Drawings are getting broken !?

[La_Parca]

What?? Why that decission? Dont make sense really, why not leaving them vissible like the alredy built buildings??

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by sander155

This notifications appears when uploading a new drawing:

This is utterly absurd and will destroy one of the most unique things about ssp imo - diagrams that sketch the future of cities (under construction and proposed projects).

What illustrator is only going sketch built projects? "Gee I think I'll spend hours and hours drawing this exciting future skyscraper and then hope my grandchildren get see what I drew."

This will kill the diagram pages (has ruined them already). Ridiculous and insulting to all the illustrators who contributed their work to this website.

[La_Parca]

I think the same, i really cant imagine a good reason to apply that policy, and why we dont have any explanation about this?

Please Dylan think about this decission, this is not good and make the diagrams looks bad, why we need this if we alredy have green and blue lines indicating if the building are under construction or proposed

Also for what i see this also apply for "vision" buildings, so that means that type of buildings will look blurry forever

Please go back on that decission

[koops65]

???

[Mr Saturn64]

Many of the buildings show up blurry on my end as well.

[UniDerp]

Originally Posted by sander155

This notifications appears when uploading a new drawing:

Wow that's very stupid. Great way to kill this website...

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't know if this is the reason.

Proposal don't exist in the real world. Intellectual material are used to produce the drawings without getting permission first. It's like painting the Mona Lisa using a print of the Mona Lisa and selling it for $10,000 on Ebay. That would apply to cancelled, stale, on hold, etc. too

Plenty of built buildings to draw although, I understand they aren't nearly as tall or interesting.

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't know if this is the reason.

It's like painting the Mona Lisa using a print of the Mona Lisa and selling it for $10,000 on Ebay.

I'd be curious which illustrators have earned $10k for their time and talent.

Or were you referencing the website owner(s) earning advertising revenue on the backs of those illustrative efforts (and all the project promotion that forum members provide in hundreds of threads)?

I'm guessing illustrators reference public documents like submitted elevation drawings to approximate shapes, massing, height etc. ... to show what a future building might look like... for the fun and enjoyment of an online community.

Until the owner(s) of SSP fesses up about some legal issues they may be facing (given the advertising stream on site)... this is still seems nuts.

P.S. guess entire sections of the website like "Skyscrapers and Urban Art" better be deleted due to lots of future content. Or just fuzz it out.

[Matthew]

I seem to remember, several years ago, there was a proposed project that I think was in Gatineau, with a developer that didn't want the project's image and likeness used outside their own websites and promotional materials? Or at least without their permission? A site like this builds excitement for a project that can lead to leases or sales. They should welcome it, but I guess some don't. I think this site may have removed the diagram for it, back then, at the developer's request? Maybe Koops65 remembers what I'm talking about and can provide more details on it? Maybe this is something similar to that?

I frequently visit the Toronto update thread and often see a disclaimer at the bottom of some renderings. Something like... this is the artist's rendition of what this may look like and the actual building could look different. Worded much better than that, but saying something similar. Is there a disclaimer that can be added for proposed and under construction buildings that may allow for their return? It's not a photograph. We are not uploading the actual rendering or elevation. Just an artist's interpretation of what the building may look like, based on often publicly available materials.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Maldive

I'd be curious which illustrators have earned $10k for their time and talent.

Or were you referencing the website owner(s) earning advertising revenue on the backs of those illustrative efforts (and all the project promotion that forum members provide in hundreds of threads)?

I'm guessing illustrators reference public documents like submitted elevation drawings to approximate shapes, massing, height etc. ... to show what a future building might look like... for the fun and enjoyment of an online community.

Until the owner(s) of SSP fesses up about some legal issues they may be facing (given the advertising stream on site)... this is still seems nuts.

P.S. guess entire sections of the website like "Skyscrapers and Urban Art" better be deleted due to lots of future content. Or just fuzz it out.

