How PAOK FC stole my design from 3D warehouse [IMO]
-
A bit more then three years ago, I published my concept for PAOK's stadiums renovation located in Toumba, Thessaloniki; the concept was published as a 3D model on 3D warehouse and then a few images on some forums. A few days ago at PAOK's official televised conference the clubs owner, Savvidis presented the official plan for the stadium's renovation. The presented project used exactly the same solutions like I did, everything I thought of they did, to the point where no longer it could be just a coincidence. It looks like a direct copy of my stadium (minus a few small changes, and a paint job, judging by the textures I'm pretty sure they used sketch-up). Im sure that even the geometry lines up in many instances.
I've sent an emails to the club demanding explanations; however they remained silent.
Here I am asking, if this is an issue of plagiarism isn't their away to stop this from happening? Blocking downloads on on 3D warehouse has been disabled, architectural companies can just shamefully download your model and then do a few small changes and claim it as their own. Isn't their anything in the TOS that prevents this from happening?
-
That's a direct copy alright, I'd feel cheated by that too if I were you
-
time to get a lawyer...
-
Did you upload your models to the 3D Warehouse?
-
The warehouse was for giving models away... Dave has a point. Unless you specifically stated not for commercial use, you might be sol. But lawyers don't care. they'd sue because you'd probably get a settlement to shut up.
-
Unfortunately you shared your model. You gave it away and they took advantage.
-
You shared the model freely on the 3dwh, so others can use it for their own ends.
However, the TOS that the 'thieves' agreed to probably limit their usage too.
They cannot take a 3dwh item and re-badge it as their own creation for commercial use.
I suspect they have actually done considerable work on developing it themselves, but the argument arises as to where your original ends and their new creation starts.
Prima face it does look like they used your model as a basis, and so at least they should have acknowledged this somewhere [developed from am original concept by xxx], and considering the relative size of the two parties, some 'benefit' to you would have been at least 'gentlemanly', if not 'legally' necessary. Perhaps a season-ticket or similar 'treat'. Now it is likely that relationships between you will be somewhat soured, then perhaps some €€€ from them would be appropriate.
-
From judging things 3D warehouse is no longer a viable platfrom to store your model, there i s no longer an option to block your downloads, or to keep the model hidden.
-
@masterpaul said:
From judging things 3D warehouse is no longer a viable platfrom to store your model, there i s no longer an option to block your downloads, or to keep the model hidden.
You can upload models to the 3D Warehouse and keep them private but if you don't make those settings, the models will be available to everyone. And by posting your models publicly, you grant permission to the public to use your models as they see fit. It might be the polite thing for the party in question to at least have given you attribution but I doubt they did anything illegal.
If you don't want your models to be used by others, don't upload them to public places like the warehouse.
-
There would be no harm in contacting you first it would have been professional. Plus you could have recieved the recognition for the design and been rewarded. Someone else got paid for stealing this. I suspect you have a good case anywhere else in the world but the legal system in Greece & Cyprus favours who you know rather than right & wrong. The lawyers would also drag it out for fees. I'd opt for a no win no fee system if i was you. Did you find the creator of the renders ? I'd find it hard for him to deny plagiary. At least as some compensation you are now the rightful designer of a stadium. We here at sketchucation applaud you
-
I think without registering the design or copyright, you will be on a sticky wicket and as has been suggested, they can afford more legal representation than I guess you can.
Sods law but the chances are you will not be able to prove conclusively that you came up with the design first and that there are enough similarities to make a case. Bottom line is the lawyers on both sides win as usual. Sorry mate.
-
Got a few lawyers in my family; they are willing to do this for free, so there is no economic issue.
Before Saviddis brought the club, the only viable move was for PAOK to move out of the city, using the existing stadium was out of the question. However he though overwise and started renovating the interiors of the existing structure, completing works this summer. He brought in Summer 2012 (so that is the earliest date he could had requested to create a project for the stadium). There was no plan to renovate or do anything to stadium prior to that. The old club owner was against that move, all the over past proposals where for brand new stadiums outside the city.
-
Being uploaded to the Warehouse would actually prove a timeline for him and not against him. It proves when he made his design was before theirs. In this type of high profile, high monetary gain design... I would bet anything they'd pay you not to go to the papers.
-
It is a good point that the 3dwh upload predates their scheme, so if at least that's sorted.
You do not need to prove copyright, you own it already - unfortunately uploading it onto 3dwh you gave up most of those rights, BUT the downloader also has limitations - they can't 'pass-off' someone else's work as their own
If you have specific things in your SKP like unusual naming conventions or even minor 'mistakes' [an extra line in some geometry that is not critical, but which would have not been replicated by chance in someone else's version], which could be shown to be replicated in their SKP then it shows [some] wholesale copying of your work.
