[Steve_ Shaffer]

There is no IP problem at The Architects Club in New Jersey (Kay, Whitten) as it's a homage to the architects of the past:


https://www.thearchitectsclub.com/the-architects

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D — That's a rumor. If RTJ, Sr. ever "voted" apart from being on the Board of ASGCA, it would only have been a ceremonial vote and would have had no affect on someone being accepted as a member.

Forrest:  I only know that story because Jeff Brauer has repeated it here several times [and now one more].  He never mentioned that it was only a "ceremonial" vote.  So, membership in the society is actually determined by only a handful who are on the board in any given year?


I didn't really expect to find "restraint of trade" in your founding documents.  Most associations prefer to practice it on more subtle levels, so subtle that some may not even realize what it's about.

[Tim Martin]

There is no IP problem at The Architects Club in New Jersey (Kay, Whitten) as it's a homage to the architects of the past:


https://www.thearchitectsclub.com/the-architects

McCullough’s Emerald Links in Atlantic City, NJ is a set of British Open tribute holes.

[Mike_Young]

BTW, I agree 150% about no restraint of trade in ASGCA.....no matter how many times Mike Young claims that is the truth!

Whoa whoa...Jeff,  I think TD made that comment today not me.   But I do think it's true
Go look at the bid for the Wilmington, NC muni bid from a few years ago stating you had to be a member and the city adhering to such.  Or just recently some ASGCA dude went in and did some work on a course I had done and let them know he was the only licensed ASGCA dude in the area....And I was just sitting here being nice

[Mike_Young]

Oh...and all of this is coming up now due to golf simulators and video games...look at it as advertising...

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, I agree 150% about no restraint of trade in ASGCA.....no matter how many times Mike Young claims that is the truth!

Whoa whoa...Jeff,  I think TD made that comment today not me.   But I do think it's true
Go look at the bid for the Wilmington, NC muni bid from a few years ago stating you had to be a member and the city adhering to such.  Or just recently some ASGCA dude went in and did some work on a course I had done and let them know he was the only licensed ASGCA dude in the area....And I was just sitting here being nice

Mike, I was responding to Forrest's comment only, and just tweaking you......as is our mutual custom.


After one of your complaints about the ASGCA RFQ document (which I was prime author to take full credit or blame) I looked it up, and the "ASGCA member" requirement was removed from that document long ago.  If Wilmington put that in, they either pulled a very old document out of their files, or simply wanted it that way.  And, if the latter, like businesses requiring patrons to wear a a mask, they have that right.


I sincerely doubt an ASGCA member used the term "licensed" but will take your word for it.  With proper wording, I don't think mentioning your qualification as ASGCA is unethical or restraint of trade.

[Tom_Doak]

BTW, I agree 150% about no restraint of trade in ASGCA.....no matter how many times Mike Young claims that is the truth!

Whoa whoa...Jeff,  I think TD made that comment today not me.   

I actually thought of it more in reference to the Joneses, but then Forrest got all defensive about it.  I don't think many in the ASGCA are out to restrain trade, but that is pretty much what all professional societies do, and when push comes to shove a lot of their members don't mind if, say, the wording of the RFP gives them an upper hand, or they can describe the competition as a non-member and imply that he is somehow unqualified.  [I have never heard of that being done to me, but I have heard it in regard to several other designers.]


And I know where you are coming from on the golf simulators.  A friend regularly tells me he played one or another of my courses on a simulator, and I think, who is making money off that?  Does anyone have any idea how much the companies pay to put a course in their game?

[Mike_Young]

BTW, I agree 150% about no restraint of trade in ASGCA.....no matter how many times Mike Young claims that is the truth!

Whoa whoa...Jeff,  I think TD made that comment today not me.   But I do think it's true
Go look at the bid for the Wilmington, NC muni bid from a few years ago stating you had to be a member and the city adhering to such.  Or just recently some ASGCA dude went in and did some work on a course I had done and let them know he was the only licensed ASGCA dude in the area....And I was just sitting here being nice

Mike, I was responding to Forrest's comment only, and just tweaking you......as is our mutual custom.


After one of your complaints about the ASGCA RFQ document (which I was prime author to take full credit or blame) I looked it up, and the "ASGCA member" requirement was removed from that document long ago.  If Wilmington put that in, they either pulled a very old document out of their files, or simply wanted it that way.  And, if the latter, like businesses requiring patrons to wear a a mask, they have that right.


