This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.

copycats?

peter_j
edited February 2007 in Q and A
Lab announced recently in the news that a Dutch development was copying elements of Fed Square.

THE AGE 21.01.07

The so-called copycat is in the Dutch city of Nijmegen, the ROC - Nijmegen which is a school of some sort.

A webcam of the construction is here:
http://webcam.roc-nijmegen.nl/cgi-bin/guestimage.html

Some pics at the architect's site:
http://www.ags.nl/projects/project2.asp?ID=5&PID=128

Should Lab really be kicking up a fuss about this? Here's Federation Square in case you haven't popped in for a while:
http://www.fedsquare.com.au/index.cfm?pageID=56

When does a derivative design cross the line and become plagiristic in architecture anyway?

Comments

  • kashmir
    edited January 1970
    I heard a funny one liner about Fed Square the other day; 'It will look good once they take the scaffolding down".

    but seriously, that is ridiculously similar... does LAB have any legal recourse under copyright laws? I guess they would need a design patient? Strange world, with song writing, once you write the song you own it, even if it's recorded on a cassette with a $30 acoustic guitar, no one can touch you and you can sue the legs of anyone who does impinge... but spend $450 million on a building and anyone can come along and replicate it...
  • yobitch
    edited January 1970
    I suspect this is an item of discussion as the word "Libeskind' failed to appear once in this article and that would appear to be inconsistent editorialising by The Age which about 3 years ago showed the blatant homage/appropriation/inspiration/copying between Fed Square and the Jewish extension to the Berlin Museum.Seems like some architects have very thin skins.Amusing how they managed to drag ARM into this who were criticised for appropriating the plan of the same building at the National Museum of Australia.Apparently unacknowledged, slavish and inferior copies are preferable to acknowledged reuse.

    To continue the discussion : I thought there was a legal demarcation when it came to copyright in the visual arts - needs to be 10-20% difference (however that is measured).
  • kdaveson
    edited January 1970
    I can see why comparisons would have been drawn between Libeskind and Lab initially, but I would put it down to an emergent geometry more than anything. Not too many firms were getting away with such interesting geometry at the time, and fewer still were getting publicity for it. In retrospect however, the differences between Fed Square and the Jewish Museum are vast at an aesthetic level, and from my experience of Fed Square and what I've seen of the Jewish museum, there are few similarities in planning either.

    With that in mind however, I'd consider the similarities between Fed Square and the work of AGS Projecten to be pretty undeniable. Take a look at image 4 on http://www.fedsquare.com.au/index.cfm?pageID=56 vs the first slide on http://www.ags.nl/projects/project2.asp?ID=5&PID=128

    On a slightly different note, issue 3 of Mark (a great architectural publication ironically based in the Netherlands) has an article on the culture of 'copying' in China, where some copied buildings are almost indistinguishable from the originals. http://www.sinocities.net/?p=131 has a few examples, but the ones in the magazine are incredible.

    In the Mark article, Juan Lucas Young, a partner of Sauerbruch Hutton Architects, was quoted as saying "A copy can never reach the level of the original [but] if we do not defend ourselves, there will be a snowball effect, which will eventually compromise global architecture culture'.

    It might sound a bit extreme, but this is a sensitive issue and one that's not easy to define or enforce. Copyright laws and Intellectual Property laws definitely aren't my speciality, but it seems to me that they're not worth the paper they're written on for the most part. 'Ideas' are an architect’s currency, but there seems to be little or no respect or protection for this in Australia or, evidently, many other corners of the world.

    And despite all that doom and gloom, the most discouraging element of this issue for me is the phrase 'cry copycat' in the headline. I'm well aware that journalists, sub editors etc feel compelled to gain readers attention by using sensationalist headlines (and usually articles too), but there seems to be an underhanded bias against architects in the Australian media, along with a constant perpetuation of very outdated stereotypes. http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21096945-462,00.html as posted by Peter on the main page is a prime example - articles that present negative views or comments about architects rarely attempt to present the alternative view. The first thing you're taught in journalism is to present two sides of the story (at least), but when it comes to buildings, architects etc, I have yet to see both sides presented equally, if both sides are presented at all, and I have not once seen the RAIA comment.
  • yobitch
    edited January 1970
    just to reply to the previous - yes you are right there was only one side of a story presented in The Age article - Lab's.There was no follow up of their thin claims to originality or any discussion about originality itself being a spurious claim.
    What surprises me is that Lab fail to recognise that works get imitated/copied/inspire other often lesser works.The perpetuation of this takes on momentum and history records it as a moment ( to simplfy a process) but presumably Lab's complaint is that they cannot cash in more immediately on what they have decided is their franchise ?
    Cheap flattery is their reward although I suspect history will rapidly by pass Libeskind's former employees (Lab) and go to the source of this supposedly adventurous geometry, Daniel Libeskind - or it might bypass him and look a bit more closely at Kurt Schwitters et al.................................
  • kdaveson
    edited January 1970
    I definitely won't ague that The Age presented a thoroughly researched article - there was no mention of AGS Projecten, just the 'Dutch project'. But I will point out that Stephen Ashton did get a right of reply, and did so tactfully. Mind you, I don't consider the Perth Arena to be similar to Fed Square at an obvious aesthetic level.

    I also won't disagree that originality is difficult to define, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere, and architects should have the right to at least point to that blurred line if they have reasonable and justifiable concerns - Bates acknowledges that "all architects are influenced by other architects", but he points out that both aesthetics and planning are remarkably similar to that of Fed Square.

    Unfortunately, the line in the sand is even more blurred in copyright laws, and architects have few enforceable rights, but when they have concerns about their works being duplicated and a journalist willing to listen, they deserve to voice an opinion without being vilified and accused of wanting to 'cash in'.
  • eedbeed
    edited January 1970
    ....indeed, a public square surrounded by "Libeskind' buildings....what part of FED Square's design actually belongs to LAB?
  • kdaveson
    edited January 1970
    I guess it'd be pretty easy to come to that conclusion on an exceedingly superficial level...

    Although looking through Libeskind's work, much of his exploration of triangulated geometry has occurred post-2002 (the completion of Fed Square) and still very little of it is as dominant a feature as in Fed Square. The Jewish Museums triangular motifs (derived from the Star of David) are usually within rectangular frameworks, and are using sparingly to enhance the power of voids within the building. Again, I think only crude aesthetic comparisons can be drawn, and I personally see very little weight to them.

    But then, if Libeskind had personally questioned the work and 'similarities' of Fed Square, he would be well within his rights to do so. Likewise, so should Lab when a work that strongly resembles Fed Square appears elsewhere in the world and is brought to their attention by a contractor who saw the glaring similarities from the outset.
  • 3am
    3am
    edited January 1970
    "I can see why comparisons would have been drawn between Libeskind and Lab initially, but I would put it down to an emergent geometry more than anything."

    "But then, if Libeskind had personally questioned the work and 'similarities' of Fed Square, he would be well within his rights to do so."

    Sorry, I know I'm coming in late here but I can't tell if you people are aware Libeskind was the Judge for the Federation Sq. competition.
    Or does that go without saying?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!