Legal question re The Lido

[Matthew Lloyd]

This is perhaps a stupid question - or maybe it's already been covered in a previous thread... but when "remaking" a course like The Lido - are there any intellectual property rights that must be acquired?  I work in entertainment law so this issue comes up all the time given the tragic dearth of new ideas in Hollywood... but today I was curious about who retains creative control over a golf course design.

Presumably the owners of the course as opposed to the architect, but maybe there are exceptions. Also curious if the architect being dead or alive makes a difference in whether this could be done. Or whether if a course design is old enough it can enter the public domain similar to books and movies.

There's also the matter of legal right versus practical ability to do something. Legally Universal could remake the original JAWS, but as a practical matter they wouldn't dare as long as Spielberg is alive and working.

[David_Tepper]

Have you seen this thread? Are you aware of the proposed legislation?

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,72662.0.html

[Matthew Lloyd]

Have you seen this thread? Are you aware of the proposed legislation?

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,72662.0.html

David --- thank you very much for pointing that out.  I completely missed that.  The very idea of this had somehow never occurred to me.  Reading up on this now.  Interesting stuff.  Without knowing more I feel like the ideas and designs of golf architects should be as protected as any other creative endeavor.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

It is an interesting idea, although it seems like many others...sounds great conceptually, but what does it mean in practical terms and how do the enforcement mechanisms work??

I've sat in on various patent training sessions over the better part of the past two decades in tech R&D. It would seem in general Patents are mostly worthless (unless you have massive resources to go after everyone and anyone) and in practice actually have the opposite effect.

As I understand it patents are intended to put innovations/inventions in the public domain so others can benefit from learning/improving all the while protecting the originator. However, we were told in no uncertain terms as engineers to never ever ever look at our competitors patents, and if we did, don't share what you learned with others and most important of all don't email each other because that's a great tactic to sue. A buddy of mine filed a bunch that were approved, but they were all deeply embedded in proprietary code, so not sure how it would have been exploited anyways.

I understand copyrights are a different animal but can't see the practical side to it for golf courses...unless someone with deep pockets like Mike Keiser gets bored and wants to stir the pot. 

[Matthew Lloyd]

Kalen - that all sounds right.


And I sort of wish more courses could get "rebuilt" actually -- very excited to play The Lido eventually and it makes me wish there were more "lost wonders" of the golf course world to bring back. More access and availability to great designs can only be a good thing for the game.

[Forrest Richardson]

The Lido would already have been in the Public Domain..."free to use"...even if the Copyright Clause (BIRDIE ACT) had been in effect when the work for Mr. Keiser was commissioned. Nothing in the proposed act that expands protection to golf courses will apply to classic/older course designs.

But...imagine if Macdonald were living a dew decades after creating the original Lido. I think most here would feel that he should have the right to re-build it somewhere else at his discretion. Let's say someone came along and carefully had measured the original Lido, and then copied it in most every detail. Not right, which is what the new act will prevent moving forward.

Nothing now prevents someone from flying a drone over Streamsong, capturing all of the topography in digital form, and then rebuilding it in California. Streamsong's only recourse would be Trademark infringement (the name and logo), and perhaps some very hard to prove "trade dress" items. Nothing now protects a completed course designed by a modern GCA.

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:


I asked the same question on the other thread but I will ask it here, too, in terms of your post above:


Why aren't you protecting Macdonald's work as much as your own?


Because I'm betting if you don't, yours is not the work that's likely to get copied.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Kinda along the lines of this thread, if you accurately duplicate a historic course and, like Golfweek you track golden age designs (modern and classic courses), how do you classify Lido, modern or classic?  Seems you could make a good argument either way.

[Tom_Doak]

Kinda along the lines of this thread, if you accurately duplicate a historic course and, like Golfweek you track golden age designs (modern and classic courses), how do you classify Lido, modern or classic?  Seems you could make a good argument either way.

You could make a good case either way, because it absolutely doesn’t matter.  Though I’m sure the client would prefer to be in whichever list the course would rank higher.  (I assume that’s the modern list?)

[Paul Rudovsky]

delete

[AChao]

Was this ever conclusively addressed with the holes / cases / lawsuites from the "Tour 18" type replica holes courses?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Was this ever conclusively addressed with the holes / cases / lawsuites from the "Tour 18" type replica holes courses?

Yes, Tour 18 was allowed to maintain its golf holes, but not the replicas of course landmarks, but that lawsuit was about "trade dress" not copyright or trademark: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/sep/11/golf-verdict-gets-tour-18-off-the-hook-lighthouse/