funny that the "architect" reached out trough discord of all things instead of a cease and desist trough post or email, modern architects really are gaming hard these days
I think it was mostly a troll or some money-hungry conman thinking he could pull the wool over the team's eyes. As if a team dedicated to literally depicting the entire earth wasn't intelligent or organized enough to do their own research.
@UC8d9FwOTBDeIQtiwzt7M-kw You deserve a reality check. Or a smack in the face, if that gets it done. In what clown world does copyright complaining warrant capital punishment? How long has it been since you had a conversation with a real person?
Certain buildings can't be photographed to an extent....for instance the eiffel tower with lights has a copyright holder but I can't remember exactly what the stipulation is
@@shivathedestroyer6477 HAI did a video on this, he said you can’t take pictures of the eiffel tower at night because the lights are copyrighted , but guess what? There’s videos videos of that right here on yt.
@@jordanwardle11 I would argue that this is significant change. They're recreating the building in a virtual medium, whereas the building is real. This does not replace the need for such a building, doesn't impact the financial demand for the building on the people who own it or the people who constructed it, and is no different than an artist using a building for a background in their art.
If I was an architect and some people built a "replica" of a building I designed in Minecraft, I'd be honored to tears. This architect guy has either an iron block for a heart or the intelligence of a stepped upon peanut.
I aM aN aRkiTeChT aNd I aM gOiNg To MaKe A bUiLdiNg WiTh MeTeR tHiCk WaLlS aNd ALigNeD fACinG nOrTh So I cAn SuE yOu! Edit: I guess it wouldn't be facing North, cause I watched the other video that explains their angles.
I would love to see actual architectural plans derived from the minecraft buildings. Like, the walls are composed of segments of meter thick walls, no diagonals, strange materials like a meter cube of pink wool, etc.
Did they sue every photographer that has ever taken a photograph of those buildings. If not, then fair use in art means that they don't have a legal leg to stand on in court.
That dude is just what happens when a smartish person is also a troll. I went to school for legal studies and have worked with lawyers for years, his weird little case wouldn’t be picked up by any lawyer and if it did, it would be thrown out right away
@@inspectorjavert9868 It would be thrown out off the simple basis that this is would fall under fair use because it's nonprofit educational and in no way competes with the original source.
Let's not forget that the PDF he sent also says that it only applies to TANGIBLE things. Since nobody can physically touch the buildings in Minecraft (only a digital character controlled by the player can) architectural copyright laws cannot even apply to digital media such as video games.
A Minecraft world qualifies as tangible. Same as someone designing a building in design software. "Tangible" means it exists outside your head, you can't own the copyright to a building design that you imagined but never wrote down somewhere.
@@tylerpeterson4726 That's a rather broad view of it though. There is precedent against it. In filmmaking, establishing shots need no permission to film anything so long as they're filming from a public place. One could film the outside of the building without permission. The same could apply here. It could be reasonably argued that they are just recreating filmed or photographed material on another medium, with THE GAME'S CAMERA.
It's refreshing to see how you methodically handled the troll with evidence, maturity and factual justification, all while keeping it entertaining to watch. Great video!
The guy probably has the degree but everything he’s tried to get his city council to do as been rejected and he’s taking his anger out on a Swedish block game
Well it's not like architects can do anything else. They are just engineers but without any important knowledge. Besides no matter how much an architect claims to influence builds, it's going to be an ugly white cookie cutter building with or without an architect. The only important variable is the engineers, architects aren't like they were 100 years ago where they had amazing stone carvings, actually well made buildings and basically carried the theme of a town.
One of the issues of living in a litigious society. Everyone wants easy money and will attack anyone legally for any reason. A good chunk of lawsuits are always frivolous and pointless.
