RE: [Leica] Photos on the Web

[Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com>]

> Unfortunately????? You don't seem to have the basic concept of what we do
> as architects straight. We produce a design which we communicate through
> drawings to clients, owners and municipalities to facilitate the
> construction of the design.

Oh, I have the basic concepts right in my mind.  You are paid for EVERY 
hour you work on that design.  If you did the design on spec, then I would 
agree, but to have someone come to you with a specification, they 
participate in the design process, you charge them for the hours, and then 
YOU believe you should own the rights to the design?  That is just beyond 
me.  What about the input that the client gave, are you going to pay THEM 
for that?

> We sell a design for a single site and purpose.

Well, that should be irrelevant.  You are paid for ALL your time.

> If you want more, you pay more. The design, as expressed on our drawings,
> are copyright. If a client wants the drawings in computer readable form,
> he/she gets them in pdf form, not in editable form. If you browbeat an
> architect into signing what you describe, that's his/her poor choice. Not
> one endorsed (or permitted) by our architectural association.

I have no problem finding people who don't think they are entitled to own 
something I pay them to do for me.  It also takes no browbeating, they 
understand, and are more than happy to deal with me in that capacity.

> Consulting engineers I work with and hire don't work that way. If that's
> the practice in your area, I'll stay away.

Why, on EARTH should someone give you an idea, pay you to implement that 
idea, and then YOU keep any rights TO the idea?  That is just absurd in my 
book.

Obviously you believe you are entitled to more than just compensatory 
payment for your work.

> Why do you equate copyright ownership with taking risks? These are not
> things that are joined by any natural logic or law.

No, I equate monetary reward with taking risk.

> With respect to my photography, ... and he pays me for that usage. 
Straight > up, that's the basic concept.

Well, I believe you were paid for the work, what the clients use of the 
work is should be none of your business.

> I get to use the photos for my promo in ways that don't interfere with 
his
> business, etc,

That I agree with.

> Your model of business is almost like that of a hotel owner, who provides 
a
> customer a room for a month, but then, as part of the one month lease, 
lets
> the customer come back whenever he wants for further stays.

Wrong.  Irrelevant analogy.  The customer didn't pay to build the hotel in 
the first place.