How PAOK FC stole my design from 3D warehouse [IMO]
-
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
-
Masterpaul,
I can't imagine being in your position right now. No matter the right you conceeded in giving away your model, "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
EDIT:
- I'm of course no expert in the matter and didn't even care to read the full 3D warehouse policy. However I believe it only defends Google's and Trimble's rights to use your work for making money but they don't steal your property. I find it hard to believe Google/Trimble's policy guarantees the right to the people downloading content, to make money from that content in any form. Copyright law is above 3D Warehouse law, and I believe it has been compromised.
However, if the lawyer is not sharing your point of view there's always some dangerous (and probably funny) acts you could pull (wich I wouldn't advice you to because I wouldn't dare pulling them myself).
Let me try to cheer you up with some ridiculous ideas:
- You could talk to the media, newspapers and TV stations! Give them something graphical wich you already have! Put it in an article and let them play those find the differences games! Give them a full professional comparison on text too, because I don't believe reporters know much about architecture. Explain them the core functionality of your own concept and compare with the final one... Don't play the victim part, ridiculize them! Being ashamed is bad for business!
- You could talk to Panathinaikos or Olympiakos too and explore the situation even further!
- I can't believe PAOK knows what hit them. Does PAOK even know about sketchup or 3d warehouse? You could go to PAOK and say that the firm that might have copied your design... might be, well still copying your design... so you are the one who knows how to design stadiums and, therefore, it should be you they should give the project to. Dress a killer outfit and get yourself a bombastic escort and you are game for sure... EDIT: Oh and take a lawyer too... just to keep all ways covered!
- In fact it makes perfect sense... I don't know how professionally envolved you were at designing that, however if the best thing they propose was copied from you, why on earth would PAOK prefer them over you?
Now for a more conservative aproach: The first thing I would do here in Portugal is go talk to the Portuguese Architectural Association and ask them for help. Here they have lawyers that give preliminary legal advice for free and I sincerely think that there are some fundamental deontological questions not being respected here. Greece and Portugal are both in EU so the base rules should be the same. Here that could put them out of business for some years and guess what? PAOK won't be waiting for long... or will they?
EDIT:
- "Imitation is one of the best forms of flattery" I imitated this and don't know who said it first...
I hope I helped or cheered you up a bit!
Best regards,
JQL
-
@mike lucey said:
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
I have no idea who've done this PAOK so far has not been answering my email. I guess its possible to track them down, a person who infringed has likely downloaded the model multiple times; so that could be a start.
-
I note that 'Nomen Architects' [Thessaloníki] have done a lot of design work for PAOK - so perhaps it's them or their employee ?
The contractors might be 'Iliadis Construction Co' - they have been mentioned in connection with new work at the stadium ?
-
@tig said:
I note that 'Nomen Architects' [Thessaloníki] have done a lot of design work for PAOK - so perhaps it's them or their employee ?
The contractors might be 'Iliadis Construction Co' - they have been mentioned in connection with new work at the stadium ?
Nothing has been mentioned with the renovation.
Well nomen architects, i'm not quite sure, there portfolio work just includes basically includes mostly interiors and a bit of facade, and a pavilion. However they did work at the interior and the club president might be happy with them. -
That is quite shameful. I did not know that the ToS has changed so radically. Even if it did, I agree -- the buyers of the design probably don't know it was stolen.
-
this is indeed a difficult subject because historically architecture has been created having other architectures as point of departure. just think of how many "miesian" office towers there are out there obviously modelled on Mies van der Rohe Seagram Building or lesser known towers.
thus the discussion of plagiarism in architecture is a very difficult one. most of the time designing after someone's example is a sort of homage and it always involves some kind of adaptation to different circumstances pertaining to place, program and construction possibilities. this determines that in general any project is unique no matter how much it may have been inspired by another.
however, what we see in the images does not seem to be the same case. it seems as if the initial design has been taken forward by someone else without bothering to alter it in any significant way.
to discuss the matter in court is one possibility but it will certainly cost a lot and will probability drag on for a long time. the question for you is: is it worth the cost and the stress? are there precedents for this kind of lawsuit in your country? could you not approach the promoters and explain the case to them? perhaps you could reach some kind of settlement by which you get paid for your ideas.
just a couple of thoughts. good luck.
-
@edson said:
this is indeed a difficult subject because historically architecture has been created having other architectures as point of departure. just think of how many "miesian" office towers there are out there obviously modelled on Mies van der Rohe Seagram Building or lesser known towers.
thus the discussion of plagiarism in architecture is a very difficult one. most of the time designing after someone's example is a sort of homage and it always involves some kind of adaptation to different circumstances pertaining to place, program and construction possibilities. this determines that in general any project is unique no matter how much it may have been inspired by another.
Well they did design for the exactly the same location, and they did rebuild the same stadium.
The promoters, as in PAOK fc, as it was there own tv conference just ignore my emails.
-
They won't ignore a lawyer and I'd bet my bottom dollar that a lawyer will take this on pro bono.
-
Hmmm... I reviewed the stadium as it stands (according to a sketchup warehouse model that seems to be very close to the pictures I could find, the 2010 original poster's proposal, and the youtube video of the new design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bza_mEkYALg).
I do see some similarities. It especially seems that both the 2010 proposal and the new design seem to pull the end seats closer to the field, but there are significant differences, also. For instance, the 2010 proposal uses the existing building basically as is, replacing the roof over it. The new design significantly adds to the building. Also, some of the "design elements" highlighted in the original pictures are actually what the stadium looks like now, and both the 2010 proposal and the new design utilize them.
I would be surprised if the person or persons doing the schematic design didn't see the 2010 proposal, but there is a lot of work that was done. The roof lines are very similar, but that seems to be more a matter of form following function.
It looks like there has been some engineering for the new design roof, and the new design uses a different support system.
Most strikingly the interior has a much different look:
The pillar spacing seems to be the same, but I am not sure if that is a function of design or engineering.
So, in my opinion, while some areas seem to be inspired by the 2010 proposal that was in the warehouse, the new proposal has significant differences and seems to have a lot more engineering in the roof supports. I suspect that the similarities that do exist are functional, not design, and probably would not support a legal action. Of course, the laws in Europe may differ significantly from the laws in the US, and that might make a difference.
Advertisement