Me and my father work in AC industry, so we spend a lot of times inside other peoples homes or on construction sites, people are ususally very nice to us and we to them BUT there is one little exception, architects, they are one of the most narcissictic, arrogant people i've met in person (if they dont send a middle man like they usually do, because youre a construction worker, lowest of the low and they meeting with you is a stain on their pride). I first didnt belive my father when he told me architects can be a real bitch, next thing i know we made holes and holdings for copper pipes preapering to set them in when middle man comest saying "Sir architect (no shit called him that), didnt like the design and the location of the outdoor AC units so he asks them to be moved, he will send you a new draft soon." to which im suprised because the pipes COULDNT GO anywhere else other where we prepared to put them aalong with the AC units. Long story short he was a bitch that never left his home, didnt talk to anybody besides the middle man, and because of his education though he ate the world.
Ultimately the owner determines if it should be moved, esp if the AC units’ desired location is not in their original contractual document that was bid on. Even if it was, the Owner has every right to accept non-conforming work as long as it is to code. But often times Owners hand their power to the architect because they either don’t understand their own role, or they are push overs.
Let's not forget that a video game depicted the Notre Dame cathedral to such an intricate level that its model was used in restoring the cathedral after the fire.
Bad comparison. Notre Dame is located in France so U. S. law doesn't matter at all. And even if there was a similar law in France, Notre Dame was built a little before 1900.
@@Max..Q It doesn't apply in terms of the law, yes, I was only presenting this example to show that models of existing architecture can be used for beneficial purposes.
@@AdamOwens135 Well, true enough. But he somehow implied it by comparing the two cases in this context. I don't want to offend anybody, but not long ago I followed a discussion in which many US Americans couldn't believe that US law doesn't apply all over the world. I just wanted to mention it.
This reminds me of when Activision was under threat of lawsuit by Fomula One for depicting a recreation of one of their stadiums in MW2022, so they were forced to remove that map from the game. However that building was in Singapore so I wonder how the copyright law works there.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Ace Combat 7 built a reimagining of the Singapore Marina area (the place that also includes the F1 building) which was nearly 1:1 scale (there were some changes) and even in the internal files the individual building models were named after the actual buildings they were based on.
I'd have had the designers take the time and trouble to redesign and replace it with a post-apocalyptic version of the stadium, where it was reduced to little more than a pile of rubble surrounding a dirt track, and a couple Formula One flags or signs where all the letters were scratched or faded away except for the f and the u in caps! And, if they got mad, I'd say "Hey.....I wanted to honor you by featuring your stadium in all its glory......You forced me to take a more.......artistically licensed approach and show its lack of glory!"
They have no case, if you do get taken to court any half decent lawyer can get you off, might even be able to counter sue and get money from anyone who tries to sue you.
um...they themselves have no case, but if anyone whose building they HAVE done. That is a case and instead of looking up basic laws, they started something illegal and wasted everyones time and money. That is the definition of stupid if not a more rude definition. You kids clearly know nothing about laws which is why most children don't leave their home. Apparently some kids think its strange that its racist if a european kid spits on an african kid. Or they think its strange that they can go to jail after stealing from the nerds. Like you guys have absolutely no idea what the laws are and then you try to either make it fit you or say its not right
Honestly 50/50 on this guy being a troll. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this guy was so self righteous he felt like he had the authority to sue on behalf of all architects everywhere
plus often it's easier for someone to pay a few thousand for a settlement even if the lawsuit is frivolous just to make it go away. Trolls and scammers know this, so they do things like this just to see what they can get. There are lawyers that make a living out of things like this.
I feel like he's serious. He has too much understanding of the law even if it's ultimately a misinformed understanding, for me to think this is just trolling. This guy's really went digging into copyright laws and thinks he's found a loophole to make some quick money. Hopefully he hires a competent lawyer who can talk him out of it
@@PermadeathHD yeah but he actually read it. I'm not saying the guy has any experience or aptitude for law, just that he had an impressive layman's understanding for someone who wasn't serious. He could definitely be a troll and even if he's not that doesn't mean that if he gets pushed he'll actually be willing to push back. It just seems like too much effort for trolling, but some trolls are weird like that I guess
At the start of this video I thought "wait a minute, surely you can't copyright something a tourist could take a picture of, its gotta be be the plans themselves that are what's protected" I am glad I was close enough to the answer.
