by Richard Chenoweth, AIA
Thank you for the AIArchitect copyright article about photographers' rights.
As a past president of the American Society of Architectural Illustrators (2005), as well as a designer and licensed architect (and member of the Washington Chapter), I would like to suggest that architectural illustrators share a similar, perhaps far worse plight.
First, photographers and illustrators share a common goal: to project a three dimensional
architectural work into two dimensions, although we work on different ends of a project. The illustrators do their work on the front end of a project and the photographers do their work on the back end of the project.
Yet, even though architectural illustrations are protected under current copyright law, treated as drawings or graphic art, the ASAI has been fighting for our intellectual property rights and credits in publications for 25 years now. But do this: Open any issue of one of the leading architecture design magazines today and look in the margin for the accreditation of photographs and the accreditation of illustrations. Many illustrations simply say "Courtesy of the Architect." Almost invariably, however, photographs will be properly accredited to an individual.
The ASAI has brought this to the attention of magazine editors, and, yet, nothing changes.
Many of my colleagues have fought personally with huge American newspapers simply to be credited. I once called the architecture critic for a major East Coast metropolitan daily who used one of my illustrations for his column without proper credit, and he simply said: "I don't care who did the drawing."
I don't have time to speculate about the many reasons for this. But I would like to suggest that perhaps we, as a profession, could broaden our support on this topic of giving credit where credit is due, especially as copyright and proper crediting are often a negotiated term of agreement.
I have been on architectural shoots, and appreciate the technical skill, aesthetic insight, and creative abilities of architectural photographers who can spend many hours setting up, waiting for the light, and creating many photographs for a graphic artist's ultimate selection. For the illustrator's part, sometimes a single architectural drawing of an unbuilt project, created in perspective, can take 20, 40, even 60 hours. What we do also has value.
We have struggled with this, and if we cannot even get our professional publications to comply, then who shall stand up for us?
Again, thanks for the article. A great take-away thought is that I will explicitly define the copyright of photographs as a part of my work product that always belongs to me.
Rendering of the Dorsey Residence, Madison, Conn., (designed by Duo Dickinson, AIA) by Richard Chenoweth, AIA, Chenoweth Architecture.
Comments (7)
Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Posted by somaie | February 8, 2010 1:38 AM
Posted on February 8, 2010 01:38
Hi there, I found your blog via Google your post looks very interesting for me.
Posted by Philadelphia SEO | February 4, 2010 7:17 PM
Posted on February 4, 2010 19:17
Nice article. I thought to let you know that you website isn't getting displayed properly on s60 browser on my pda.
I hope that increasingly number of webmasters would reckon the fact that there is an ever growing number of users browsing webpages on the mobile.
Best Wishes
Posted by Anonymous | November 4, 2009 11:39 AM
Posted on November 4, 2009 11:39
Editors, and especially architectural journalists, should know better. Throughout the history of architecture the contributions of illustrators like Hugh Ferriss and Steve Oles have not only presented, but frequently shaped, our understanding of the built environment, as well as the end result. At least, publications should be as meticulous about outside graphic sources as they are in crediting the photos and drawings they themselves commission.
Posted by Robert L. Miller FAIA | October 30, 2009 1:10 PM
Posted on October 30, 2009 13:10
Walker Architects recognizes this problem and we openly condemn the widespread practice of stripping credit from the author of any artistic work or expression.
Clearly copyright and credit are sensitive issues. Photographers and illustrators have the right to be credited. Architects often engage illustrators to render the anticipated building. The magazines routinely assume the illustration was merely a work for hire and credit is irrelevant. Credit is always relevant.
Truth is that the author of any work even the architects employee, should get credit if the work is used in a publication. The truth is that many principals of architectural firms routinely take the credit for works done entirely by their employees. The practice of striping credit from our illustrators is an embarrassment to the architectural profession and just as embarrassing is the practice of stripping credit from our employees. It is unethical and cheats the employee of higher earning capacity.
Work for Hire copyright law is vulnerable to outrageous abuse. For example imagine a company (fictitious) named Robert Iverson Partners (RIP) that hires the best young artists and sculptors from american universities and pays them a salary. Then displays, shows and sells the work of these artists as if actually executed by the fictitious Robert Iverson. Each work bears the initials RIP and the true identity of the artist is never revealed. Although the practice of rip is legal under work for hire copyright law the truth is it that exactly the thing copyright law is supposed to prevent, is the profit backbone of RIP. Clearly in this case only the actual author of the work has the moral right to the copyright.
Architectural firms routinely shortchange employees and their illustrators of due credit. It is wrong and unethical. The consequence is that the true author of the work, is stripped of the essential entitlement every author, artist and architect deserves.
Posted by Terry L. Walker, Architect | October 30, 2009 12:27 PM
Posted on October 30, 2009 12:27
Many illustrators rely on these small acknowledgements as a marketing tool for their skills, and do not have large the marketing budgets that many architectural firms have.
There are already standards in place for other forms of art and it is unconscionable that any publication would let this issue slide. Especially when these images are used not only to sell a project or concept, but to bring life and to the same publication who is snubbing them.
Give credit where credit is due.
Posted by Eric Whiting | October 30, 2009 9:59 AM
Posted on October 30, 2009 09:59
I totally agree that the illustrator should get credit. Many times I see a wonderful rendering in a publication, and would like to have know who produced such fine work. Both renderings and photography are art forms and credit should be given to the artist.
Posted by Donald Allison | October 30, 2009 9:10 AM
Posted on October 30, 2009 09:10