getting sued because of your rendering

[edub]

Hey,

I don't know why I started thinking about this - maybe it was that survey?

What are the legal grounds for sueing (sp?) a design firm because the final product does not look "exactly" like the renderings used to sell it?

I'm not in any kind of situation like this, and hope to never be - but I was wondering if a client has any legal grounds to sue a designer, based on renderings. I'm thinking more like choice of materials (wood textures, stone etc), and also general lighting atmosphere.

My fear is that one day a client will say "but this doesn't look like the renderings!"... we all know how that goes right?... but what if they decide to sue based on false representation, or something along those lines?

Anyways, ust being overly paranoid about this, and neede to get some feedback.

Anyone have any stories/ advice/ legal contract stuff??

-erik

[Ricardo Eloy]

Well, not exactly a legal advisor here, but I think the responsability is not yours (or whoever did the rendering's for that matter). You deliver a product that should look the way your client demands it to. So, if it doesn't represent the actual design, the client is to blame, not you. You know, he/she accepted the rendering as being correct and is using it to sell the building. Not you.

[creasia]

I have seen a disclaimer on renderings that say that the final product may not be exactly as shown.

 

It seems like a great way to cover your bases.

 

Shaun

[e-YELLOWCABS.COM]

i don't know how it is on your side of the Atlantic Ocean, but in France, the client ( the suing bad guy!) signs a contrat which describes the project and

everything is quoted, the picture is never part of the contract, this is only

an artistic view of the project...

[ecastillor]

Absolutely right about the disclaimer part....I always include it when its for commercial purposes....

 

Right now there are some angry protesting neighbours that bought houses in my town, and they are saying that the brochure the developer used included an image ( a rendering) depicting some very nice gardens at the main entrance...but are now being demolished to acomodate convenience stores...

 

too bad it wasnt in their contract that those gardens where part of their project.

[Fernando Lino]

only put something like "Artistic Rendering" or "Artistic representation"

[aaron-cds]

Erik,

In the US, it would be impossible for a client to sue the illustrator for the end product not looking like a rendering. The reason for this is that there are only two legal documents for architecture, the construction documents and the specifications, both of which are the responsibility of the licensed architect, not the illustrator. If the building doesn't match the cd's or specs the client has grounds for a lawsuit. If the building doesn't match the rendering, that's life. Most owners have the savy to know that cg renderings are fake, not real. The client could sue the architect for not making the construction documents match the rendering. The illustrator is pretty much untouchable. I wouldn't worry about adding disclaimers.

 

I can't imagine a cg artist being sued because we're not the ones designing or constructing anything. That's one of the reasons that drove me towards focusing my company on renderings and not architecture. There's practically no liability in architectural illustration. What a relief.

[joseph alexander]

In New York, Vegas, and Miami there's a huge condiminium industry. To fuel these projects developers presell units before the building is ever built. Often times the ealier you buy the cheaper the condo, so there's value in buying pre-construction. However, there's a risk involved because the final product can fall way short of the rendered presentation. However, these guys are smart and probably have a detailed description in the contract and don't, at any point, claim that the units/building will look like any given image.

I personally feel that using rendered images can be misleading, but it's not the viz artist's liability.

 

-Joe

[Ricardo Eloy]

Aaron hit the nail. The design is not your responsability, so you don't have to worry about it. Here in Brazil, however, there's something in the law that says the rendering must portray the actual design, meaning you can't say the building is blue and then paint it pink. Still, if that happens, it happened because the designer asked, not because you came with that from out of the blue.

I guess what I'm trying to say is "don't wory".

[edub]

thanks for the feedback guys - my mind's at ease now (well, in this matter at least)...

[Koper]

To fuel these projects developers presell units before the building is ever built.

-Joe

 

Same thing is happening in South Africa, we have a realy BIG BOOM down here. Allot of people spoke about this situation at Imagina this year and how realism and super realism comes into effect when illustrating an architects design. If the artist takes responsibility and depicts the correct information about the design then nobody can be sued in the first place.

 

for instance, a cloudy place such as England (for argument sake) has got more cloudy days than sunny, so depict a cloudy illustration, not a full sunny blue sky illustration, just as ecastillor said. don't show them what they think they will get, show them what they really are getting.

 

If you do this you are covered!!

[Jeff Mottle]

just a fun tidbit to add to this thread. Of the 654 people who have currently been asked this question in our survey, 5.2% of them or thier companies have been sued.

[aaron-cds]

for instance, a cloudy place such as England (for argument sake) has got more cloudy days than sunny, so depict a cloudy illustration, not a full sunny blue sky illustration, just as ecastillor said. don't show them what they think they will get, show them what they really are getting.

 

If you do this you are covered!!

 

WOW!!! Just throw in the towel on artistic license. Talk about "glass half empty" rather than "glass half full".

[John Dollus]

Copyright infringement is a common one for this industry. It's not always about the whole image. Art prints included as texture maps, music tracks and video clips are pretty big reasons for being sued.

[FlytE]

for instance, a cloudy place such as England (for argument sake) has got more cloudy days than sunny, so depict a cloudy illustration, not a full sunny blue sky illustration, just as ecastillor said. don't show them what they think they will get, show them what they really are getting.

 

If you do this you are covered!!

 

Yes we have alot of cloudy skies in britain but a marketing image should always sell a building as best it can and that usually means making it a bright happy sunny day. Sunny days are far more appealing to a client as an image because they look comfortable and attractive - exactly how they want their residential areas to appeal to potential tennents. I certainly wouldnt make it a cloudy day because im concerned i might be sued.....!

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Same thing is happening in South Africa, we have a realy BIG BOOM down here. Allot of people spoke about this situation at Imagina this year and how realism and super realism comes into effect when illustrating an architects design. If the artist takes responsibility and depicts the correct information about the design then nobody can be sued in the first place.

 

for instance, a cloudy place such as England (for argument sake) has got more cloudy days than sunny, so depict a cloudy illustration, not a full sunny blue sky illustration, just as ecastillor said. don't show them what they think they will get, show them what they really are getting.

 

If you do this you are covered!!

 

...a large part of the problem comes when teh design chanegs after the illustration is complete. that is out of the illustrators hands unless the client pays them to update the project. if the design changes are minor, then chances are the client isn't going to bother with the illustration unless it has a sizeable positive effect on how the project will be sold.