Park claimed the design, construction and marketing of the tower ripped off a design he planned and modeled for his thesis at the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1999. He said his thesis adviser was an associate partner at SOM and a second senior partner from the architectural firm also reviewed his work...
The judge, however, wrote in a September order that these claims survive “only by the skin of their teeth, owing principally to the highly deferential standards on a motion to dismiss.”
— The Real Deal
Jeehon Park, a Georgia-based architect, sued Skidmore, Owings & Merril, Tishman Construction, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and The Durst Organization back in 2017.
According to The Real Deal, an SOM spokesperson said, "While it is positive that so much of the case was dismissed, SOM is still in the position of having to defend itself against these specious claims." He went on to express it "inexplicable" that "Park filed his suit after Tower One was completed and a full decade after the building's design was first unveiled," reports The Real Deal.
Knoops,
It's a good question - my reaction to this is actually instinctual and i'm no fan of david childs from the little i know of him. what i'm against i suppose is a strict form of copright enforcement that takes a very literal view of originality and invention in architectural expression.
we all borrow things, twist ideas around, rearrange elements - and sometimes just transpose buildings from one environment to another. i like that, and would hate to see a copyright law that eliminated both the one-liners of Schloss Neuswchanstein / Disney Castle and Las Vegas Eiffel Tower (and possibly Tokyo Tower); or the more complex imitation that gradually develops stylistic ideas in the way the seagram's building inspired handsome black-striped glass boxes in every major city of the 1960's.
i think it's very unlikely childs or anyone else viewed either student's works with the intent to copy them. Given that there was a 3-5 year lag between the student presentation and the SOM design work, it's much more likely the ideas just became part of that background inspiration we all tap into when we browse magazines and follow the works of our favorite designers. It's typically the case within an office that an idea is proposed roughly and manipulated by a handful of people, so that it's not really anyone's invention.
especially in the context of student works, it's possible a strict implementation of copyright would only reduce innovation in the built environment by removing some ideas from potential use. as i said, i think most ideas are only varitions on common themes - nothing is ever 100% new invention in architecture. so my fear is that firm's lawyers would get a hand in design direction, and insist on only the most generic implementation of any ideas to avoid the potential accusation of infringement.
my reading on these cases is that both students had ideas which were well within the mainstraim 'fashion' of architecture, and it's totally plausible designers at SOM independently came up with similar schemes. it would be a shame for architecture if the fear of accidental infringment would mean never doing anything distinctive.
part of the issue too is that in this profession, coming up with the ideas really is the easy part. it's not nothing, but if you have a bit of talent interesting ideas come reliably. the hard work and the part clients pay for is having the capacity to fit them to a given situation, manipulate them, and get them built. no one hires starchitects to give a concept sketch and then walk away; but copyright law only values that first moment of conception.
All 8 Comments
what would have been fun is if this suit proceeded simultaneous to that other lawsuit by some guy from yale making the same complaint, and then you could have two students arguing which of them was the real original inventor of the chopped obelisk form.
well what a darn coincidence. Park’s thesis advisor was an associate partner at SOM.
Of course there’s more than enough evidence connecting Park‘s design. Park should be compensated in the realm of say $300k.
I’m not surprised.
How many forms can the phallic symbol take on and should I sue 'cause I was circumcised by a Rabbi in the late 70's in Germany! Surely that's an Etsy Ebay collectible now?
My idea was special, but I didn't have the infrastructure, I didn't have the history, I didn't have the balls, I didn't know shit, I just had an IDEA!
Park is not SOM, and I don't care. He has a lawsuit he is surely funding with his parent's mortgage or his trust funds.
Park has no idea what its takes and no should care.
You're entitled to nothing, EVER.
see link
since most ppl won't read the article, just note that the claims of copying the design or architectural work were dismissed. it's entirely possible (i'd even say likely) that the SOM associate in chicago who was a thesis advisor never worked in or with the SOM NY team that designed this building ten years later. he was probably laid off before the project even started.
what remains is "allegedly infringing images ... in the sale of souvenirs, such as models of the tower" and the judge is saying he thinks it's an invalid claim, just one he can't dismiss without going through the process.
