RDV buys Charley's Crab site

[NorthCoast]

from Knape...

"Wayne told me he has clients in China and wanted to show them some of the larger scale work his firm is capable of."

"He's hoping Urban Planet will pull them down, too, since he never granted permission to reprint the renderings."

Hey, welcome to the Internet buddy. Welcome to the 21st Century. If you want your clients to see them, use e-mail. Furthermore, the internet isn't print media, and its not as if someone was claiming to have done the work rather than him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any rights violations here.

Really? Everything above the 5th floor in the most recent one looked like it belonged in Dubai somewhere. This one...

...is just a taller version of his houses. Check it out, its even in a gated community, so to speak.

[Sailor]

No, no, no. ANY original, creative, "fixed and tangible" work is protected by copyright law, regardless of whether there is a copyright notice on it. Mr. Visbeen is the copyright holder for those drawings, and just because you are technologically able reproduce them digitally does NOT mean it is legal to do so.

[AlexPKeaton]

Hey, welcome to the Internet buddy. Welcome to the 21st Century. If you want your clients to see them, use e-mail. Furthermore, the internet isn't print media, and its not as if someone was claiming to have done the work rather than him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any rights violations here.

[PR-15]

from Knape...

"Wayne told me he has clients in China and wanted to show them some of the larger scale work his firm is capable of."

"He's hoping Urban Planet will pull them down, too, since he never granted permission to reprint the renderings."

Hey, welcome to the Internet buddy. Welcome to the 21st Century. If you want your clients to see them, use e-mail. Furthermore, the internet isn't print media, and its not as if someone was claiming to have done the work rather than him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any rights violations here.

[GRDadof3]

Golscorer4, you're going to have to check that 21st Century comment. Visbeen can pursue ANYONE taking renderings off his site without permission and certainly anyone who reposts them, duplicates them and redistributes them. There are copyright warnings on his site...it's his intellectual property regardless of the technology that allows you to save them on your computer. The original post even said they took the renderings off of his site...duh...that wasn't the City of GR Planning Commission's web site.

Give me a break...I'm a bit disturbed that people think because it's on the web that you can just take photos/drawings/or other content and simply illustrate or repurpose those images wherever or whenever you please. You're not entitled!

GRDAD, thanks for taking those down...it's very respectful of Wayne and his property. He's probably being generous by not making a bigger deal out of it than he could.

[NorthCoast]

I don't think anyone is saying that Visbeen doesn't have copyright on those drawings. They are his creation, of course he has the copyright on them and had every right to take them down. It was an error on his part however to put them up and not expect someone to find them, copy/paste them, and speculate about them. You don't see bands putting up music that can be downloaded on line (for free, hypothetically, for the sake of this argument) and then pull it down saying that they didn't think people would save it and therefore infringe upon their copyright.

[droonus2000]

If some developer really loved them and paid Visabeen enough for the plans, it still could become a reality, somewhere in the world, of course there's probably a 1 in 5 billion shot of that happening, but anything could be possible. I highly drought it but you never know , maybe the newest addition to Dubai?

[GRDadof3]

I don't think anyone is saying that Visbeen doesn't have copyright on those drawings. They are his creation, of course he has the copyright on them and had every right to take them down. It was an error on his part however to put them up and not expect someone to find them, copy/paste them, and speculate about them. You don't see bands putting up music that can be downloaded on line (for free, hypothetically, for the sake of this argument) and then pull it down saying that they didn't think people would save it and therefore infringe upon their copyright.

[NorthCoast]

Uhh, sorry, but posting intellectual property, artwork, photography and/or copyrighted material publicly on a website does not inherently transfer ownership to whomever downloads it. Bands don't do it because they know there are millions of poachers just waiting to download free pirated music, and it would be way too hard to track them all down and prosecute them (even though they have the right to).

[GRDadof3]

Thats exactly what I was getting at. I was just trying to say the error was on Visbeen's part b/c it was naive to think that it wasn't going to happen. Of course that doesn't make it right. To clarify, I fully understand and agree with the removal of the images.

[NorthCoast]

You're right, he made an error, the images were posted, he asked for them to be removed (and had the right to), they were removed, end of story.

Most UPers saw them, commented, had some fun, now it's time to move on to something else.

edit: just saw your added comments, and I'm glad we're in agreement.

[numstead]

Golscorer4, you're going to have to check that 21st Century comment. Visbeen can pursue ANYONE taking renderings off his site without permission and certainly anyone who reposts them, duplicates them and redistributes them. There are copyright warnings on his site...it's his intellectual property regardless of the technology that allows you to save them on your computer. The original post even said they took the renderings off of his site...duh...that wasn't the City of GR Planning Commission's web site.

Give me a break...I'm a bit disturbed that people think because it's on the web that you can just take photos/drawings/or other content and simply illustrate or repurpose those images wherever or whenever you please. You're not entitled!

GRDAD, thanks for taking those down...it's very respectful of Wayne and his property. He's probably being generous by not making a bigger deal out of it than he could.

[PR-15]

I'm well aware of intellectual property issues. I'm an avid flickr user and many people blog my photos. That's all well and good as long as they attribute the image to me since its my intellectual property. There have been many cases on flickr, however, where photos have been taken and sold under the names of others. Clearly that is illegal.

I don't see that as the case here. Wayne's images were re-formatted/re-hosted, but it was clearly cited where they were from. He was given total credit for the work, and no one tried to pawn off the design as their own.

I respect GRDad0f3's, decision to grant the request for removal, especially since this is a privately owned forum and considering the character and esteem of the person making the request.

However, I still think we should be able to talk about what we saw. Despite my initial "clown college" comment, I think there were some pieces to the design that were good urban decisions. Having the debate or discussion is difficult without the images.

[Veloise]

Gosh, I step out for a few hours, and suddenly we are hot news again. All couple hundred of us providing development insight news to Chris...can't wait for the TV stations to pick it up.

Cut to a shot of the subject property, a laptop with the UP-GR page, and

Images pulled by administration. Please do not repost. all highlighted.

This is better than text messages (typed the former city of Detroit planning staffer).

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=975604