Just to let everyone know I received an e-mail the other day from Ian Simpson Architects asking me to remove the renderings of Venture Tower and Criterion Place from my website (www.leeds-cityscape.co.uk), as they were being displayed without their express permission. They said that they were also in the process of contacting other websites and making similar demands.

This is obviously a very disapointing turn of events, as it has the potential of seriously limiting our ability to admire/review & citicise buildings being constructed in our towns and cities.

In order to get round any possible copyright infringement I have now placed the renderings on a US based image hosting site and then linked to that page.

I firmly believe that it is our right to be able to view any renderings for new proposals, before they get to the planning stage. Many new buildings will have a dramatic impact an so we need to defend our right to view these renderings.

I write this as a warning as individual posters to this forum may finds themselves being contacted and asked to removed their renderings.

You could just ask them for permission to use the images on your site.

I had a quick scan though their website and couldn't find anywhere that says you need permission from them to reproduce them.

they stated to me that the would not consider granting permission until Venture and Criterion were at least at the planning permission stage. That doesn't just go for me, but all websites.

mancunian member, subtract, works for ISA, he's probably the guy who emailed you.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=241021&page=2&pp=20

Right one question, how the f**k did that Render of West Central get posted on here? theres one been released to the press but from a completely diffrerent viewpoint that gives a better angle of the towers

and 2-4 is nothing like West central in Leeds though


Thanks mate, ive spotted another site with it on and have asked them to remove it. The problem being that peoples preceptions of the scheme can be changed when renders and incorrect infromation are released, which doesnt help planning!

Yeah i know what you mean about similarities but i see so much glass...!

and i have lots of work to be doing, for a start im changing how site photos are viewed so busy with that

another render has been released, the one you put on your website was a leak.

Maybe we should all boycott everything to do with Simpson... :mad:

mancunian member, subtract, works for ISA, he's probably the guy who emailed you.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=241021&page=2&pp=20






another render has been released, the one you put on your website was a leak.

That doesn't explain why they would want the Criterion Place renderings removed.

What wrong with showing official renderings?

What the hell is wrong with putting pictures up if they are in the public domain?

I can understand the problems if it's a leaked image, but the Criterion renders have been knocking about for ages now.

I did ask him if he could send me official renderings, or provide me with corrections if any of my information was wrong, but he refused.

Your'e definitely right about Criterion. These images have been widely available for a long time.

I'm suprised that being a poster here, he has decided to take this attitude. It goes completely against the spirit of this board and what we are all about in having an interest in this.

i made a post on the uk.legal group about this. no one responding was a lawyer, several journalists though. they all mentioned something called "fair dealing". there are exemptions to copyright laws under fair dealing for news, review and criticism. ive run a website for over five years and never heard of an architect doing this because its fair dealing. the only exemption to fair dealing is actual photographs but youre not using those. its important you fully credit someone when using their work this way as they have moral rights.

"Under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act (1988) (CDPA), fair dealing is defined as "private study and criticism and review and news reporting" (s. 29, 30) Although not actually defined as a fair dealing, copyright in works is not infringed by incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable program. New regulations came into force at the end of October 2003 which reduced the research fair dealing exception to non-commercial research only.

CDPA permits individuals to make a single copy of a "reasonable proportion" of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works for "research and private study" and "criticism, review and news reporting" ( s. 29, 30) under the terms of "fair dealing". "

copyright does not and never has given people permission to compeltely control their work. the idea has always been it is a compromise between rights-holders and everyone else hence the likes of the building press are able to publish renderings of unbuilt projects without the permission of people attached to the project - because its fair dealing. or to put it another way, if the yorkshire post can publish those images, so can you. interestingly, fair dealing would apply MORE if the image was leaked than not.

ill tell you guys a story. riverside south images as you know were run by aj a few years back, long before anyone knew the plans existed. in response to this article someoen from rogers phoned up and complained, was actually quite abusive, but at NO time did they say it was illegal and ever since then we've been running things because they are a great case of fair dealing and in the public interest. full credit is given, the images are shown untouched so there is no derogatory treatment of the work - in otherwords the full moral rights of the copyright holder are applied to whilst you are exercising your rights under fair dealing.

well done to ISA. they earn the distinction for being the only architects practise ever to complain about this as far as i know so well done and here's a great example of the p.r mess ISA risk -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/19/warner_bros_scraps_harry_potter/

I've said before, I'll say again. I really cannot see how they are allowed to ask people to withdraw their use of images when they're already in the public (printable) domain. Something really wrong is happening there and as much as I like Subs and ISA, I wouldn't have taken them down.