Make a certified version of the uploaded SKP, to be held by an 'impartial' third-party, to avoid allegations of later tampering or adjusting of it to make it more like theirs.
Then serve your legal stuff - listing the amazing coincidences and how you feel they have not acted correctly [they may have broken the TOS of 3dwh, and have probably acted in bad-faith, and almost certainly seem to have shown a lack of integrity, fairness and even simple good-manners]; insist on a similar 'frozen' version of their SKP for detailed comparison purposes. -
@unknownuser said:
Your Content in the Services
The Services allow you to submit content, including 3D models in the SketchUp and Keyhole Markup Language (KML) formats. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
By uploading, submitting or otherwise storing content in the Services, you agree to license certain rights to Google, Trimble and others, as described below:
Models associated with a geolocation (e.g. 3D buildings viewable on Google Earth) submitted before [June 1, 2012] (“Existing Geolocated Models”). You give Google a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Existing Geolocated Models and related content and derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google and its sub-licensees (including Trimble) to make available, display, distribute and promote the Services and related Google and Trimble products and services, including to provide the Existing Geolocated Models and related content to the users of such products and services.
Models that are not associated with a geolocation (e.g. 3D models of everyday objects) submitted before [June 1, 2012] (“Existing Non-Geolocated Models”). You give Trimble a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Existing Non-Geolocated Models and related content and derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Trimble and its sub-licensees (including Google) to make available, display, distribute and promote the Services and related Google and Trimble products and services, including to provide the Existing Non-Geolocated Models and related content to the users of such products and services.
All models submitted after [June 1, 2012] (“New Models”). You give Trimble a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any New Models and related content and derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Trimble and its sub-licensees (including Google) to make available, display, distribute and promote the Services and related Google and Trimble products and services, including to provide the New Models and related content to the users of such products and services.
Rights granted to other end users of the Services. You give other end users of the Services a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute Existing Geolocated Models, Existing Non-Geolocated Models, New Models and related content and derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
These license rights continue even if you stop using the Services (for example, if a 3D model which you submitted has been incorporated into Google Earth). You can stop distributing content through 3D Warehouse at any time by using the content removal tools provided, however please note that this will not affect the license rights granted above.
Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant these licenses for any content that you submit to the Services.
-
Clear as mud... seems like you're screwed though.
found this here at SCF while I was looking around. Maybe a Trimble Employee will speak up?
-
Rights granted to other end users of the Services. You give other end users of the Services a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute Existing Geolocated Models, Existing Non-Geolocated Models, New Models and related content and derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
This 0.o
I guess it all depends if the TOS will hold up in court or not (EU court or Greece). Judging by this anyone can just make an random google account and let himself rip upon the thousands and thousands of models. This wrong. An uploader should have the option to opt out of this.
What was the ToS at the time of the upload (early 2010)?
Edit: http://web.archive.org/web/20100209005848/http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/3dwh/tos.htmlAt the time of Upload:
***8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf).With the exception of Content generated by you, you may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, you may modify, distribute, and create derivative works of Content uploaded by other users in 3D Warehouse.
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content or derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.***
Depending on when the TOS decided to strip you off your rights, it might be deemed invalid, as such a radical change would for sure require the user to agree and click through it (If I recall it was only the lasts year or so that did that)
The newer TOS/EULA can also could be deemed invalid in court as it could be argued that it was a forced change. E.G. If you want to continue using the service you must accept our new TOS, failure to that will unable the use of a service, so if you haven't backed up your model you would loose it?
However this aint the only way the TOS could be deemed invalid, and presidencies do exist.If I would successfully sue the infringing company, [theoretical speculation] would they then able to sue Google for damages if Google's TOS was deemed invalid?
-
You ought to be asking these questions of a lawyer. You'd probably get better and more accurate answers.
-
Actually the first sentence holds quite a bit of meat depending on your specific state. Intellectual property rights do not require a copyright and are easily substantiated by your model and the upload date. It would also be interesting if 3d warehouse can track IP by download. That would be your icing on the cake. For a project this large, your concept would be a substantial aspect of the Architect's Schematic Design fee.
-
Hi Paul,
Looks like you are getting some very sound opinions here. I have also added '[IMO]' to your header as it can only be your opinion until all the facts come to light. Hope you dont mind
My opinion! It looks to me that there are some questions to be answered. Going to a lawyer is an option but it could cost you a lot and you could end up with a bill! If you can get a lawyer to work on a 'no foal no fee' basis it might be worth considering.
A thought crossed my mind. Do you know who produced the design that you feel has infringed your copyright? And if so, could it be possible to contact Google and determine if this particular person / firm actually downloaded your work. As you are at it, you might get details of all downloader and start from there.
Mike
Advertisement