuff guys...thanks! I'll respond more once i have done more work

you should read some of benjamin bratton's work on globalism and the "aesthetics of globalism" his work is really provocative, and quite scary actually. he deals alot with this topic.