As an artist, I immediately knew that that lawsuit wasn't gonna fly coz of "Artistc depiction" in copyright laws since any and all benign depictions of public objects (including buildings) is basically a free space for artists and no amount of lawyering artistic rights since it is included in the law of Freedom of Speech
@@reptiles3244 no he’s correct, any art that is unsigned or undesignated is just as free game as walking into a public space and sketching the first building you see. Artistic expression is protected by free speech laws, however copyright is a subset of laws that protect the creative properties of said thing. For example I legally cannot read a book aloud and sell it online for other people to listen to, but I can read the book aloud on my own regardless of the fact it’s copyrighted
We must now visit every building this architect designed, create a 3D model of their internals and externals and then put them for free to download on the internet
Having one of your buildings immortalised in minecraft would be one of crown acheivements if I was an architect. Not only would my mark on the world exist in the form of a building existing out there in the wild, but that very existence is further acknowledged by its existence in a computerised depiction if the world further hammering home that point that something of me will be left behind when I die. How can they not be flattered. I dunno
As an architect and also a Minecraft builder, this is quite embarrassing. If someone recreated my projects into Minecraft I'd be glad and honored. Either way, great video man keep up the good work!
Just wondering, wasn't Minecraft recreation is structurally different due to its blocky format that it cannot infringe on existing copyright to be copied? It will eventually look different in detail.
@@deer563 Actually he will put them on an island, on a mountain, surrounded by sewage and hysterically laugh while they consume their own excrement and there oddly shaped buildings burn. He may even turn it into a tourist attraction and exploit it for electricity.
you don't know much about laws do you lol lots of people are are "experts" who have never went to a single day of law school but they say oh this is just silly legal threats...ones that the courts have protected for years with these laws...lemme guess, 7 years old?
Goo goo Gaa gaa (as a 3 year old this exactly happened to me, he attacked me with a plastic hammer and is now wanted in 5 states.. I'm currently in the [bed] hospital and I don't think I'll make it xd)
If this guy ever does proceed to court, please use the sand castle analogy seriously. Ask the court if a child who makes a representation of a real castle out of sand is liable for damages.
"Well, you see judge, they built what looks like a low resolution Lego version of the building I own in a video game. Therefore they owe me." Good luck with that one...
The problem is, that copyrighted buildings are often only covered in a few different ways. Readily found in public view buildings might have a copyright but only enforced or claimed in the event that someone tries to build a building themselves in the world that copies that architecture. Pictures, artistic representations, etc even in commercial use settings, aren't covered unless it's used to build another version.
As an actual law student, I can say that this video would be really useful in your defense, if there were such a real case of copyright architecture infringement.
@@fkez0510 in the defamation cases against alex jones, lawyers have used excerpts from videos posted on his website as acceptable evidence. Its not at all far-fetched
I study architecture and play a lot of minecraft, the only time you can't represent a building without the autor approving it is in real life as a public infrastructure, some architect even copied other architect work as their house without ever getting in any trouble
You are wrong. They do get in a lot of trouble if the architect whose work is stolen goes after them. Most architects don't have the money to do this so people are getting away with something, not doing something that is within the law. Just because you don't get in trouble doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
ok so the architect is willing to sue you for building structures from the real world out of pixelated blocks? man, this society gets dumber every day.... Edit: Thanks for the likes!
This gets even funnier when you realise searching for laws in cases like this is what you do in introduction to law class at university. So a "lawyer" in his first year of law school would put this guy under in like 5 minutes if you give him time to look for the pages in his law book
you dont need to be in law school to see this guy is an idiot or to find the necessary laws, just some looks at laws around virtual worlds, copywrite and architecture and hes done
That's not the goal. The suit, if not dismissed as entirely frivolous, would still cost both parties money, which means the poorer person/s lose by default.