what action can they take? your not making any profit from using them, therefore they wouldnt win any legal action surely?

ive had a few legal spats with companies who have illegally used my work and have learned a bit about it, but im not a lawyer. to basically explain -
there is no such thing as public domain in british law, if you use my photographs on your site you are using them because i permit you to. of course if youre not making any money there's no financial harm so whilst i have moral rights over the work i can exercise i dont have much legal recourse for damages unless you butcher my work. that said that applies to photographs, and photographs are the part of the copyright act that you cant use and reuse for news reporting, comment and criticism, you can with things like art works which is what cgi renderings would be classed as.
most people act like there is but occasionally you get a company which uses the letter of the law rather than the spirit as you can see from the harry potter link - companies that rigidly interpret the law and target "fans" tend to end up backing down, the british media likes the underdog and it would be oh so easy to go running to the yorkshire post here, slashdot, and a thousand relevant news bodies.
anyway guys, read the law ive pasted up... thats the actual law.
i dont know if they could win a legal action or not as im not a lawyer, what i do know is that theyd find it damn hard to get any damages (non commercial use, full credit, no derogatory treatment of work) because damages directly relate to the financial harm done by the copyright infringement on the intellectual property in question and here i just cant see the harm so even if they did win theyd probably end up getting 5 quid damages and having to pay their own costs.
if they tried to argue that companies were using the work for commercial research that wouldnt be your problem as it is the responsibility of the company using it for that which has to pay a license for copyright materials, not you.
remember we had the police arresting those terrorists and itv had bought the footage, every tv station nicked the footage and ran it with itvs tag without itv permission because they are permitted to under the law because its news and current affairs.
alternatively, do what ive done, host your website in the usa, get an american domain name and youre subject to american copyright law and their fair use is a lot more generous than our fair dealing, fair dealing has a lot of confusion over what is a 'reasonable amount' because court cases are so rare on the subject - its generally accepted as ok so no one ever sues. in the usa its much more cut and dry and you have additional protections too for the likes of parody that dont exist in british law. in my case sn.com is hosted in california and this case law is only that directly applies in our defense, youll note how the end also means you dont have to be 100% accurate so they cant argue against inaccuracies, if they could then american tv would shut down over night -
"Section 3344 provides explicit exemptions to the statutory right of publicity.(29) Section 3344(d) eliminates liability for uses "in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign."(30) The news and public affairs exception makes permissible a broad range of unauthorized uses. The First Amendment also provides protection for the dissemination of news by guaranteeing freedom of the press. Constitutional constraints on the right of publicity will be discussed below because they impact both the statutory and common law rights.
In Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., a California Court of Appeals held that "public affairs" must be related to real-life occurrences, however, the court presumed that public affairs could be something less important than news.(31) In addition, the Dora court refused to limit "public affairs" to topics covered on public television and public radio.(32) Among uses that fall within the news and public affairs exception to Section 3344, the California court of Appeals has found no liability for a documentary about local surfing legends(33), and a U.S. District Court exempted use in a "news" program which sensationalized real-life events.(34)"
to be on the safe side and comply more than fully before we get asked we removed all but one ISA rendering of each design of a building (except brunswick quay which maro have so far been cool with us using hence the LARGE renders we have of it, i suspect when it goes to appeal they will want our support) to make sure we are 'reasonable' and dont trip up under fair use where many sites do - they use EVERYTHING so we comply fully with the law in letter as well as spirit despite having had no complaints.

This is a very simple matter and if Mark would stop spitting his dummy out and actually read the emails he would understand what he is being asked!

This is a CLIENT confidentiality issue, not an ISA one and its already been explained that the image in question is copyrighted and only the recieptant of the image has the authourity to use it.

Im pretty pissed off at the immaturity of someone who has taken a private matter and posted it all over a forum when its already been explained why the use of the image is illegal and that at the clients request ISA have obliged to keep any renders unless they state they can be released.

The fact is nomatter what im like as a person or what ISA is like as a practice if a (paying) client asks for something, you do it without question and surely you must understand that. They pay thousands of pounds for renders and they are not obliged to give them to the public until they see fit.

I wouldnt of minded so much but he completely fucked up the image on the thumbnails distorting the form of the building which could be detrimental to the scheme.

This whole thing has been blown up and to be honest has put me off talking about any ISA related project for fear of things being reproduced or dragged out on here, to reproduce my emails is pretty shocking and its not worth me risking anything on here anymore

In all fairness, no project is going to get cancelled because of a website thumbnail.

In all fairness, no project is going to get cancelled because of a website thumbnail.


