SC Johnson Wax Research Tower Prints
SC Johnson Wax Research Tower Prints
I have a roll of blue prints, 28 in total for the SC Johnson Wax research tower in Racine. The roll includes four elevations, two sections (including the famous "tap Root", numerous floor plans, site plan, column plan, as well as some others. The roll has 28 out of a total of 32 shown on the title page. The title page is stamped "approved" by the Wisconsin Industrial Commission and is signed by the commissioner. It is my understanding that this set belonged at one time to the City of Racine. The roll is generally in excellent condition although the tap root section page is torn at two corners. Many of the pages are "mint". Does anyone have any idea what these might be worth? Any input is appreciated.
Nothing. Blueprints are not considered collectible. Furthermore they are the intellectual property of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and are protected by copyright laws. Sorry.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
-
Guest
Just because they are "they are" (or might be) "the intellectual property of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and are protected by copyright laws" does not deprive them of any value, nor does it imply they cannot be sold.
I'm willing to bet they have quite a bit of value.
Those monogrpahs you paid so much for and are so proud of are also protected by copyright laws, and intellectual property laws, yet you paid a small fortune for them.
I'm willing to bet they have quite a bit of value.
Those monogrpahs you paid so much for and are so proud of are also protected by copyright laws, and intellectual property laws, yet you paid a small fortune for them.
There are differences between books and blueprints in terms of federal copyright law. Books are intended to be sold in the market place and resold. This is consistent with their copyright. What I did was both legal and ethical. On the other the hand architectural drawings and their copyright are different in terms of current federal copyright law. Architectural drawings are instruments of service for the construction of one building unless the building was designed as a prototype. Undoubtedly those blueprints are the intellectual property of either the FLW Foundation or possibly Johnson Wax.Anonymous wrote:Just because they are "they are" (or might be) "the intellectual property of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and are protected by copyright laws" does not deprive them of any value, nor does it imply they cannot be sold.
I'm willing to bet they have quite a bit of value.
Those monogrpahs you paid so much for and are so proud of are also protected by copyright laws, and intellectual property laws, yet you paid a small fortune for them.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
Like anything else, those prints are worth what anyone will pay for them, and I'm sure any Wright afficiando would love to own them. As blueprints they have no intrinsic value. They are certainly not as collectable as original drawings which are beyond the reach of any little league collector. These days only a bidding war on eBay would give them "value", which does bring owning Wright "drawings" affordable to ordinary collectors. For myself, I would not even consider paying the kind of money even these would probably command.
I would imagine that their "use" is the only limiting factor legally (can't imagine who would take it upon themselves to build the Research Tower!), and their sale would not be governed on the private market.
Surely there is a legal lurker here who can clarify this?
The monograph analogy does not seem to have any relativity here.
I would imagine that their "use" is the only limiting factor legally (can't imagine who would take it upon themselves to build the Research Tower!), and their sale would not be governed on the private market.
Surely there is a legal lurker here who can clarify this?
The monograph analogy does not seem to have any relativity here.
-
Guest on Fire!
Wright Snobs
What an opportunity to express how much certain Wright FANATICS make me want to throw up!
How mean spirited to deprive someone else the opportunity to enjoy a Wright Item because there may be some legal method to take a jab. This person probably save the item from the trash.
I have expirenced the joy of collecting special artifact being snuffed out by the Wright pious small minded thinkers. I hope this person sells them for a million dollars, the snobs sue and lose in federal court.
I am so grateful that GOD chose to spare all those who misuse his name the same kind of instant mean spirited treatment these snobs hand out so readily.
How mean spirited to deprive someone else the opportunity to enjoy a Wright Item because there may be some legal method to take a jab. This person probably save the item from the trash.
I have expirenced the joy of collecting special artifact being snuffed out by the Wright pious small minded thinkers. I hope this person sells them for a million dollars, the snobs sue and lose in federal court.
I am so grateful that GOD chose to spare all those who misuse his name the same kind of instant mean spirited treatment these snobs hand out so readily.
-
A guest
Here's an idea...
Maybe part of the sale of the blueprints can be donated towards the operation to remove the stick up pharding's butt.
-
DRN
The poster of the previous statement is really out of line.
To the point...blueprints are collectible, particularly to private enthusiasts and some architectural schools. Carnegie Mellon has sets of original drawings and some blueprints in its archive/collection by noted architects. Some are donated, some are purchased with grants or donations.
The question is, are the prints you have, yours to sell?
If Johnson Wax found several sets in its archive and chose to donate or sell them, it would depend on their original contract with Wright, if they would be permitted to do so. They paid for the original printing,yes, but the contract with the architect would stipulate ownership of the design, original drawings, and any prints made.