I sincerely doubt an ASGCA member used the term "licensed" but will take your word for it.  With proper wording, I don't think mentioning your qualification as ASGCA is unethical or restraint of trade.With proper wording, And, if the latter, like businesses requiring patrons to wear a a mask, they have that right.

Jeff,I'm just tweeking also. BUT when you get to Twerking I'm done.
-Wilmington was probably 10 years ago.  And the guy who got the job was a good , qualified guy. 

- BUT when you say quote "And, if the latter, like businesses requiring patrons to wear a a mask, they have that right."  I'm not sure they do if they are taking federal funds or even state funds.
- in fairness the term "licensed" was conveyed to me by a muni official.-
- and lastly when you say "With proper wording, I don't think mentioning your qualification as ASGCA is unethical or restraint of trade."  is that qualification different than a non member or is it a secret handshake or something...

[Mike_Young]

And I know where you are coming from on the golf simulators.  A friend regularly tells me he played one or another of my courses on a simulator, and I think, who is making money off that?  Does anyone have any idea how much the companies pay to put a course in their game?

I do know Trackman can be had and will make you a deal to put a course in if they buy enough product or Trackman Range etc.   
I have a friend whose son graduated MIT and went to Palo Alto to work on the golf video games for one of the large gaming companies.  He does the Tiger video or something like that..I've already tried to call him...will let you know..

[Jeff_Brauer]

when you get to Twerking I'm done....


I won't get there.....ever.  No one wants to see that!


How would a business taking Federal funds not have the right to enforce a Federal mandate to wear masks on the property?


Any gca is free to convey whatever is on their resume to convince a potential client they are best for that particular project, all things considered.  There is an obvious (and IMHO it should be very limited) limit to badmouthing other professionals.  I know it happens with a few in the industry, but those of us with years of experience know it rarely works.  As my Dad said as a soup salesman, never, ever, mention your competitor in a sales presentation!


That said, I know some have said things, including one ASGCA member who mentioned he has 4 associates as ASGCA members to my two, as if that made his firm superior for that reason, so I know the feeling.  That might be another funny thread.  I once heard a competitor tell the client he had relatives in town, so he would visit more often, and he loved a bakery in town, so he would stop there every time, raising local tax revenues.


I have found the most success just talking about my ideas for helping them, focusing on their biggest need and my potential solutions.  Being local doesn't usually matter, being ASGCA doesn't usually matter, being famous doesn't always matter, especially if you come off as arrogant.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Of course, Jack Nicklaus doesn't have an IP problem at Bear's Best in Las Vegas as all of the holes are his:




https://www.nicklausdesign.com/course/bearsbestlasvegas/

[Mike_Young]

when you get to Twerking I'm done....


I won't get there.....ever.  No one wants to see that!


How would a business taking Federal funds not have the right to enforce a Federal mandate to wear masks on the property?


Any gca is free to convey whatever is on their resume to convince a potential client they are best for that particular project, all things considered.  There is an obvious (and IMHO it should be very limited) limit to badmouthing other professionals.  I know it happens with a few in the industry, but those of us with years of experience know it rarely works.  As my Dad said as a soup salesman, never, ever, mention your competitor in a sales presentation!


That said, I know some have said things, including one ASGCA member who mentioned he has 4 associates as ASGCA members to my two, as if that made his firm superior for that reason, so I know the feeling.  That might be another funny thread.  I once heard a competitor tell the client he had relatives in town, so he would visit more often, and he loved a bakery in town, so he would stop there every time, raising local tax revenues.


I have found the most success just talking about my ideas for helping them, focusing on their biggest need and my potential solutions.  Being local doesn't usually matter, being ASGCA doesn't usually matter, being famous doesn't always matter, especially if you come off as arrogant.

Jeff Meant to say. " If Wilmington put that in, they either pulled a very old document out of their files, or simply wanted it that way.  And, if the latter, like businesses requiring patrons to wear a a mask, they have that right."  They don't have that right since it is not a licensing organization.  It would be discrimination

[Ben Malach]

BTW, I agree 150% about no restraint of trade in ASGCA.....no matter how many times Mike Young claims that is the truth!

Whoa whoa...Jeff,  I think TD made that comment today not me.   