Did i say it would get cancelled?

In all fairness read what ive stated, its pretty clear and although it may seem unfair they are not the clients and havent payed for that render. If something is confidential nomatter who has leaked it or what source it may come from its still confidential and copyrighted and should be treated as such.

i called up the nuj actually (to see where i'd stand on this, i hate foggy issues) they said the following -
you ALWAYS have moral rights over copyrighted material youve produced but they are moral rights, not rights of dissemination which means you should be credited at all times, but there are exemptions in law over useage - hence the yorkshire post can quite legally run that image because its covered under news reporting. because it is not an authorised image you can only run a leaked image though as news, not criticism so if mark did a story on it being planned he could get away with that but if he just did an architectural review he'd be breaking british copyright law.
it gets more complex as im guessing ISA would try to argue its not a news site at all, plenty of people have been trying to stop web publications lately on the basis that it shouldnt have the same rights as printed media with mixed results. we've had the likes of apple try to stop blogs publishing leaked information and it seems that in the usa anyway blogs arent covered though normal websites are. again there is no case law yet in the uk and its only gradually being established in the usa.
there was an interesting case about thumbnails, because google images had thumbnails and originally linked to the cached version of an image so you could view it without visiting the image owners website at all. someone argued this breached his copyright and the judge ruled that the thumbnails were fair use but the full size image wasnt so size distortions under american law would be ok as long as they linked to an untouched image. thats american law though, not british law.
i know with british law there is no such exemption so if youre a british hosted site youve committed derogatory treatment of work and violated the moral rights of the copyright holder, one of the things im suing a compnay for is exactly that, not only did they use my work unauthorised but they made poxy little distorted thumbnails out of them (that said thats about a company stealing my work, not paying me for using it and so on).
the advice of my NUJ rep is pretty simple - host your site in the usa, use a limited amount of the work if under 20 pages of source material is available (1 image out of 1 image available would be reasonable but 2 images out 2 are arent, youd still have to use 1) and 5% if over 20 pages are available, credit the copyright holder. the absolute key to this is 'reasonable', and it seems that reasonable use overrides all other considerations. if you qualify for fair use/fair dealing in either the uk or usa and then use LOTS of the IP owners material in that single thing youve lost your right to do so and thats where people normally trip up on this exemption.
because mark has a british hosted site with bad thumbnailing hes basically fucked because he has inadvertently committed derogatory treatment of work and under british law ISA have had their moral rights to the work violated so even if he is using the stuff for news reporting and so on he has still violated the moral rights which always procede in importance other rights so ISA can say "please remove our work".
if he does post it back up they can actually threaten to sue him (and do so if they so chose though i doubt theyd get much) because of how he previously treated their work so whilst theyd find it hard to touch him for a new infringement of him reposting work they could get him for the old one.
i should add photographs are not covered under fair dealing or fair use (in the usa they classify photographs as video too but not in the uk where its still pictures only), you may use renderings under the fair dealing/fair use exemption but not photos.
thats the nuj dos and donts anyway.

Thanks Gothicform for clearing that up,

What people need to realise is that i dont take any joy in doing this and neither does the practice. Were acting on a clients demands and I made that clear to Mark so im pretty pissed its been dragged onto here where i felt i was on dodgy ground anyway with work confidentiality.

Like we've discussed before i can completely understand the thirst for knowledge and renders but sometimes my hands are tied, Im always asking(nagging) people to tell me what theyre working on and when will i be able to add it to the website, this gives me an excuse to promote the practice more so its in my best interests

This one is difficult hence my suprise that render was online

Listen, I've decided to pull the site all together. I'm doing this partly because of this and partly because I don't want to be subject to this in the future. I don't wake up one morning to find a court summons and end up having to pay something I cannot afford.

I started the website as a bit of a hobby and because I wanted a way of showing all of the great changes that are happening to Leeds right now. I never intended to break any laws in doing so. Frankly, If I cannot post images of two of the biggest projects coming to Leeds then there is little point in the site anyway. Especially as people can go to a host of other sites (including this one) to view the images instead.

It'd be a shame if you pull your site off Mark, I sometimes enjoy looking on there from my work place (as Skyscrapercity is blocked on our company server). If they are concerned about thumbnail distortion, can't you just remove thumbnails and only link to the untouched image ?

As for that image of City Point, it is on a few sites around, (baunetz and bdonline for two) so I would think it is considered well and truly publicised by now.

Subtract, I agree that Mark shouldn't publish private communications on here but I can sense his shear frustration on this issue, although I guess you will say don't shoot the messenger. Is there any way round this ? Is there, or will there soon be an image that can be used ?