If the drawings were from the files of a contractor on the job, depending on the original construction contract, the contractor was likely supposed to return the prints to the owner or the architect following completion of the project.
If the prints were originally submitted to the City, they are the property of the City, unless the City officially transferred ownership of the prints or it can be proven that they were "rescued" from a dumpster.
The reason I am being so A. retentive about this is you are dealing with items that relate to a historically significant building, that is privately owned by a multi-national corporation, that was designed by an internationally known architect, who is represented post-humously by a foundation that fiercely protects its copyrights. Because the prints could bring a significant sum of money, you had better know for sure if you are the legal owner of them, as the other potential players have very good lawyers.
I would suggest contacting an art dealer that deals in architectural drawings to discuss the issue of ownership and your right to sell. I legally purchased a rendered sepia print from a dealer in Benton Harbor, Michigan, named Scott Elliott (New Moon Gallery). He was affiliated with the Kelmscott Gallery in Chicago at one point.
To the point...blueprints are collectible, particularly to private enthusiasts and some architectural schools. Carnegie Mellon has sets of original drawings and some blueprints in its archive/collection by noted architects. Some are donated, some are purchased with grants or donations.
The question is, are the prints you have, yours to sell?
If Johnson Wax found several sets in its archive and chose to donate or sell them, it would depend on their original contract with Wright, if they would be permitted to do so. They paid for the original printing,yes, but the contract with the architect would stipulate ownership of the design, original drawings, and any prints made.
If the drawings were from the files of a contractor on the job, depending on the original construction contract, the contractor was likely supposed to return the prints to the owner or the architect following completion of the project.
If the prints were originally submitted to the City, they are the property of the City, unless the City officially transferred ownership of the prints or it can be proven that they were "rescued" from a dumpster.
The reason I am being so A. retentive about this is you are dealing with items that relate to a historically significant building, that is privately owned by a multi-national corporation, that was designed by an internationally known architect, who is represented post-humously by a foundation that fiercely protects its copyrights. Because the prints could bring a significant sum of money, you had better know for sure if you are the legal owner of them, as the other potential players have very good lawyers.
I would suggest contacting an art dealer that deals in architectural drawings to discuss the issue of ownership and your right to sell. I legally purchased a rendered sepia print from a dealer in Benton Harbor, Michigan, named Scott Elliott (New Moon Gallery). He was affiliated with the Kelmscott Gallery in Chicago at one point.
-
Guest
The big mistake people are making in this discussion (other than making personal attacks) is assuming that current architectural practices and copyright laws apply to work created in the 1940s. Architects today are very careful about defining ownership and use of instruments of service, primarily for reasons of liability, not protection of intellectual property rights. Here's my opinion (I'm an architect, not an attorney, but I can google as well as the next guy):
If the drawings in question were published in 1944, they would probably be in the public domain today. A work published in 1944 would have had copyright protection for 28 years (until 1972), which could have been renewed for another 28 years (until 2000), which would have been automatically extended to 67 years (until 2039) by the copyright act of 1978. So unless a copyright renewal was filed, the drawings would have entered the public domain in 1972. However, I doubt that printing copies for permit approval constitutes publication. These drawings probably did not acquire copyright protection until they were published as part of the study collection at the Getty or individually in books and magazines. Prior to that they were simply unpublished works in the Taliesin Archive. If that's the case, then they are protected for 70 year's from Wright's death (until 2029) or, depending on interpretation, for 120 years from the date of creation (until 2064).
Either way, copyright only governs publication and has nothing to do with the ownership or sale of a set of blueprints. If the City of Racine purged it's archives of sixty year old record drawings and someone got hold of a copy and wants to sell it, I can't see anything that would prevent him/her from doing so.
If the drawings in question were published in 1944, they would probably be in the public domain today. A work published in 1944 would have had copyright protection for 28 years (until 1972), which could have been renewed for another 28 years (until 2000), which would have been automatically extended to 67 years (until 2039) by the copyright act of 1978. So unless a copyright renewal was filed, the drawings would have entered the public domain in 1972. However, I doubt that printing copies for permit approval constitutes publication. These drawings probably did not acquire copyright protection until they were published as part of the study collection at the Getty or individually in books and magazines. Prior to that they were simply unpublished works in the Taliesin Archive. If that's the case, then they are protected for 70 year's from Wright's death (until 2029) or, depending on interpretation, for 120 years from the date of creation (until 2064).
Either way, copyright only governs publication and has nothing to do with the ownership or sale of a set of blueprints. If the City of Racine purged it's archives of sixty year old record drawings and someone got hold of a copy and wants to sell it, I can't see anything that would prevent him/her from doing so.
