If this right were granted, templates holes as a concept would be effectively gone.
If this right were granted, templates holes as a concept would be effectively gone.Template holes were around long before December of 1990 so if I’m reading the bill correctly would be exempt and able to be replicated in perpetuity.
How many courses are there in the world and how many holes ? Then you have all the NLE courses as well. If someone was to claim a copyright infringement wouldn't a defence be that the hole had already been designed like that elsewhere ?
Niall
After reading Jim's opening comments, I have a sudden urge to copyright "skyscraper" because I see a need to protect architects who design them. And since I've used it so often in my writings, "reef hole," "double dog-leg," "twisting the fairway," and scores of other terms that Tilly created in describing what he designed.What did I say that would lend itself to copyrighting such terms, concepts and actual execution of the physical thing such as skyscraper, double dog-leg, etc.?
If this right were granted, templates holes as a concept, going forward, would be effectively gone.
Doonbeg wasn't originally a Trump course. The Trump organisation bought it out of bankruptcy for €15 million in 2014.
If this right were granted, templates holes as a concept, going forward, would be effectively gone.
Trump Template? - On another venue ("X") earlier today a poster (@NationGolfing) asked what course and where in the world a hole was from including a dramtic photo.
Spoiler Alert- It was the 1st at Ebotse Links in South Africa. Notably several respondents cited the 1st at (Trump) Doonbeg and the 1st at Trump International (Aberdeen) and there were certainly similarities...are we seeing the first signs of a new modern templating wave?
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but the Birdie Bill could have unintended consequences re. Templating of newer (post 1990) holes/courses?...
The act very simply expands the Architectural Clause — an already passed part of copyright law that extended protection to constructed buildings as opposed to only the plans drafted for buildings. The Guggenheim, as an example, would not have been protected in its finished form. Only in its designed form. building architects rightly were given protection for their finished works — the completed building.Forrest,
Now, that will extended to completed golf courses, and designs for courses. Not just golf holes. Remodeling is allowed — same as with the Guggenheim … nothing in copyright prevents it from being remodeled.
The act very simply expands the Architectural Clause — an already passed part of copyright law that extended protection to constructed buildings as opposed to only the plans drafted for buildings. The Guggenheim, as an example, would not have been protected in its finished form. Only in its designed form. building architects rightly were given protection for their finished works — the completed building.It isn't that simple because of course nothing is. Beyond the end of modern templates, my biggest question is whether this forum would even be allowed to legally share photos of private courses without permission... because as the law is written, it's entirely possible that this would be a violation of copyright:
Now, that will extended to completed golf courses, and designs for courses. Not just golf holes. Remodeling is allowed — same as with the Guggenheim … nothing in copyright prevents it from being remodeled.
Photos of Interiors and Copyrighted Artworks
No specific provision of the Copyright Act covers interiors of buildings or implies a distinction between exteriors and interiors. This means that a photographer likely can take a photo of an interior space that can be viewed by the public. An exception may apply if taking a photo would infringe on the privacy of the occupant, but this is a separate legal question. A photographer also would not be able to take a photo if they had agreed with the owner that they would not take photos. Getting written permission from the owner in advance is generally a wise precaution that requires minimal effort.
A photographer may be able to take a photo of an interior space that is not publicly viewable unless the space contains several copyrightable elements of the design. This means that the space would qualify for copyright protection based on the originality of the design. A finding of infringement is unlikely if the space contains many functional elements, which would not receive copyright protection. Photographs would infringe only if they show the interior space in enough detail to substantially reveal the architect’s plans or designs.
You can photograph any sculptures that are integrated into the design of a building without worrying about infringement. If a sculpture or painting is separate from the structure of a building and covered by copyright, you may not be able to take a photo that contains that artwork. A problem is especially likely to arise when a photographer takes a close-up photo of a separate artwork in a building and sells that photo on its own.
"We are literally talking about extending the force of U.S. Copyright to the ground we stand on... when that has little-to-no impact on the the industry. The architectural plans for golf courses are site-specific for goodness sake."
I would be very interested to know what the formal position of the ASGCA (& EIGCA) is on these proposals?
Have they been involved in the drafting/lobbying at all?
If they have been pro this, perhaps in a niave attempt to protect their current members IP, they may not have considered the unintended consequences of legislation. Which by its nature is rules based, rather than principles based, and therefore limiting to creativity.
It is a point of intellectual and collective hubris to think that the current IP is the peak of the profession that needs protecting.
my biggest question is whether this forum would even be allowed to legally share photos of private courses without permission... because as the law is written, it's entirely possible that this would be a violation of copyright:
In terms of question 1, did the owner or architect of Sand Hills copyright their work ?
Obviously the sites for golf courses are not ALWAYS site specific. The Lido developed by Keiser is an example. It is a recreation of a classic design in very close detail, even though with some degree of interpretation. Machines today — drones, GPS integration of earthmoving equipment, etc. — can re-create just about anything based on LIDAR (topographic data gathered by drone or ground-based device). The Lido, BTW, would NOT be covered by this change as it is already in the Public Domain...as are classic era courses and those classic (archaic designs) across the British Isles and Ireland.Unfortunately I must push back again, because, as with all copyright claims, all you have to do is slightly modify the course to again place recreation under copyright. This means that photos/recreations etc. will be subject to copyright again, if there has been any substantial change. This means that even though Lake Merced GC was founded in 1922, nearly all course photos would again be subject to copyright, because substantial changes were made Gil Hanse and Ress Jones before him.
Niall asks a very pertinent question, if it becomes statute would it carry across geographies?I think the applicable treaty is the Bern Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention).
Is it more likely to be a risk abroad than domestically?
The fact that the Architectural Clause has been on the books for 35 years without much to-do sums this up. It’s just an extension of the law that exists.
In terms of question 1, did the owner or architect of Sand Hills copyright their work ?
In the US, you don't have to copyright your work. You own the copyright when you create it. That said, copyright might not even be the right area of intellectual property law. Perhaps trademarks would apply instead, I don't know.
In any event, this is why I'm hoping someone in IP can better explain this to us, because it's still clear as mud.
Responding to Tom D —
Courses, not holes or features … or ‘templates’ — I think this is the threshold you need to keep in mind as you consider this.
An "architectural work" is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.
An "architectural work" is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, and the design of a course on which golf is played (except for any course on which mini golf, or other similar game, is played) as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including an architectural plan or drawing.
The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. In the case of a course on which golf is played, the work also includes any of the following that is part of the course:(1) Landscaping.(2) An irrigation system.(3) A path.(4) A golf green.(5) A tee.(6) A facility in which golf is practiced.(7) A bunker.(8.) A lake.(9) A topographic feature.
Jim,Ah...gotchya. Thanks for that. I mostly concur on that.
It wasn't anything that you said. It was a sarcastic comment on what the congress is proposing.
It's true in most places. There is, I believe, a registration system in the US (caveat - I'm a UK IP lawyer, not a US one) but registration is not a requirement for subsistence.In terms of question 1, did the owner or architect of Sand Hills copyright their work ?
In the US, you don't have to copyright your work. You own the copyright when you create it. That said, copyright might not even be the right area of intellectual property law. Perhaps trademarks would apply instead, I don't know.
In any event, this is why I'm hoping someone in IP can better explain this to us, because it's still clear as mud.
That's true about copyright everywhere I think. If you create something, it is your copyright. It doesn't need to be asserted.