Movie: Land Rover chief design officer Gerry McGovern and Jean-Christophe Chopin of crowdfunding platform Born introduce the 2016 Born Awards in this movie filmed for the brand by Dezeen. (more…)
It’s our 300th edition of Dezeen Mail! In it, we look ahead to Milan design week, reflect on Zaha Hadid’s life and work, and highlight the week’s best stories and discussions on Dezeen, including space-saving furniture designs for small homes (pictured).
Read Dezeen Mail issue 300 | Subscribe to Dezeen Mail
From the architect. The building belongs to the old Spanish National Grain Storage Network (SENPA). In particular it´s a type G storage building, it´s role was to accept, storage and manage the grain production. This kind of constructions got gable roof and brick walls. Despite of being a humble construction it contains innovative elements like the prefabricated roof truss system. Creating an elementary and singular storage space.
Almenar´s type G grain warehouse is one of the few industrial heritage constructions preserved in the region. It started to work in 1960, and finally it was donated to the local government at the end of 90´s. The warehouse is composed of three connected storage units with separated access and a total area of one thousand and two hundred square meters.
The proposed intervention is focused on the restoration of one of the units interior space and the remodeling of it´s separate access. The aim was to promote and reinforce the sociocultural activities previously developed in the same place.
The actions were made without obstructing future interventions. The project is solved by a lamp, a tunnel and a wall. Working with materials and forms, without looking to camouflage into the old building. The links between the new elements and the old warehouse turn on the space and solve the initial requirements, at the same time it enables the emergences of new situations and activities which enrich the project. It´s a re-discovery and Re-appropriation of an space that was present but hidden to us.
AIA Convention 2016 is the architecture and design event of the year.
A provocative lineup of celebrity speakers. An awe-inspiring array of tours, parties, exhibitors, seminars, and more. All happening in a legendary American city known for attitude, passion and perspective.
Buzzworthy speakers
Convention features creative visionaries from the architecture and design industry and beyond—including keynoters Kevin Spacey, Neri Oxman, and Rem Koolhaas.
Explore the best of Philly
Philly is packed with historic highlights, must-see architecture, beautiful squares, vibrant markets, stunning gardens, cobbled streets lined with pubs, great restaurants (and cheesesteaks), live music, and murals of heroic scale. Sign up for an educational tour for a curated, one-of-a-kind experience that also earns you continuing education credit.
Discover the latest products and trends
Explore over 170,000 sq ft packed with nearly 800 exhibitors and the latest in materials, technology, and trends. Earn credits for chatting with experts on the expo floor.
Learn and earn credits
Earn a year’s worth of continuing education credits with the latest from leading experts on topics including resiliency, business management, ADA compliance, LEED, green building, design and health, and more.
Register today!
#AIACon16
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled against Wikimedia Sverige in a landmark case over “Freedom of Panorama,” a ruling which The Wikimedia Foundation has “respectfully disagreed with” in a blog post. The Swedish Supreme Court’s ruling, in short, states that Wikimedia Sverige is not entitled to host photographs of copyrighted works of art on its website Offentligkonst.se, which provides maps, descriptions and images of artworks placed in public spaces in Sweden.
The concept of freedom of panorama describes a provision in copyright law which extends the right to take and to disseminate photographs of copyrighted works provided those photographs were taken in public spaces. Most people who own a camera (in other words, most people) have probably given very little thought to their freedom of panorama, or any restrictions that may have been placed upon it. But the reality of this little-known copyright-related oddity is something that many people, and architects especially, should find very concerning indeed.
Of course, the central absurdity of restrictions to freedom of panorama is that a photograph of a building or artwork is not the same as a copy of the thing itself. This statement is in no way new or controversial: it was famously the subject of René Magritte’s 1929 painting The Treachery of Images, which featured a painting of a pipe and the statement “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” (“This is not a pipe”). So why, then, does copyright law struggle so much with a concept that has been part of the public consciousness for almost 90 years?
The answer to that question lies in the term “derivative works.” Copyright law protects the rights of property owners to make money and otherwise protect the reputation of their intellectual property, and limits the rights of others to associate their own property with it. That’s why the Port Authority of New York was able to make a serious case, in 2014, that dinnerware being sold by a New York store featuring images of the World Trade Center twin towers was harmful to the Port Authority’s reputation. But even that case was widely ridiculed with some asking why the Port Authority was “claiming to own the New York skyline,” and photography is surely an even more minor offense against copyright than a stylized depiction of an iconic work. In the words of the Wikimedia Foundation, “An artist that chooses to permanently place their work in a public place grants the public the right to view the work, whether in person, on a postcard, or on an informational website.”
But even putting that absurdity aside, perhaps the most shocking thing about restrictions to freedom of panorama is the overwhelming complexity of our current situation. Copyright law is by itself wildly complicated, but at least it is controlled by a wide range of international agreements – most notably the Berne Treaty, which at least attempts to give some level of consistency between nations. But there is no such treaty controlling the provision of freedom of panorama, leading to the following situation:
In the above map, dark green countries have total freedom of panorama for public buildings, artworks and interiors; light green indicates freedom over buildings and artworks but not interiors; yellow indicates freedom of panorama for buildings but not artworks; red indicates no freedom of panorama at all; and the other colors indicate various levels of “nobody knows.”