OK - so which are the press "released" images that put West Central in a good light from a good angle, and which one was leaked and presumably was the one that Linfoot and his partners didn't like?

Links [to US-hosted sites] please!

Subtract, I didn't post the contents of the e-mail, I just gave the general gist of the e-mail so that people would think before posting images. I truly hope that you don't get in to any trouble over this, but I assumed that were acting in an official capacity when asking me to remove the images.

I am annoyed that I was asked to remove my images when they are posted on so many other websites that you don't seem to have targeted. You even commented on the image on this site, without asking for it to be removed. Also, asking me to remove the Criterion Place images when they have been around for so long seemed a little steep. There is a rendering of Criterion Place by the site it is due to be built on in the middle of Leeds city centre for crying out loud....and yet you want the images removing from my website.

In terms of distorting the image, I apologise for this, but it was only a thumbnail and linked through to the proper image. I was just using the standard proportions that I use for all my thumbnails.

Rob, sorry, but I've taken the site down. I can't do with the heat over this, nor with the possibility of being sued, as I cannot offord to pay for a solicitor nor any potential damages. The site was just intended to be a point of information for people to view what is being built in their city. All other architects and developers have been very keen to have their projects featured, but I don't want to take the chance of any one else taking offence and so I've taken the safest option and pulled the whole thing.

nora! Storm in a teacup. The Criterion Place issue is lunacy. Why act now? West Central, fair enough, but I doubt a partially distorted image is enough to get doom mongers out baying for blood. I'm surprised if there are any real objections in Leeds for the West Central towers - people realise that the city is booming and these plans fit with the councils desire to see tall iconic buildings proposed and constructed. Okay, perhaps not at a gateway location as per the city strategy, but still!

As Magicrealist states - if you don't like that image in the open, then why not stem this little bit of bad blood and put out an image sanctioned by the developers. Remember this image was given in grainy detail on the front page of the YEP already! See post 58 of the following thread West Central/Point (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=235698&page=3)

That said, Subtract has a job to do, I don't begrudge that. Professional obligations must take precedent. :)

The SkyscraperCity forum policy is to always comply with the law after a aspecific issue has been addressed by a third party, but you can avoid a lot legal bickering by showing a bit of respect for someone else's point of view, not taking everything personal and not wanting to have the last word, even is that takes a lot of patience and calmness (http://www.******.com/travel/bandwidth.htm) some times. We get a few of these copyright / bandwidth related e-mails, but not too many, nothing that cannot be solved in all fairness. Some even become posters here. In fact we get far more e-mails from companies sending us images and articles to post and use.

Mark - you are wrong to remove your site. If in doubt just remove the render in question. Some people on here need to decide whether they should be a member of skyscrapercity or not, after all we are just people who are interested in these buildings, and they come on here acting like we are all the national bloody press.... its not required and not helpful... I for one wish you good luck with your site. Mikey.

i agree with mikey that removing your site would be silly and im sure most developers would agree.

I'm keeping the site down until I know exactly where I stand on this. i admit it will be a real shame and i had quite a few things planned for the site. But that that he down't want me to even post images of Criterion Place, when they are so widely available everywhere else, is taking the piss.

SUBTRACT: This is a CLIENT confidentiality issue, not an ISA one...

...at the clients request ISA have obliged to keep any renders unless they state they can be released...

...The fact is nomatter what im like as a person or what ISA is like as a practice if a (paying) client asks for something, you do it without question and surely you must understand that. They pay thousands of pounds for renders and they are not obliged to give them to the public until they see fit.

This appears to be a very straightforward issue Mark.

Why don't you just email Linfoot and Simons Estates for clarification and or permission to use their images if, as Subtract has repeatedly stressed, this is an issue of client confidentiality?

didnt you read the law i posted sleepyone?

On the flip side, all this may not of course have arisen from a specific request from their clients (the developers).

It may actually be ISA seeking to restrict use of what might be somewhat conceptual renders that people might be in danger of taking a little too literally. By doing so they would be reducing the risk of themselves and their clients being exposed to critisism when presenting the public with a final version that might be considered to be a slightly blander or less exciting version of the initial render.