The first line of the PDF he send you alone tells you that he has no basis. It tells you what its including, and it doesn't have "video game" or anything to reference video games. If it wanted to include more, it'd say "but not limited to" after using "including".
If I was rich enough, I would buy every building that did this to you and give you permission to build it. Unfortunately, because of covid, my human trafficking business really fell off quick and I'm not as baller as first promised.
I remember when Abe said "no more shall the lowly architect have to worry, from this day on criminals will be punished to the full extent of the law for the heinous act of recreating buildings in minecraft", what a powerful quote.
Such a powerful quote it literally made me rethink all my life choices, get a job that pays 200k salary and become a part of a happy family with 4 kids
"I'm sorry but this concern is outside the scope of technical support. Please have your attorney send a notarized Cease and Desist letter to the PO Box of our legal department (or the owner of the project / whoever owns or rents the server). Please also bear in mind that impersonation or counterfeiting of official legal correspondence is in and of itself a crime. This conversation is over. Thank you and have a nice day."
@@KhanMann66 yeah that's what I was thinking. If you were actually about to sue somebody or tell them you were gonna sue them you sure as hell aren't gonna be using hey yall as your opening line
Um... Your defense is simple... Does your building have round or curved surfaces? Guess what Minecraft DOESN'T have... Round edges. Therefore any structure contained in Minecraft is squared off and is subject to artistic representation protection by law.
And the buildings... Idk if they are "tangible" or not. I mean, a computer is tangible, but a building in a video game isn't exactly tangible. You can see it, but that's it. You can't touch it with your own body, sniff it, or even attempt to take a bite out of it. Because it's just a bunch of pixels at the end of the day.
Than not how the law works. You can't just take a Pixar movie convert all the pixels into colored dots and say that it's fine because there are to straight edges. It'd simply be a derivative work.
@a Then what about making a 144p version as that will make everything blocky. It'd still be a derivative work even though you are losing out on a lot of details.
Let’s not forget the “Humanly habitable” part (5:20). Humans cannot live in what amounts to a bunch of empty facades inside a video game, as impressive as those facades are.
Neither are the Minecraft buildings meant to last indefinitely, as any destruction of the files or the game system they sit on can and at some point, will be destroyed.
@@anticlickbait It's to determine whether the architect actually has a copyright that can be infringed - not the extent to which it has been infringed upon
I can almost guarantee that this copyright law was put into place to prevent architects from stealing building designs from other architects. Example being an architect builds a building in NYC, another architect can’t take the design and make a complete copy of said building in LA. I don’t think the lawmakers in 1990 were writing this law intending to prevent people playing cube game from having fun.
I was pretty sure the copyright on a building just protects it from perfect replication. The copyright holder can choose to make the exact same cookie cutter home a hundred times, but a different agency cannot make the exact same cookie cutter home. Neat video.
if you share it on social media, if you're popular of course. So if you're doing that just don't share it until you're done, that should fix the problem.
Considering the fact that there are numerous architects, architecture students and people looking to become architecture students (including myself), who found out their love for architectural satisfaction by building in Minecraft through all that their creative minds could think of, without hitting paywall after paywall and be faced with the prospect of building entire workstations, I'd say a lot of architects these days would be honored to find their own designs replicated in Minecraft, where they, themselves, started. I certainly would.
im in school to become a architect, got another solid 4 more years, were chilling, ill figure it out. but seriously, minecraft is still huge with architecture. look at all the programs we use to design and build the floor plans and buildings themselves, minecraft is actually huge just being able to brain storm, see your idea in person, how lighting, basic thing interact with a minecraft build, can easily cross over into building real structures if that makes sense. rant over
Absolutely! As an architect myself, I totally agree with you. I would love if someone actually built in a game, wheater is Minecraft or even The Sims, one of my projects.
@@capybara9521 Is there such a thing as a reverse is-aught fallacy, where you try to argue against someone saying how they think something should be done by stating how it's actually done? Because if there is, you just committed it.