I actually thought of it more in reference to the Joneses, but then Forrest got all defensive about it.  I don't think many in the ASGCA are out to restrain trade, but that is pretty much what all professional societies do, and when push comes to shove a lot of their members don't mind if, say, the wording of the RFP gives them an upper hand, or they can describe the competition as a non-member and imply that he is somehow unqualified.  [I have never heard of that being done to me, but I have heard it in regard to several other designers.]


And I know where you are coming from on the golf simulators.  A friend regularly tells me he played one or another of my courses on a simulator, and I think, who is making money off that?  Does anyone have any idea how much the companies pay to put a course in their game?

I will only mention what I know from being a member of the Golf Club design community. Most courses are designed by people passionate about them. It's pretty cool honestly that someone would spend hours of their time to recreate the work of another.


 It's been really interesting over the past few years as there has been a lot of growth in the real course recreations as there is now an open-source free LIDAR software that moves LIDAR data into the game. This is where the IP question comes in as they are using an accurate scan of existing work to build the recreation without permission from the architect or the property owner. I know of a few cases where the course was taken down due to a complaint from either the course owner or an architect.


This for me was the wrong move as all that happened was the course was reuploaded under a slightly modified name. Its been interesting to see on the other hand courses that are embracing it. I know that one popular resort was using the game to show their non-golfing staff the course in orientation. I think the best way to handle it is to encourage it and hope that it leads to more work.

[Tom_Doak]

It's been really interesting over the past few years as there has been a lot of growth in the real course recreations as there is now an open-source free LIDAR software that moves LIDAR data into the game. This is where the IP question comes in as they are using an accurate scan of existing work to build the recreation without permission from the architect or the property owner. I know of a few cases where the course was taken down due to a complaint from either the course owner or an architect.

This for me was the wrong move as all that happened was the course was reuploaded under a slightly modified name. Its been interesting to see on the other hand courses that are embracing it. I know that one popular resort was using the game to show their non-golfing staff the course in orientation. I think the best way to handle it is to encourage it and hope that it leads to more work.

Ben:  It seems like the best way to handle everything these days is to let the tech bros rip you off and pay nothing, and embrace it as free publicity.  Which is ironic considering they will send you to jail if you rip off THEIR i.p. 


Your answer actually bothers me way more than thinking they are just paying my clients for the course and not cutting me in.

[Ben Malach]

Tom:


I get it, but the thing is the Streisand effect is real. Also, I have never seen the harm in having a product that encourages people to become more passionate about a subject that would otherwise be limited by access. I would understand if there was a profit being made per course but under the current model in the game, there is no financial incentive to the creator of these products.


The only one making money is the game developer and publisher who only charge a one-time fee for the product.  Where this would become suspect in my opinion is if the game's publisher put this content behind a paywall. Then you could argue that the developer is profiting directly off of the intellectual work of golf designers without proper compensation. The interesting thing is that this games publisher does have a lot of licensed course product that is promoted over that of the community-created content. The only way that you would know how to find a lot of these real course recreations is to go to an independent message board and look for them. This makes it a grassroots effort rather than an organized corporate effort to increase the number of courses in their game.


Personally, for me, I enjoy using the in-game designer for concept work as it simplifies some of my renderings. It also gives people a chance to get a feel for changes in an environment that is not a plan as it allows for a ground-level view of the work.  I know that Jackson Kahn used it as well to help with some of the shots on the Bad Little 9. I think the best way is to get ahead of it by charging for the course to be built in the game as part of the design fee, but I don't know how many people would really care or find this of value.

[Tom_Doak]

The only one making money is the game developer and publisher who only charge a one-time fee for the product.  Where this would become suspect in my opinion is if the game's publisher put this content behind a paywall.



Personally, for me, I enjoy using the in-game designer for concept work as it simplifies some of my renderings. It also gives people a chance to get a feel for changes in an environment that is not a plan as it allows for a ground-level view of the work.  I know that Jackson Kahn used it as well to help with some of the shots on the Bad Little 9. I think the best way is to get ahead of it by charging for the course to be built in the game as part of the design fee, but I don't know how many people would really care or find this of value.

Well, more and more software is going to the rent-seeking web-based subscription model, so that's probably where golf games will eventually head, too.