In this case Subtract may be using the 'client confidentiality' line as something of a smokescreen.

yeah, well sleepyone, pr is as much about what you dont want published as what you do, before a project gets officially announced prs will often be working to try and stop me publishing stuff on it - if i do get a leak they'll try and track down the actual source of it. once the project is out prs will try and get me to publish what they want me to publish so the responsibilities of the pr actually competes against their earlier attempts to keep it out as they want me to do so.
im not going to name names but i know of at least one VERY famous architect practise which ignores clients requests to keep things quiet as they are big enough and prestigious enough for the client to come back to them regardless of how quietly the project is handled and they care more about the profile of the practise than they do individual developers marketing. so does the client which is why the client keeps coming back despite being a multi billion pound company. mind you thats the same practise that does other things like use journalists by giving them the design they like best to publish instead of listening to the client as to publically embarass and bully the client into building what they really think is best.
then lets not forget the journalists and magazines who are desparate to talk to me about things and get me to spill stuff on this and that, but wont actually hire me because ive pissed off so many prs that if they do so plenty of prs have threatened to simply not talk to them. its a sad state of affairs where mainstream media cares more about running media friendly official press releases than actual news and investigative journalism. the mainstream building press needs the prs because theyve let themselves get bounced into that position, they dont actually need them at all becuase there's plenty they can report on if they poke a little below the surface.
thats too hard for most people who prefer expenses paid lunches with a pr rather than going at something like a jackhammer until you get the sources you need.

didnt you read the law i posted sleepyone?

I scanned them for their gist yes but didn't consider them in detail because Im coming at this from a commercial standpoint rather than a legal one. I guess I am trying to understand where ISA might be coming from and trying to work out whether it is justifiable or reasonable. No where does it say Mark has been threatened with any kind of action - only that he has recieved a request to remove them owing to "client confidentiality" - and the clear commercial and business implications this has for ISA.

Obviously it is worth exploring the legal situation in relation to the use of these renders if he was thinking of refusing that request.

oh i understand where they are too, they are a business out to make money and this interest can openly compete with other interests. the legal stuff basically says mark fucked himself by accident by committing derogatory treatment of work, they can use this little mistake if they so choose to strong arm into doing what theyve asked.

So it's okay that there are 5 foot high renders plastered on board around a leeds city centre car park advertising the Criterion place scheme, but the 'clients' don't want people to see the renders on the internet.

This does sound a little fishy.

easy way around that, take a photograph with the billboards in it. thats perfectly legal :)

lol, what a simple solution!!!

The sites back up....minus the Criterion and venture images. I'll have to go and take a picture of the board to get Criterion back on here.

just make sure the images of criterion fill less than the entire picture and youll be ok :) its as legal as taking photos of art, and these ones youll own.

I may be talking through my sphincter, again? :)

If I was a property developer, I'd want as much free advertising of my proposed development as possible! From start to finish!

You can't beat free advertising! Its free for fucks sake! Yes! FREE!

Example! Eastgate! Everyone must know about it by now! Inacity must have had numerous enquiries, without spending a single bean on advertising and promotions! :)

Shame! :)

jrb - exactly what does the link at the bottom of you message (www.big-boys.com/articles/bonfireblowup) contain? Having clicked on it at work, I get the forbidden message...adult nudity etc etc!!

jrb, eastgate HAVE had numerous inquiries, i know this because ive been passing people on to them.

Slightly off topic, but are all the construction sites in the City forbidden from showing renders on the hoardings? I couldn't find any anywhere. I can never remember what these buildings are supposed to look like when I'm at the site, so it's great if you can have a render to help picture it.

A couple of years back i was a judge in a Corporation of London competition for its considerate contractor scheme. One of the key points was that sites had to be kept extremely tidy - to a much higher standard than anywhere else in the UK. This meant no grafitti on site boards etc et. But it also demanded good liaison with local community/business etc. Me and one of the other judges both suggested that each site should have a little notice board with progress updates on construction and diagrams showing what work would be carried out and what the building looked like when finished. The main problem was that the corp didn't want people stopping at sites reading these too much as this would affect other people trying to walk past. But I think there is a general move in this direction - 51 Lime Street has a good site update board outside. It would be nice to see more companies following this example.

easy way around that, take a photograph with the billboards in it. thats perfectly legal :)

Evening all - took these nearly a year ago when they first went up - they're still there now. Mark1611 - feel free to use these - I have absolutely no intellectual property rights over them - it was my Pop's camera and memory stick as well!

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/7169/Criterion3.jpg

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/1528/Criterion2.jpg

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/2408/Criterion1.jpg

I thank you! :)

Thanks for that Jimbo. I'll stick them on the site.

amazing what an easy solution that is :)

The funny thing is though that if it's distorted and poor quality renders of the project that they are worried about then this solution is much less in their interest than letting Mark use the actual renders since a photo (however good the actual photo is) of hoardings around a construction site is never going to show the project as well as an official render. ISA (or their clients or whoever) would have done better just to let him use the actual render! lol