31 comments
This is from 2019, and the final glass dome design is not similar to these early renderings and imo uglier in comparison but still pretty. https://www.trip.com/moments/detail/dongguan-212-125302011/
It says in the article itself they agreed on changing the original design since it was too similar
> I had financial expenses that I did not intend to have. I spent a lot of time doing research, analyzing drawings and different information. I did put an effort to protect my intellectual property and integrity of my original design. Above all, I experienced a lot of negative emotions while I was working on this case.
Probably reflects my generally unfavorable view on IP law, but honestly I feel more sympathy for those on the other end having to scrap/redo the work.
May have been one thing if the window was copied close to 1:1, but from what's shown here it mostly just seems to be small geometric patterns, likely present individually on countless other stained glass pieces.
It doesn’t seem worth much to you because it’s not your vocation.
It's not that this studio's work doesn't have value - but so did all the previous pieces that inspired this studio's work, and so did the Japanese designer's piece that was (plausibly) inspired by their work. I think legal threats over something like this are detrimental to fields of design that naturally evolve through mutation and transformation; nobody is inventing architecture from scratch each time.
Also, to be clear, by "small geometric patterns" I mean the matches this article is pointing to, like this[0], not either of the works as a whole. Some of the highlighted snippets initially appear to be a more substantial region, but then on closer inspection only match in a broad sense and not on any specific details, like the radial petals[1].
I think this is very bad PR. The author comes off as very unprofessional and petty.
Also, a few years ago, I spent some time drawing mandala patterns on a tablet with Illustrator and rotational symmetry turned on. Most of my drawings would also match the small patterns highlighted as examples, because they are just way too generic. One of the "infringements" is a square area that was divided into top and bottom and then the bottom half was divided into left and right. If you start with a smaller circle and then divide outwards to make the outer circles have roughly the same chunk sizes, you always end up with this type of pattern. It's an artifact of larger circles having a larger circumference, not a design choice worthy of copyright.
Similarly, one of the "infringements" is a ring cut into segments with rotational symmetry. In Illustrator, that's 1 manually placed line between 2 circles. Is a single brush stroke already art? Or is it just a line?
But mostly, I just find it very off-putting that they state their opinion as fact: "Based on Canadian Copyright Laws the Nikken's design is a substantial copy of my work, and my copyright was infringed." ... but they did not win in court and did not collect any damages, or as they say: "The case has not been fully resolved." (which I would read as: they did not even file a case)
Nikken accepted the fact of copying the designs from my portfolio and offered me compensation, which I refused. I offered them to develop an original design for this ceiling, which they did not accept. They copied the historical dome from a historical building in New York. I confirmed that this design is no longer similar to my original designs. End of the conversation
It was a Japanese company, Nikken, that did the copying.
Interesting Huawei would hire a Japanese company to design their headquarters.
If they were a true government backed organization, I would think they would have hired a local design company.
But Huawei’s offices are all copies of European buildings so there is definitely a chance that this is not an accident or somehow guided by a client brief.
Presumably the goal would be to have the designer of the stained glass dome receive some kind of royalty for its use in the new building. And so the losses from not having it licensed correctly would be whatever those fees would be.
> As a result, I had financial expenses that I did not intend to have. I spent a lot of time doing research, analyzing drawings and different information. I did put an effort to protect my intellectual property and integrity of my original design. Above all, I experienced a lot of negative emotions while I was working on this case.
> Consequently, I stopped working on all design projects developments for all my current clients that I was under the contract with. The reason was that stressed and depressed I could not provide the quality design services to my clients as I usually do. Sadly, four months of my professional life were taken away. The case has not been fully resolved.
So, rather than getting the royalties he was presumably owed under a license, he instead became so stressed and financially burdened that he had to stop work entirely.
Ironically, it seems like he would have come away with more money if he had done nothing at all.
As someone who had analogous experiences, I find this take highly uncharitable. It’s easy to say what the most financially advisable course of action should be, it is a totally different matter when something which you had committed personal pride into being exploited like that puts you in the kind of emotional rut which is further exacerbated by being keenly aware that you are sabotaging your financial interests by sulking. It takes a significant amount of courage to acknowledge how much the emotional toll had gotten in your way, knowing full well of how people might deride your sulking as self-sabotage.
The compensation they offered was the maximum sum based on Chinese IP law. However, it was so tiny that it did not help with anything.
If I accept the compensation, they would produce a poorly designed glass ceiling that somehow would be connected to my brand and products but would not reflect the true nature of my art glass.
If the company stoles buildings without paying royalties to the original creators, do you believe they are interested in paying anything to me? The question was rhetorical
Victoria Balva: she
Thank you. I did not read closely enough to get the gender correct, my mistake.