Anonymous wrote:If the City of Racine purged it's archives of sixty year old record drawings and someone got hold of a copy and wants to sell it, I can't see anything that would prevent him/her from doing so.
I concurr. That was the point I was making about them having no intrinsic "value" as more or less photo copies. Of course, they are of great value to someone. And how do you account for the numerous original Wright drawings in private ownership? I'm not aware of any lawsuits.
I don't believe all the lawyers from Johnson Wax and Taliesin combined could prove right of ownership to blueprints, unless they were put to some use beyond simple possesion.
Not exactly related, but think about the trouble Greece has had trying to get the Elgin Marbles returned, or the many Egyptian obelisks standing in traffic circles arouind the world. No argument about origin, but ownership is another matter.
Re: Here's an idea...
The above post is contrary to the posted guidelines for this forum. It is also an example why message boards in general do not permit anonymous posts. I suggest that this board continue to permit anonymous visitors to view the forum. In my opinion it is a mistake for this board to continue to permit posting privileges by anonymous visitors. The current policy facilitates the occassional post in poor taste.A guest wrote:Maybe part of the sale of the blueprints can be donated towards the operation to remove the stick up pharding's butt.
Trademark and Copyright Information from the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation website:
The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation is the proprietor of copyrighted and trademarked materials related to Wright's work as well as the right of publicity associated with the name, likeness, voice, signature and visual representation of the late Frank Lloyd Wright.
Photographs and designs must be used with permission from The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation.
I support the rigorous enforcement of the above completely.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
-
Wrightgeek
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:21 pm
- Location: Westerville, Ohio
I could not agree more with Paul Harding's suggestion about who should be able to post on this forum.
Whether you agree with his thoughts on the subject of the selling of FLW blueprints or not, the personal attack on him by the "guest" poster was totally out of line and uncalled for.
My guess is that the poster of this insult would be far less brazen if he or she were required to register with the site before doing so, as they could then possibly be held responsible and or barred from the site for such behavior.
I strongly believe that guests should have access to the forum to view threads and posts, to read, learn and be informed as often and as long as they like. In order to post or reply on the forum however, I think that it needs to become a requirement that those same guests become registered. If they are interested enough to want to voice a thought or opinion and to actively participate, rather than passively watch, then they should have no qualms with becoming registered.
If there is a potential downside to this policy, I hope that someone out there will illuminate me. Hopefully, a policy such as this would cut down on some of the spam that occasionally shows up, but more importantly, would force all posters to think a little more carefully before launching personal attacks on others.
Thanks.
Whether you agree with his thoughts on the subject of the selling of FLW blueprints or not, the personal attack on him by the "guest" poster was totally out of line and uncalled for.
My guess is that the poster of this insult would be far less brazen if he or she were required to register with the site before doing so, as they could then possibly be held responsible and or barred from the site for such behavior.
I strongly believe that guests should have access to the forum to view threads and posts, to read, learn and be informed as often and as long as they like. In order to post or reply on the forum however, I think that it needs to become a requirement that those same guests become registered. If they are interested enough to want to voice a thought or opinion and to actively participate, rather than passively watch, then they should have no qualms with becoming registered.
If there is a potential downside to this policy, I hope that someone out there will illuminate me. Hopefully, a policy such as this would cut down on some of the spam that occasionally shows up, but more importantly, would force all posters to think a little more carefully before launching personal attacks on others.
Thanks.
I would have to agree that a "must-register-to-post" policy is the only way to go. Although I consider myself a pretty open person, I am always dismayed when I see rude or tasteless remarks posted on an otherwise stellar and highly informative message board. As the saying goes, "there is a time and place for everything," but in this case, a medical website may be better suited to discussing proctology.
As for potential downsides, there is always somebody out there willing to make a fuss over any policy. Although I am not familiar with the U.S. constitution (since I am Canadian), I'm sure somebody could easily make the argument for rights to privacy and freedom of speech if they really wanted to. And take, for example, the case of Jason Edge and his website: Jason has been berated on several occasions on this website for his "must-register-to-post" policy. Calls have even been made for him to shut his website down. The anonynous person making these comments would clearly have something to say about the same policy on this message board (as long as they could continue to post anonymously!).
As for potential downsides, there is always somebody out there willing to make a fuss over any policy. Although I am not familiar with the U.S. constitution (since I am Canadian), I'm sure somebody could easily make the argument for rights to privacy and freedom of speech if they really wanted to. And take, for example, the case of Jason Edge and his website: Jason has been berated on several occasions on this website for his "must-register-to-post" policy. Calls have even been made for him to shut his website down. The anonynous person making these comments would clearly have something to say about the same policy on this message board (as long as they could continue to post anonymously!).
Morgan
