Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Metronews.ca)   Rich assholes with too much time on their hands find new way to point out to public that they're rich assholes with too much time on their hands   ( metronews.ca) divider line
    More: Asinine, Real estate, statutory copyright damages, neighbour Barbara Ann, real estate agent, Forest Hill neighbourhoods, punitive damages, architect brother-in-law, copyright infringement  
•       •       •

14999 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2017 at 1:38 PM (13 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-05 11:34:21 AM  
Who?
 
2017-10-05 11:44:40 AM  
There's already a thread about the shooter.
 
2017-10-05 12:24:38 PM  
Wow. So you can't enjoy your multi-million dollar mansion because someone a few blocks away has one that's vaguely similar? I'd say to cry me a river but I'm too busy trying to keep a deck garden alive through the winter.

/it's all I have room for
//will be sheltered in a cheap plastic greenhouse
///and the neighbors can have one just like it for all I care
 
2017-10-05 12:55:59 PM  
Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.
 
2017-10-05 01:43:35 PM  
Heh. I thought this was going to be the "We're rich and want rich people to pay more taxes" video I saw on FB this morning.
 
2017-10-05 01:45:18 PM  
Ha ha, looks like you have a prefab home now.
 
2017-10-05 01:45:20 PM  
img.fark.net
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-05 01:47:37 PM  
Wait... copyright infringement?  Really?  How the HELL could that have been something that stuck?  Were they paid to simply go away.
 
2017-10-05 01:49:30 PM  
img.fark.net
img.fark.net
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-05 01:49:36 PM  

lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.


I have no idea how this works in Canadian law, but in US law copyright only controls creative works.  I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic.
 
2017-10-05 01:50:28 PM  
And I thought Canadians were polite?
 
2017-10-05 01:50:56 PM  
img.fark.net

Probably grew up in one of those cookie-cutter subdivisions that they build all over the place.

The architect designed homeowners sound quite douchey though.
 
2017-10-05 01:51:00 PM  
I'm not an expert at Canadian law, but how do they have standing?  Wouldn't such a lawsuit have to be filed by the architect?
 
2017-10-05 01:52:51 PM  

d23: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.

I have no idea how this works in Canadian law, but in US law copyright only controls creative works.  I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic.


An architectural design can be considered a "creative work", and subject to copyright laws, I believe.  But INAL.
 
2017-10-05 01:53:30 PM  
I don't understand how you can copyright a house.
Okay, it's similar.  Walls, roof, windows, doors.  Nobodys ever done that before.
 
2017-10-05 01:54:05 PM  
with a helpful illustration of what pretentious rich jerks might look like

img.fark.net
 
2017-10-05 01:55:16 PM  

lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.


Yep. Architectural design qualifies as a "tangible embodiment of a creative work" and is protected by copyright. Very rare that there's actually a suit over it, and of course, many developers intentionally build huge numbers of identical houses, so people are used to it.
i.pinimg.com

OTOH, I can certainly see being pissed if you paid an architect a huge amount of money to design a custom and unique house for you, and then your neighbors come in and copy it.

/and I say this as someone with a unique architect-designed house
//but commissioned twenty years before I was born
 
2017-10-05 01:55:33 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: I don't understand how you can copyright a house.
Okay, it's similar.  Walls, roof, windows, doors.  Nobodys ever done that before.


Use stone in a house?  How original.
 
2017-10-05 01:55:41 PM  
Then the jerk will turn around and get the HOA to sue for violating the style standards of the neighborhood. Damned do/don't.
 
2017-10-05 01:56:03 PM  

d23: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.

I have no idea how this works in Canadian law, but in US law copyright only controls creative works.  I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic.


The only way I could see a copyright issue coming up is one architect stealing plans from another architect as their own.  But renovating a house?  I don't think they have a case.  There's no copyright on using materials, because that's all that really changed the look.
 
2017-10-05 01:56:14 PM  

andrewagill: I'm not an expert at Canadian law, but how do they have standing?  Wouldn't such a lawsuit have to be filed by the architect?


The house design is almost certainly a work-for-hire, so the owners would hold the copyright, not the architect.
 
2017-10-05 01:56:53 PM  
I actually did this sort of.  We bid on a house and eventually bowed out when we were at full asking plus.  The thing is, though, it started as the same colonial that we have.  I took a copy of the floor plan from the listing to an architect and said, ok, build this on our house but with some changes to make a better use of the space.  Added bonus, I didn't have to pay an agent to sell our current house. Living through a remodel and addition sucks, though.
 
