Jump to content

Legal question about posting architectural renders


petz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I asked myself the question lately if it is legally allowed to create CG artwork of well-known buildings. As far as I know, the designs of the structres are copy-protected by the architects, right? So, does anyone know of CG artists who have gotten into trouble for showcasting renders of architecture studios? I do not mean officially comissioned projects, more hobby artists producing renders for their portfolio, without a written authorization of the architect or copyright holder.

 

The main question is now:

Am I, as a hobby artist, legally allowed to publish renders of let's say Renzo Piano's work on my webpage?

What about architectural works of art, as for example sculptures or this one ((upside down church))?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not any different to drawing a picture or taking a photograph really is it? So I wouldn't worry about it, most of us have done a similar exercise at one stage or another. I think any intellectual property or copyright issues would only apply if you were actually trying to build and sell a replica of the building itself, or making physical copies of the architect's drawings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true, even as you develop someone else's ideas/drawings into your output, which is not the physical building standing on ground but in virtual 3D space, all the resulting imagery is yours and you are entitled to it for using in your promotional/marketing material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any intellectual property or copyright issues would only apply if you were actually trying to build and sell a replica of the building itself, or making physical copies of the architect's drawings.

so how about all the models on sale of, for example, designer furniture and of entire buildings?

 

it's an interesting question and one i've asked myself on more than one occasion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was actually thinking about that too. Things do become less clear cut when you're making a product for sale. For example is there really a difference between selling a 3d model Porsche and selling a physical scale model? Or a range of clothing featuring the logo? Where is the line drawn? I don't really know the answer. Interesting question though. I would still say that for portfolio purposes there is no issue with recreating a well known building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example is there really a difference between selling a 3d model Porsche and selling a physical scale model? Or a range of clothing featuring the logo? Where is the line drawn?

 

well, i see little difference in selling a 3d model or a physical one. in your example, if i sell a physical model of a Porshe, do i need a licence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love for someone who actually knew the answers to chime in.

The way I see it using the Porsche example is that if it is in a render of a street scene, no big deal. If you created a 3D model for sale then technically they could have a problem with that. They don't, at least I have never heard of anyone having an issue like that. On the other hand create a 3d model of a Disney character and put it up for sale and see how long it takes for their lawyers to get in touch with you. Not long I bet.

Some companies are real protective (like Disney) about there stuff, others not so much.

Like I said, I am no lawyer and this is just a W.A.G. and it would be nice for someone in the know to add to the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As somebody who knows the answer I can chime in that people who know the answer can't chime in :)

 

The law on this particular question is different in each country. If I gave you the US answer it wouldn't be useful to any of you guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not intend to make money from your representation of whatever it is, then anything is fair game. If you do then ethically they are all the same, but in reality it comes down to likelihood to sue. I think as a rule of thumb: buildings = fine; brands (with expensive lawyers) = dodgy ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As somebody who knows the answer I can chime in that people who know the answer can't chime in :)

 

The law on this particular question is different in each country. If I gave you the US answer it wouldn't be useful to any of you guys.

 

While that is true it is a good starting point and many artists here are from the USA and our laws here in Canada aren't that different. So if you know something get on with it :)

 

 

If you do not intend to make money from your representation of whatever it is, then anything is fair game.

I have to disagree with that, there was a case not long ago where Disney had a daycare center take down wall paintings of mickey mouse and goofey, made the news here. Some don't really care if you are making money from it or not. They feel if they allow it when you are not making any money that it's the thin edge of the wedge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with that, there was a case not long ago where Disney had a daycare center take down wall paintings of mickey mouse and goofey, made the news here. Some don't really care if you are making money from it or not. They feel if they allow it when you are not making any money that it's the thin edge of the wedge.

 

Really? Wow, that's nuts! And yet they have no problem 'appropriating' other people's artwork it would seem. Disney Joy Division T-shirt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but the Disney case was copyright infringement and affiliation infringement with a money making enterprise. The daycare center brought in revenue, maybe from people thinking that they were associated with Disney or not. That's a very fine line. Though, if you use a well known building in your work, which lands you a job, then I guess you are making money with it as well. There's so much grey here I think I'm on the Neutral Planet. I hate Neutrals. With enemies, you know where you stand. But, Neutrals? Who knows?

 

Most user created works of existing designs, as long as due credit is given, are generally okay in this industry. If it were opposite, someone like Santiago Calatrava would be a millionaire (like George Lucas I'll sure you rich) on lawsuits.

 

It's really no different when you publish works. You can use other people's words in your own original works, as long as you properly cite them. Otherwise, it's plagiarism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanna give my inexperienced and unprofessional opinion:

 

I cannot see what the problem is here. Unless you are doing an illustration with a piece of architecture with a company logo and your work is offensive it might be a problem. But society isnt that stupid. You dont need permission to breathe, one does here of some pretty bizarre and stupid law suits in the states, but those are restricted to the states and stupid they are. The rest of the world has pretty normal laws. There are millions of artists and photographers taking and doing artworks of whatever and they dont ask permission for every single thing, its crazy. If you are concerned about that, what about the landscapers design that features in your rendering of that building, do you need his permission as well?

 

Even worse the glazing system that you are showing in the building has been patented and registered at the patent design office, the architect doesnt even have a patent on his building just a set of drawings. The fence erected around the offece usually is also a registered design, but you are concerned only about the architect? Honestly dont think its an issue at all. After all, its just a rendering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...