If you search online you’ll find this isn’t the first time SOM plagiarized a student’s design. Look up “Shine vs. Child.” They ultimately settled out of court. He was a Yale student who had David Childs on his jury. Shockingly his design appeared in an SOM proposal.
but this is exactly the same building. if they plagiarized the yale students design, then that excludes the possibility they plagiarized the iit student. but it also implies one of the students should be accusing the other of plagiarism, since they both had the same design idea :/
No.
That lawsuit was over the diagrid structure in the initial proposal... which Childs admittedly copied and settled over.
Why do you find it so unthinkable that SOM wouldn’t plagiarize?
Do you really believe this corporate giant is uniquely innovative?
I’m curious .
You’re right, why is it so difficult to believe SOM copied a students design?
Knoops,
It's a good question - my reaction to this is actually instinctual and i'm no fan of david childs from the little i know of him. what i'm against i suppose is a strict form of copright enforcement that takes a very literal view of originality and invention in architectural expression.
we all borrow things, twist ideas around, rearrange elements - and sometimes just transpose buildings from one environment to another. i like that, and would hate to see a copyright law that eliminated both the one-liners of Schloss Neuswchanstein / Disney Castle and Las Vegas Eiffel Tower (and possibly Tokyo Tower); or the more complex imitation that gradually develops stylistic ideas in the way the seagram's building inspired handsome black-striped glass boxes in every major city of the 1960's.
i think it's very unlikely childs or anyone else viewed either student's works with the intent to copy them. Given that there was a 3-5 year lag between the student presentation and the SOM design work, it's much more likely the ideas just became part of that background inspiration we all tap into when we browse magazines and follow the works of our favorite designers. It's typically the case within an office that an idea is proposed roughly and manipulated by a handful of people, so that it's not really anyone's invention.
especially in the context of student works, it's possible a strict implementation of copyright would only reduce innovation in the built environment by removing some ideas from potential use. as i said, i think most ideas are only varitions on common themes - nothing is ever 100% new invention in architecture. so my fear is that firm's lawyers would get a hand in design direction, and insist on only the most generic implementation of any ideas to avoid the potential accusation of infringement.
my reading on these cases is that both students had ideas which were well within the mainstraim 'fashion' of architecture, and it's totally plausible designers at SOM independently came up with similar schemes. it would be a shame for architecture if the fear of accidental infringment would mean never doing anything distinctive.
part of the issue too is that in this profession, coming up with the ideas really is the easy part. it's not nothing, but if you have a bit of talent interesting ideas come reliably. the hard work and the part clients pay for is having the capacity to fit them to a given situation, manipulate them, and get them built. no one hires starchitects to give a concept sketch and then walk away; but copyright law only values that first moment of conception.
Have enough talent to copy the best? — ok, — but at least one should have enough character to give credit where credit is due — WTC has a unique top shape which cries to be completed to its full height — but its base and connection to the 911 Memorial is dreadful — it is just another pretend obelisk whose fierce reflection of sunlight destroys the splendid contemplation of my nephews name etched into the granite of the railings around the fountains — architect Jeehan Park may want to rethink his claim, given how poorly his elegant design was implemented — the Seagrams tower is a simple, elegant box like many others, but its real brilliance is the fantastic quality of the space it reserves in front that exquisitely shows off the Beaux-Arts treasure across the avenue and provides a blissful resting spot in the busy city — like all great architecture, it is a child of its site.
Coming up with ideas is the easy part????? — puh-leeze! — (I disagree) — just compare Rockefeller Center with Hudson Yards, the exact same project on the exact same three block NYC site, ninety years apart — the elder looks like it was designed to eliminate the mistakes of the newer — here is an instance where some copying should have been done! — ask yourself, how the hell does a tiny hole in the ground overshadow its eighty story neighbor? — EASY? — give me a break — any idiot can get something built — knowing when not to build something? THAT ...is brilliant!
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.