2017-10-05 01:57:11 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: I don't understand how you can copyright a house.
Okay, it's similar.  Walls, roof, windows, doors.  Nobodys ever done that before.


"I don't understand how you can copyright a novel.
Okay, it's similar. Words, letters. Nobodys ever done that before."

"I don't understand how you can copyright a song.
Okay, it's similar. Notes, chords. Nobodys ever done that before."
 
2017-10-05 01:57:26 PM  
When you see one drab-looking grey stone house with blueish trim, you tend not to forget the experience.
 
2017-10-05 01:58:07 PM  
Ohh how awful for the rich guy.  Someone might kinda want to have something like his.  Meanwhile I live in a town that has a list of structures to be demolished that will take 16 years.  The money wasted on lawyers alone would have taken 1-2 buildings down.  I hate rich people that want to be exclusive.
 
2017-10-05 01:58:27 PM  

lack of warmth: d23: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.

I have no idea how this works in Canadian law, but in US law copyright only controls creative works.  I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic.

The only way I could see a copyright issue coming up is one architect stealing plans from another architect as their own.  But renovating a house?  I don't think they have a case.  There's no copyright on using materials, because that's all that really changed the look.


That's like saying that novelists can only assert copyrights against other novelists, but publishers and editors are free to make knockoffs.
 
2017-10-05 01:58:44 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: I don't understand how you can copyright a house.
Okay, it's similar.  Walls, roof, windows, doors.  Nobodys ever done that before.


Don't give the patent trolls any ideas
 
2017-10-05 02:00:43 PM  

FrancoFile: AugieDoggyDaddy: I don't understand how you can copyright a house.
Okay, it's similar.  Walls, roof, windows, doors.  Nobodys ever done that before.

Use stone in a house?  How original.


Chaco Canyon wants copyright settlement!
 
2017-10-05 02:00:54 PM  

lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.


They were probably all designed by the same form. When we work for cheap developers, we make slight changes to the plans to accommodate design review, but it's basically the same four floor plans throughout the development.
 
2017-10-05 02:01:21 PM  
I need to know which one of them is the Rick and Morty fan before I render a decision.
 
2017-10-05 02:01:40 PM  

Feel_the_velvet: AugieDoggyDaddy: I don't understand how you can copyright a house.
Okay, it's similar.  Walls, roof, windows, doors.  Nobodys ever done that before.

Don't give the patent trolls any ideas


https://patents.google.com/patent/USD688387S1
 
2017-10-05 02:02:01 PM  

d23: I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic


What about the architectural and design drawings on which the house is based?  Would those qualify?
 
2017-10-05 02:02:02 PM  

Theaetetus: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

Yep. Architectural design qualifies as a "tangible embodiment of a creative work" and is protected by copyright. Very rare that there's actually a suit over it, and of course, many developers intentionally build huge numbers of identical houses, so people are used to it.
[i.pinimg.com image 736x552]

OTOH, I can certainly see being pissed if you paid an architect a huge amount of money to design a custom and unique house for you, and then your neighbors come in and copy it.

/and I say this as someone with a unique architect-designed house
//but commissioned twenty years before I was born


I was patiently waiting until you or one of your kind ;) appeared.
Thanks.
 
2017-10-05 02:02:34 PM  

lindalouwho: . And many homes a lot older,


Sorry. Reading comprehension fail on my part.
 
2017-10-05 02:02:54 PM  

EyeHaveRisen: [img.fark.net image 850x478]

Probably grew up in one of those cookie-cutter subdivisions that they build all over the place.

The architect designed homeowners sound quite douchey though.


This is pretty much what I was thinking too.

I used to live in one of those neighborhoods.  In short, every single house in the neighborhood is a simple Cape Cod.  They were all built at the same time right after WWII, and all sold for about $5000 when they were built.
Every single one of them was exactly the same.

Over the course of the ensuing decades, the houses all have had additions put on.  So now, even though the base of the houses are all very similar, they look nothing alike at all.  They each have their own set of upgrades.  Their own personality.
 
2017-10-05 02:03:55 PM  

Literally Addicted: d23: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.

I have no idea how this works in Canadian law, but in US law copyright only controls creative works.  I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic.

An architectural design can be considered a "creative work", and subject to copyright laws, I believe.  But INAL.


However, that would be the building plans, and maybe certain 'one of a kind' appearance.  Neither house looks one of a kind, even if the other was demolished.  I've seen hundreds of houses in the US with that outside appearance.  I know a couple exactly like those houses in Flint.  Like the defendant stated, they based it on Tudor cottages.  Well, so did thousands of other people.