I think you are right that the best approach is just to charge for it right up front as part of the fee, but I think I would quickly find that I was really paying for that rather than making an extra $5k to fund it.  Or I could just have a specific clause that if the client lets someone put it in that format then I get paid a couple thousand dollars; that would make it pretty simple to try and collect.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D — Yes, applicants to ASGCA are approved by the Board of Governors, which includes the Ex. Committee and seven other members, all elected annually. The Membership Committee takes in applications, and then refers them to the Board. We did away with the ceremonial vote because it really did not mean anything. Maybe it did back in the 1960s-70s when there were only 40-50 total members. Today there are 170±.

ASGCA is very unique in that it is a professional group, but with so few members, it serves several roles — I suppose on some occasions we are a group of professionals, at other times maybe we "look" more like a Society. Not at all sure you could really file us in any particular category.

I think today you'd find we are very open and appreciative of all forms of practices, personalities and — especially — collaboration. As Jeff pointed out, ASGCA has from the beginning been advocates for no state registration in the U.S., and that has benefited everyone who designs golf courses, not just our members. You can thank RTJ, Jr. for a lot of that, especially California which many states follow.

[Matthew Rose]

Robert Trent Jones, Jr. has been passionate about getting congress to add Golf Course Architects to the architectural clause. I think this will happen. Lindsey Graham is on board, and Bob has many other friends in the Senate. ASGCA has been forward in our support — the basis being that GCA deserves the same benefits as building architects. Our proposed bill language includes provisions for digital and gaming.

Forrest, if you don't mind me asking, what specific part of gaming would apply?

Like for simulator versions of real courses, for example.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matthew — The intent is to protect "digital" duplications of the work of the golf designer. That is how I read many of the drafts.

To me it is simple: Either golf design is an "art" or it isn't. If it is, then "art" should be protected. And, since we are dealing with the built environment, it begs the question why the Architectural Clause does not apply. No good reason.

[Matthew Rose]

Thanks.

I actually work for Trackman so it's something I'm curious about.

[Kyle Harris]

With Architects you know you're getting Kay/Whitten and an interpretation.

Everyone knows I have a wild hair about a central Florida course that claims a certain architect designed their course, has that architect's name on the card, and hired a firm to interpret a design from that architect while claiming that architect as the original designer.

So, the original architect received no money to have his name used for marketing for a course he never set foot upon.

[V_Halyard]

Interesting reading through some of the language in the rights Docs.
Seems that when converted into VR and commercially distributed games, prior art would seem to allow copyright claims on as “moving pictures” and “artistic works”


The rub comes in where the course design contributed is part of a community vs an organized animation studio. I would assume that if that virtual course is derived from a master plan, that is ownership is governed by the architect or entity that owns that master plan and/or the property.

[Steve Lapper]

Interesting reading through some of the language in the rights Docs.
Seems that when converted into VR and commercially distributed games, prior art would seem to allow copyright claims on as “moving pictures” and “artistic works”


The rub comes in where the course design contributed is part of a community vs an organized animation studio. I would assume that if that virtual course is derived from a master plan, that is ownership is governed by the architect or entity that owns that master plan and/or the property.

Vaughn, Tom, et.al.,


  Are you are arguing that the course design or "prior art" that is rightfully bought and paid for by a course developer/owner-operator is entitled to payment when and if it is licensed to a video game or simulator distributor?


  Given that many famous resort courses have "found" money licensing their names to various simulator companies, are you suggesting that the architects (or their estates) behind these designs are entitled to royalties for use or exhibition?


   

[Forrest Richardson]

This is the proposed amendment to the Architectural Clause, although I am certain this will be edited and changed if/when this moves along to get to a bill status. I think it clears up some of the questions people have been asking.

----

• The proposed heart of the amendment is to change the law to read as follows:

-an “architectural work” is the design of a building or golf course as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, golf course design, 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

• The other text changes to the law have to do with “cleaning up” the text, by adding “golf courses” to the text relative to;

(a) Clarifying that “pictorial representations” (photos, illustrations, etc.) of architectural works in public spaces (such that taking a photo of a golf course or illustrating it) would not be cause for infringement; this just adds “golf courses” to the existing law as are “buildings” now mentioned/included

(b) Clarifying that the term “pictorial representations” shall not include computer animated or video game representations of golf course designs; this is specific to golf courses in that copying a course WOULD amount to infringement in the case of digital copying for the purposes of animated or video gaming

(c) Permitting alterations and destructions to golf courses (i.e., remodeling, etc.); this just adds “golf courses” to the existing law as are “buildings” now permitted to be destroyed or altered under the law

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()