EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
Wright tried to sell this 'PR Value' to Price when the cost of his tower starting going through the roof. Price would have none of it, noting they were an oil industry services firm with no need to market to the public at large.
Could the Foundation be objecting to this misrepresentation of Wright rather than the infringement of any copyright issues?
See quote below from this website: http://iggyo.blogspot.com/2010/12/reply ... right.htmlUnbrook wrote:Could the Foundation be objecting to this misrepresentation of Wright rather than the infringement of any copyright issues?
The Foundation terminated the license agreement with VMI for numerous reasons, including the fact that several of the buildings as constructed in Second Life and displayed by VMI did not accurately reflect the buildings as actually designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The Foundation further offered a new and revised license agreement to VMIâ€™s new board and management but it was declined. The Foundation was disappointed that they could not obtain agreement with VMI as to the license agreement terms, but the Foundation and the real world Frank Lloyd Wright building site owners have a duty to protect the intellectual property and works of Wright.
I joined this Forum to allow you all to hear some answers directly from one of the builders who contributed to the former Frank Lloyd Wright Virtual Museum (FLWVM.)
In Second Life, I am Ethos Erlanger. I contributed to the construction of the Fallingwater that was shown at the Museum. Some of the detailed history of that build may be found here: (link omitted because this is my first post)
Here is the simple version of the closing of the Museum: We had a license with the foundation. They terminated the license. At the termination of a license of this kind, they customarily issue a Cease and Desist Order.
Now that is pretty simple. But it is not. Motivations are often disguised by words.
Third parties can often misinterpret what is driving all of this. Even I may misinterpret things I heard and saw when I visited Taliesin West in person to discuss the situation with the Foundation.
I really think it boils down to this: A license will only have value when it is working to generate revenue for the owner. If it cannot produce that revenue, then it becomes an expense. Only the greatest of visionaries are able to project value onto intangible things. I was unable to instill in the Foundation the greater value of good will within the virtual community.
My building of Fallingwater was among the best of its time. There were several of them in Second Life. Even Linden Lab gave away two different versions of this house named: September 2003 House in a Box: Wright House and a later nearly identical one named: september 2004 Wright House. Both were by Ryan Linden an employee of Linden Lab. Maybe they are exempt from the Cease & Desist Order because it was such a bad copy or because it was given away / not sold. I am puzzled over why the Foundation did not identify and send Linden Lab their own Cease & Desist Order for distributing those copies and a design that can be clearly identified as that of Frank Lloyd Wright.
I can build it better. Until my visit to Taliesin West on September 30, 2010, I had never heard that they were unhappy with its accuracy or completeness. The License we had with them gave them the right to ask us to take it down or improve it. They never did. From Late January 2010 till late September 2010, they did not once utter a word to me that indicated any displeasure with my skills as a builder. I spoke with them by phone and wrote emails to them and then had to travel to Taliesin West to get the first clue that they thought I could do better.
I knew of many of the flaws in my build of Fallingwater. We were constrained by the lack of access to dimensioned drawings when it was first built in 2007. We believed from the reading of the license that we would be allowed access to the archives in order to produce the best possible renderings of the buildings. Clearly, that working relationship never developed. Fallingwater was built in Second Life before some of the more recent advancements in modeling in Second Life became available. This is typical in an emerging technology. The communication and effort on the part of the foundation was not as I expected. We needed input from them and did not receive it. Maybe the License was poorly written by the Foundation from the start.
More perspective may be obtained from this article: (link omitted because this is my first post)
You may ask me anything and I will likely tell you more than the Foundation wants me to say. They repeatedly asked my not to issue any press releases while we had the license. I complied with that request. I no longer feel bound by that promise.
http://slbuilder.wordpress.com/fallingw ... e-virtual/
http://primperfectblog.wordpress.com/20 ... m-closure/
Yes, I am a strong believer in the precise use of the English language. Their Cease & Desist called it all sorts of things to be sure that they did not overlook any interpretation of what we had done or could do in the Virtual World of Second Life. I still think that had there been a financial benefit to them that was large enough, this might be a different topic and whether we called it modeling or building would be moot.myLiebermeisterAGG wrote:At the risk of sounding bitchy....I think you should refer to what you are doing as modeling, and not building.
And to be very specific, in the virtual world of Second Life and almost all others like Second Life, it actually is called building and it is what we had a license from the foundation to do. We were also allowed to show what we had built to the entire world. What is relevant here is not that we had built anything, but that the License was terminated. Calling it modeling rather than building would not have influenced them to allow us to keep the License. That was their decision.
Paul,Paul Ringstrom wrote:
..... These people DO NOT deserve our financial support. There are a lot of FLW organizations who are doing positive things that need our contributions. Please support them instead.....
How much support does SaveWright provide to the FLLWF? If it is a substantial amount then they may be pleased to let you use Mr. Wright's name in your organizations name. Do you have a License Agreement with them? Are you simply sending them a check with no expectation of anything in return?
Do they accept your donations or are you bound by an agreement? Do they provide you any services for those donations.
All of these thing change the equation.
It is good to have this dialog. Most of us in Second Life valued the museum as a significant example of what Virtual Worlds can be to the educational community. And more specifically, architectural renderings can be understood much more thoroughly through the use of this medium. The Frank Lloyd Wright Virtual Museum achieved something significant to those users. Not all residents of Second Life came to visit. Some have no interest in FLW. Some have no interest in architecture.myLiebermeisterAGG wrote:Am I missing something here? ...
...I have seen some of the models, fair at best. I'm not getting the importance of this whole thing.
Your voice is the first I have heard of any visitor who expressed your view in the way you have here. What can be achieved in a rendering or build within a virtual world is not achievable in other graphic mediums and we proved it. Our builds (models as you want them to be called) are decidedly superior to those made with plastic blocks. Those toys have play value. They have educational value. Those made of plastic have entertainment value. And they inspire the architects, designers, and builders of the next generation. But I will argue with anyone if they were to imply that Frank wanted his designs to be rendered in plastic blocks and then imply that we did not do his designs justice as was implied by the public statement of the Foundation regarding our work. (Forgive me if I got their implication wrong, or that my comparison to toys is unjust.) One significant difference is that you may enter the interior of the builds in Second Life. You get very little knowledge of the interior of the Guggenheim by looking through the doorways and windows from the outside looking in to a toy made of plastic. This same learning experience is not possible in a plastic toy. And yet the Foundation issues licenses to these plastic toys products because they generate revenue.
Similarly, it is not possible with models created with Google SketchUp to show the interiors of the buildings, and yet the Foundation has not asked those people to remove their models from the internet, have they.
We did our best to build accurately and had plans to do better. This is a technology in its infancy and it has greater potential in the future. But the Foundation simply did not want it that way.
Some people came to visit the museum because the renderings gave them an orientation to the interior that they could not comprehend from blueprint drawings or even photographs of the actual buildings. You are simply not one of those visitor who benefited from this technology.
Many people were saddened by the closing of the museum. You are simply not among those who was moved in the same way.