Let’s apply all that to a realistic situation: imagine that a person from the UK – with some of the most permissive freedom of panorama laws in the world – visits Sweden and takes a photograph of a building and an adjacent work of public art. The recent ruling by the Swedish Supreme Court makes a distinction between taking a photograph (permitted) and publishing it (not permitted), so as yet this person has not done anything wrong. But then she returns to the UK and uploads her photograph to her Flickr account, a website hosted in the United States. As she would like her photograph to be more widely seen she uploads it under a Creative Commons license, allowing others around the world to use it too. Then perhaps an Australian architecture website sees the photo and, using the Creative Commons license, republishes it on their website.
The photograph is now widely published and the copyright holders for the building and artwork themselves want to seek damages. But who do they prosecute? Does uploading an image to a personal account on an image hosting site constitute publication? If so, who is deemed to have published it – the user or Flickr themselves? And if Flickr doesn’t constitute publication, is the architecture website in Australia liable for republishing it?
And once a defendant is identified, where should they be prosecuted? In Sweden, where the photograph was taken, and the defendant is likely to lose the case? Perhaps in the UK, where the upload took place, and where the defendant is almost guaranteed to win? What about the US, where the file is actually hosted and where the photograph of the building is fine, but the public artwork is not? Or Australia, where the final, definitive publication took place, but where like the UK, there is almost total freedom of panorama? Those unfamiliar with copyright law might think there is surely an easy answer to this but, as with many international copyright disputes, the answer is “it depends.” The prosecutors would probably attempt to have the case heard in Sweden, while the defendants (whoever they may be) would probably try to have it heard in either the UK or Australia.
In the 21st century, navigating such a minefield of legal issues every time you point a camera outdoors is not only an unrealistic but an absurd proposal. Most people who take photographs have probably never even heard of freedom of panorama – it simply wouldn’t occur to most people that their right to take photographs in public spaces could be restricted. Yet that right continues to be restricted: not only in Sweden last week, but also through a proposal in the EU Parliament last year, where a motion to restrict freedom of panorama across the whole of Europe was only narrowly avoided.
EU Copyright Reform May Wipe Thousands of Building Images from Wikipedia//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js
We live in a world where the difference between a building and a work of art is becoming increasingly blurred. We live in a world where it is increasingly unclear what constitutes “publishing” an image, thanks to websites that rely on user-generated content like Facebook, Flickr and Instagram. We live in a world where the division between public and private space is increasingly difficult to determine, as private spaces are monetized and treated like public spaces. We live in a world where images are published and shared across borders, regardless of the obtuseness of local copyright laws in those respective countries.
But most importantly for architects, we live in a world where images of our built environment – shared freely between people via the internet – are increasingly important in constructing a discourse around that built environment. We live in a world that requires freedom of panorama in order for architects to make the world a better place. And architects should be pretty upset about how many restrictions have been placed, and continue to be placed, on that freedom.
The Power of Photography: How Images Continue to Shape the Built Environment//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js
Editor’s note: At ArchDaily we usually take copyright very seriously indeed. However, in order to make a point about the absurdity of the situation, the three photographs included in this article are – to the best of our knowledge and understanding – in violation of the Freedom of Panorama laws in whichever country they were taken in.
Image of Dubai via Shutterstock.com
The Robalo Cordeiro House, a single family house in Rua António José de Almeida, in Coimbra, is a two storey building (with attic and basement) that was, prior to the rehabilitation, deeply uncharacterized and in an advanced state of decay. The refurbishment and expansion project started therefore by the total demolition of the interior, recovering the facades and keeping the original external coatings. Except for the roof – where two new copper mansards were inserted next to a preexistent mansard – the main facade remained almost unaltered. The back facade suffered significant changes with the insertion of three new volumes: a concrete volume that extends the living room over the patio, a corten steel volume at the first floor level and a third volume in Ipê wood in the top floor. In all three volumes a formal and material language, clearly differentiated from the preexistence, was sought after, underlining the intervention gesture.
The organization of the interior spaces, defined by a new iron and concrete composite structure, recuperates some of the preexistence characteristics, such as the location of interior stairs and pathways. In the ground floor the house evolves from an entryway to the common spaces which – through a system of sliding panels – can be closed or left opened, communicating with each other with great flexibility. The private spaces are located in the upper floors, with two individual bedrooms, a closet and a study room in the first floor and the main bedroom, with closet and office in the top floor. The first floor study room (corresponding to the corten steel volume prominent in the back facade) is a box entirely covered in birch plywood with folding shutters that, by revealing the existence of openings to the exterior, also work as furniture. The wooden volume in the top floor corresponds in turn to a small suspended patio connected to the main bedroom.
Milan 2016: with Milan design week just around the corner, the Dezeen team present their pick of the trends already emerging from the world’s biggest and most important design fair. (more…)
Architect David Chipperfield has released details of his plans for the Eero Saarinen-designed US Embassy in London, which his firm will convert into a 137-room hotel. (more…)
Dezeen promotion: Pieke Bergmans and Studio Mieke Meijer are among the designers set to exhibit at Ventura Lambrate during this year’s Milan design week (+ slideshow). (more…)
Ap. João is a residential project completed by RSRG Arquitetos in 2015. It is located in São Paulo, Brazil and covers an area of 1,173 square feet. Photos by: Fran Parente
