If this article, from 2015, is correct - then, in Wright's case, as of 2018 all if his works prior to 1923 are already public domain. And, year-by-year more will be added (e.g. - in this year, 2019, his works from 1924 will become public domain). Also, in 2029 all of his unpublished works will become public domain since it will be 70 years since his death.
I'm wondering if this could have also been a consideration in Taliesin transferring the archives over to Columbia University (i.e. - diminishing future income from less-and-less Wright copyright-protected items)?
David
Copyright & public domain
-
catharaaama
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:46 am
- Location: United States
- Contact:
With architecture, copyright only protected drawings, not the 3d design embodied in those drawings. This was only changed in 1990. So really all of Wright's work is available for use by whoever wants it. You can't publish his post 1923 drawings in a book, but you could use them as a basis to make your own drawings and build a house.
I hadn't considered that.I'm wondering if this could have also been a consideration in Taliesin transferring the archives over to Columbia University (i.e. - diminishing future income from less-and-less Wright copyright-protected items)?
BBP's advanced age; the increasing age of his assistants and the question of enlisting long term replacements; inadequate storage facilities and the cost of improvements; and the relative remoteness of the location, were the reasons I could thought of at the time of the move. With the copyright issue in play, one wonders if the reasoning was one of, is the cost to bring the Archival facility up to standard and to train and properly staff it for the long term worth the investment in terms of financial sustainability for the whole of the Foundation and its other holdings?
Immediate outlay vs anticipated future income, in other words . . .?
I'm not sure what the implications for copyright would be, in transferring ownership (?) of the archive from the Foundation to an outside institution. The question presumably could have been addressed in more than one
way; the Foundation might have retained copyright ownership, for instance. Did money change hands along with the removal ? What rights and responsibilities did each of the three parties assume, maintain or relinquish ?
S
I'm not sure what the implications for copyright would be, in transferring ownership (?) of the archive from the Foundation to an outside institution. The question presumably could have been addressed in more than one
way; the Foundation might have retained copyright ownership, for instance. Did money change hands along with the removal ? What rights and responsibilities did each of the three parties assume, maintain or relinquish ?
S
It was my understanding the Foundation received money as part of the move.
I'm not sure of the current ownership of the rights to reproduction of drawings for illustration in commercially produced books, calendars, and the like; whether it is now Avery/MoMA solely, or shared with FLWF, or something else.
In any case, architecture, particularly single family residential is tricky with copyrights. In the home building industry, there is little that is truly original (most plans and designs built are derivative in some respect) and just by changing some details, adding or deleting some elements, or mirroring a plan, a legal claim could be made difficult to win. Some of Wright's designs are unique enough that they can be traced back, but I doubt anyone in Scottsdale or Spring Green ever troubled themselves to sue the builder of the kitschy Robie or Fallingwater knock offs we have seen or the earnestly faithful Miller and Goetsch-Winckler replicas we have commented upon....they are too few and far between to make a suit worthwhile. If a national builder or a kit producer mass marketed a design or mass built a recognizable unique design there could be a plausible and financially sound chance for an infringement case to be brought....but that is just an architect's opinion.
The Foundation trademarked the Frank Lloyd Wright name and his red block logotype that is seen on authorized publications and products since the 1950's or '60's. Trademarks can be renewed in perpetuity I believe.
I'm not sure of the current ownership of the rights to reproduction of drawings for illustration in commercially produced books, calendars, and the like; whether it is now Avery/MoMA solely, or shared with FLWF, or something else.
In some books, the copyright for some Taliesin sourced illustrations is noted as the date of the publication for the book...as if the Foundation has been copyrighting some previously unpublished & uncopyrighted items as they are selected for use. I suppose that will end in 2029, but if an item created in 1937 was copyrighted for publication in 1979, would the 2029 expiration date still hold?Also, in 2029 all of his unpublished works will become public domain since it will be 70 years since his death.
In any case, architecture, particularly single family residential is tricky with copyrights. In the home building industry, there is little that is truly original (most plans and designs built are derivative in some respect) and just by changing some details, adding or deleting some elements, or mirroring a plan, a legal claim could be made difficult to win. Some of Wright's designs are unique enough that they can be traced back, but I doubt anyone in Scottsdale or Spring Green ever troubled themselves to sue the builder of the kitschy Robie or Fallingwater knock offs we have seen or the earnestly faithful Miller and Goetsch-Winckler replicas we have commented upon....they are too few and far between to make a suit worthwhile. If a national builder or a kit producer mass marketed a design or mass built a recognizable unique design there could be a plausible and financially sound chance for an infringement case to be brought....but that is just an architect's opinion.
The Foundation trademarked the Frank Lloyd Wright name and his red block logotype that is seen on authorized publications and products since the 1950's or '60's. Trademarks can be renewed in perpetuity I believe.
I read about it here on Chat some years ago:
http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewto ... 9311e38704
The house is reportedly located at:
472 Burton Avenue
Highland Park, IL
http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewto ... 9311e38704
The house is reportedly located at:
472 Burton Avenue
Highland Park, IL
That'd be an interesting house to see from inside. The proximity of other homes is much closer than the typical Usonian (including the original G-W and Brandes homes). Gotta wonder what changes were made to give more privacy, and what effect it has on the space.
(Looks like skylights are present on the north half of the home)
(Looks like skylights are present on the north half of the home)
Roller blinds wouldn't change the interior. Of course the house would feel much different in any event. But the plan does seem a useful fit for a narrow city lot -- as I suppose many inline Usonians might.
One turns inward, in such circumstances ? Perhaps a "green wall" outside the windows, and/or around the lanai outside the bedrooms, would help . . .
Compare to a house designed for a similar site, the lost Aaron Green in LA, the Reif residence.
S
One turns inward, in such circumstances ? Perhaps a "green wall" outside the windows, and/or around the lanai outside the bedrooms, would help . . .
Compare to a house designed for a similar site, the lost Aaron Green in LA, the Reif residence.
S
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am