There are similar geometric elements, but it's clearly not a copy. I support artists but very loathe to copyright "style" and other such slippery slopes.
Seems crazy to steal a design for something like this. Wouldn't you want something original and innovative? And when the author offered to design them something new, why turn that down?
Ultimately they probably plagiarized from something else.
They copied the historical dome from the building in New York. After 70-100 years after the item was created, they do not need to pay royalties.
The art is a mirror of the culture and innovation
> Wouldn't you want something original and innovative?
Some cultures promote originality more than others. Some cultures are good for getting things done.
If all of your offices are copies of famous European buildings, it only makes sense that your glass dome is also a copy of something.
The National Library in France was built when stained glass skylights were not developed yet. So, if they copied a historical building, why do they need a stained glass skylight that comes from the other period of architecture?
> Sadly, four months of my professional life were taken away. The case has not been fully resolved.
I'll do the OP a favor and put aside the fact that the two glass domes are completely different, and that you can't put copyright on circles and squares.
That out of the way, it really seems like this is all selfish by Victoria. You saw a design, thought you owned the pattern and likeness to that pattern (you don't), and tried to strong arm the developer into either commissioning the work from you, licensing the design from you, or just throwing it all out and starting over.
They picked "throw it all out and start over" route because who wants to be strong armed by you for no reason, and you're still butthurt by it. Obviously you have no case, or else you would have done something about the 4 months of suffering you claim you had (chose) to go through. The fact that you didn't win a civil case for your losses is pretty damning for your narrative here.
The two ceilings are different because I fought for them and insisted they be different and not associated with my style. Innovation comes from experimentation, and that needs to be respected. My husband and I invested our lives to reach this visual result, build the company, and create a product. We are immigrants in the first generation who started this company out of nothing. Do you know that banks do not loan money to companies with an artistic nature of business? Years of experimentation, searching for that simple combination of perfect lines, using credit cards, personal loans, remortgaging the house to buy machinery and materials? Why, after all that effort we put into our business, protecting my intellectual property in front of such a giant as Huawei is selfish?
Because the original design, the one you claim was "inspired by" your work was in actuality significantly different than the examples you showed. If it had actually been similar I would agree with you. But it wasn't. I'm sure to you it looked very similar but to the rest of us they were clearly different patterns and designs. I'm sure it must be very tempting to look at a square or a triangle and think that such a pattern must have been "inspired" by the triangles and squares you made, but how else do you build one of these without making little geometric shapes? Maybe selfish was too strong of a word. Maybe pretentious is a better fit, since you obviously drink your own Kool-Aid and aren't just being malicious.
Consider another item, like a car wheel. Do you think that every 5 spoke wheel looks the same? Is every 5 spoke wheel inspired by the very first 5 spoke wheel ever produced? Should the first maker of a 5 spoke wheel get license fees from every 5 spoke wheel that came afterwards? No.
But the surprising thing to me, is you could have taken the glory here. But you threw it in their face. You could have had a piece of art that was publicly "inspired by Victoia Balva". Most artists are flattered to have their work inspire others. They don't usually see it as a missed revenue opportunity like you do. And when they get what they want, they usually go home happy. You didn't do any of that. You tried to force them to commission you, pay you license fees, and when they decided to just stop being inspired by you that also wasn't good enough. The ONLY way to make you happy here would have been to keep the "inspired" design and pay you to use it.
You are wrong. I did not force them to subcontract me. I did not force them to copy my work as well. I don't want my name to be associated with poorly designed glass ceilings. It's not a glory. This is what makes me different from everybody else- the way I think. My skylights are visually very simple geometry. However, I use very complex glass effects that are not obvious but are an important part of the skylight experience. You never saw my work in real. How can you judge it? I don't understand why you are protecting the wrongdoing of large corporations (both Nikken and Huawei) to steal someone's ideas and you point me that I have to take glory out of it? I don't want any glory from the stolen designs. Understood?
They complain about this. Then go on to list one of their own works as "inspired by Hotel Plaza in New York". this feels similar?
Find the difference! My client was forcing me to make a copy of the Plaza Hotel ceiling. However, with the statement that my skylight was inspired by the Plaza Hotel ceiling, I created a unique and original artwork that has no single line or combination of 3 lines that look the same as in the Plaza Hotel ceiling.
What royalties did you pay to be inspired by their ceiling?
You do not understand the difference between inspiration and copyright infringement, do you? Inspiration is using an idea from another work to create something new by using your own skill, labor, judgment, and effort, while copyright infringement is copying a substantial part of someone else's work.
When I was a kid I also drew a lot of drawings with squares, diamonds and circles.
If only I’d known that I could’ve had copyright on them.. /s
Probably the chinese they just asked chatgpt to draw them some glass ceiling