The copyright isn't viable anyways because get this, most blocks in Minecraft are 1 meter cubed and most buildings have something that cannot be recreated with this essentially gridlock system therefore Vanilla Minecraft is excluded from all laws about irl copyrights.
Good message, horrifically bad video editing. Protip: Making a RU-vid video where you highlight every solitary word you're saying with a clip from a movie or stock footage doesn't make an interesting video. It makes it obnoxious.
@@callumkristofer7793 The detailed and carefully crafted counterargument here fits exactly in the mold of throwing stock footage at everything you need filler for. Boring, unoriginal, trite.
@@VesperAegis The detailed and carefully crafted counterargument here fits exactly in the mold of throwing stock footage at everything you need filler for. Boring, unoriginal, trite.
I like to think that this is an "architect" that makes nothing but those hideous grey squares of concrete and consider every single one of them a masterpiece You know, the ones that look like *every single Minecraft beginner home* But IRL
The downside of being able to sue anyone for something as easy as getting hurt in their home while trying to kidnap someone, summs up: the American law system needs to be changed
thats not exactly how it works, there's different court systems for different types of lawsuits, and on the other hand, that's democracy for you. You can sue anyone you want with a reason, it works the same way in many other countries.
Suing people is part of murican culture. Nowhere else on earth do you hear people going ‘Newsflash bucko! I will SUE YOU! Yeaaaah sir, that’s right pal, I will SUE the HECK outta you!’ You’re the only mfs who call each other ‘sir’ when fighting 🤣🤣 The only sue we have in Europe is SIIUUUUUUUUU ⚽️
@xIHacks lol, in Germany you can go to prison for insulting someone, also there's a thing called trespassing. Now, nowhere did I mention you can win the lawsuit, I simply stated that you can sue anyone with a reason in a lot of countries not just the US.
yeah at the very least criminals shouldn't be allowed to sue people for a specific level of injury that happened during an active breaking of the law... now if someone say roped up the burglar and tortured him for days before he escaped to sue well that is way too far and I believe would be perfectly fine to sue for since that is way too much, if someone breaks into your house either shoot him dead or halfdead then call the police since it should be perfectly fine to shoot/kill someone who is attempting to break into your house to steal or possible kill/rape your family and you will never know which so safety first and blast 'em essentially and funny thing is I'm not even american so the whole castle law thing I don't think is even a thing in my country but I agree with it... to a degree of course
Welp....your sense of humor, and ability to use big words and form logical arguments while being (mostly) polite, are INTACT. You attracted a first-time viewer enough that I clicked on this video. EDIT: I've never played Minecraft.....and I watched to the end. 🤣💯👍👍
As I understand it in the US there are instances where you need to name a responsible party and sue before insurance pays out to cover medical bills, that cookie lawsuit screams "I needed to name someone responsible for my insurance to pay for my medical bills"
If for some reason, building a similar looking structure in minecraft for archival reasons *wasn’t* fair use, I suggest you guys paste a massive p***s at the location of every building you are told not to build.
If someone actually sues you over one specific building, remove the building and replace it with a giant block looking like a pixelated building and make it clear with a sign who made you do this (with name, and company, and anything).
I'm imagining a judge taking one look at this case, looking at the people trying to sue you for playing a video game that is essentially a block stacking simulator, and saying, "Are you f*cking serious?" and then literally throwing them out of the courtroom.
@@capybara9521 Why tf are you defending this person in multiple comment threads? Are you the one that sued? No matter how you look at it, its literally the dumbest shit in the world
when they started defining the building in the pdf as well, it says HABITABLE. these buildings aren't habitable because they're virtual and cannot suffice as a literal home.
His original ticket doesn't even read like a boilerplate from the usual copyright hounds. It more so reads like a vigilante trying to bring a case on someone else's behalf without actually being an agent of that person. Which means he would've lacked standing for anyone he tried suing on the behalf of and a judge would probably have accepted a motion to dismiss pretty easily lol.