/I know where to get those same materials to give my house that treatment if I wanted to.
//not that hard
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-05 02:04:16 PM  

Theaetetus: lack of warmth: d23: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.

I have no idea how this works in Canadian law, but in US law copyright only controls creative works.  I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic.

The only way I could see a copyright issue coming up is one architect stealing plans from another architect as their own.  But renovating a house?  I don't think they have a case.  There's no copyright on using materials, because that's all that really changed the look.

That's like saying that novelists can only assert copyrights against other novelists, but publishers and editors are free to make knockoffs.


Um, now.  What is was saying is more like a bookbinder suing another bookbinder because of the materials or the shape of the book.  People don't assert copyright protection because something is physically shaped the same.
 
2017-10-05 02:04:22 PM  
Smart move. They can try to copy the house but can't copy the money and lawyers. The picture pairs are designed to make the houses look similar but it's pretty obvious one is a conversion in search of a look and one is built to look the way it does. The "original" looks much better but the owners are really something if they can't grasp that the cheaper copy doesn't work as well as a whole and doesn't compare. Or maybe going to court is how that couple has a giggle over things.
 
2017-10-05 02:04:26 PM  
By running for President?
 
2017-10-05 02:05:52 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2017-10-05 02:05:58 PM  

Theaetetus: andrewagill: I'm not an expert at Canadian law, but how do they have standing?  Wouldn't such a lawsuit have to be filed by the architect?

The house design is almost certainly a work-for-hire, so the owners would hold the copyright, not the architect.


It's interesting because the copying folks included a builder husband and architect brother-in-law.
 
2017-10-05 02:05:59 PM  
 
2017-10-05 02:06:50 PM  

Feel_the_velvet: When you see one drab-looking grey stone house with blueish trim, you tend not to forget the experience.


There's a whole neighborhood of stone houses in my city.
 
2017-10-05 02:06:55 PM  
How are they injured in this?  Looking at google maps the two roads are pretty far from each other.  It's not like a neighbor did it...
 
2017-10-05 02:07:44 PM  
Meh, I can see an argument for jacking their paint scheme, but I highly doubt they or the architect has any kind of IP right for Roman arches, chimneys and using stone for the exterior walls. So enjoy waisting all that money on a lawyer for no gain.
 
2017-10-05 02:07:56 PM  

fictional_character: with a helpful illustration of what pretentious rich jerks might look like

[img.fark.net image 428x240]


Man, they look nothing alike. The one on the right's not even in color.
 
2017-10-05 02:09:42 PM  

Theaetetus: lack of warmth: d23: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.

I have no idea how this works in Canadian law, but in US law copyright only controls creative works.  I would LOVE to see an argument about how a structure like a house is a creative work.  The spinning would be epic.

The only way I could see a copyright issue coming up is one architect stealing plans from another architect as their own.  But renovating a house?  I don't think they have a case.  There's no copyright on using materials, because that's all that really changed the look.

That's like saying that novelists can only assert copyrights against other novelists, but publishers and editors are free to make knockoffs.


Not really at all, because a builder doesn't really have a way of accessing plans without the help of an architect.  However, if you read the article, the guy who did the reno is an architect.  My point was the two homes have different building plans.  The materials used on the exterior is the only thing they share.  They're only suing over how stone, paint, and an arch door makes them look more similar than before.
 
2017-10-05 02:09:42 PM  

Loris: lindalouwho: Huh, and the suit is based on copyright.

There's more than one area in my city where the houses are similar, partly from when the robber barons were building. And many homes a lot older, because neighborhoods were settled by immigrants who brought their style with them.

They were probably all designed by the same form. When we work for cheap developers, we make slight changes to the plans to accommodate design review, but it's basically the same four floor plans throughout the development.


I'm talking about houses that the robber barons lived in themselves - Mellon, Frick, you know, the banking folks and industrialists in Pittsburgh history.
 
2017-10-05 02:10:42 PM  

Loris: lindalouwho: . And many homes a lot older,

Sorry. Reading comprehension fail on my part.


It's all good :)
 
2017-10-05 02:10:57 PM  

Horizon: Meh, I can see an argument for jacking their paint scheme, but I highly doubt they or the architect has any kind of IP right for Roman arches, chimneys and using stone for the exterior walls. So enjoy waisting all that money on a lawyer for no gain.


to clarify I'm not saying that copying a pain scheme is grounds for a lawsuit, just that looking at the two houses that's the only thing that could be argued as truly copied and even then, it has been done before. If you want a unique house you have to spend a lot of money and it is gonna look farking weird cause just about everything else has been done before and done repeatedly.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report