Why are you inferring that a drawing has earned $10,000 from my Mona Lisa example? The point was that that you cannot copy from other people's intellectual property. Surely most developers couldn't care less regardless if SSP licenses the drawings for a fee. With thousands of drawings with many preliminary there will be a few developers that don't want projects to be anymore public than they are.

It's also why every image posted in the forum needs to have a source provided and some of those images will end up removed because the source demanded it.

[YuSheng]

I told Dylan the issue in an obvious way, but he still didn't reply any message. I had expected to draw at least 3 buildings under construction in Taiwan. It was so sad to see my work was BLURRED, so I also decided not to submit any new work even the built one for now.

If there is really a issue, the managers should tell us the truth instead of destroying our works.

[YuSheng]

Ture, my diagrams were almost built buildings. In the past, I try not to draw buildings that were not built completely. As Etesia said "it may not match the actual completion." But the new buildings over 200 meters in Taiwan were attractive for me. So I decided to draw the fisrt version of them. And now there are at least 4 new skyscrapers over 200m planned in Taipei (Not including Sky Tower and Fubon HQ). One of them - Taipei Twin Towers D1 Tower are even a rare new supertall after Taipei 101 completed, and it will restart to build the main tower this year end. I can't wait the time of its completed.

Originally I expected to draw the following buildings under construction this year :
1. Taipei Twin Towers D1 - 369m
2. Taipei Twin Towers C1 - 289m
3. Fubon Kaohsiung Aozihdi Project - 239.8m

Other choice in Taichung city:
1. Lien-Jade Huiguo 178 - at least 205m
2. Lien-Jade Huimin 128 - at least 201m

Look, they will changed the skyline of each city. They are all the iconic projects. It is so exciting to see the cities growing. But if the new policy (Blurred) will be not changed, it will be terrify to see they will be fuzzy. (Like the diagram page of Yuanlin, it is so bad that see the first diagram is fuzzy.)

Those buildings showing in the websites are wonderful for me. It's the reason that I were willing to draw them. They were not tasks.

Still hope the website can give us a explanation of this issue.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Hi guys.

The new policy for the skyscraper diagrams is to not show exact designs of proposed buildings. This new policy is required for legal reasons. An illustrator still has full access to his original drawing, but the public will only see a blurred version of it until construction of the actual building is finished.

I've read many of your comments and some good points are made. Further refinement of this policy will take place so that soon the number of building statuses that gets blurred drawings will be less.

I'm sorry I haven't responded earlier, I have limited time to work on things. Making this change was a pressing issue which had to be done without waiting longer to do consultation.

[digitboy]

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

Hi guys.

The new policy for the skyscraper diagrams is to not show exact designs of proposed buildings. <b>This new policy is required for legal reasons.</b> An illustrator still has full access to his original drawing, but the public will only see a blurred version of it until construction of the actual building is finished.

I've read many of your comments and some good points are made. Further refinement of this policy will take place so that soon the number of building statuses that gets blurred drawings will be less.

I'm sorry I haven't responded earlier, I have limited time to work on things. Making this change was a pressing issue which had to be done without waiting longer to do consultation.

This is very unfortunate and will for sure have a huge impact on the amount of new diagrams that will be created by SSP illustrators.

[koops65]

I'm staying. I need to make the dawings of proposed towers for my Toronto model anyways. It sucks that they will be blurred out but it seems there is little we can do about it...

[Lincolnlover2005]

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

Hi guys.

The new policy for the skyscraper diagrams is to not show exact designs of proposed buildings. <b>This new policy is required for legal reasons.</b> An illustrator still has full access to his original drawing, but the public will only see a blurred version of it until construction of the actual building is finished.

I've read many of your comments and some good points are made. Further refinement of this policy will take place so that soon the number of building statuses that gets blurred drawings will be less.

I'm sorry I haven't responded earlier, I have limited time to work on things. Making this change was a pressing issue which had to be done without waiting longer to do consultation.

This is a Certified Bruh Moment, but an understandable one at that

[YuSheng]

I got it. Can I ask the detail? The range of influence was a bit special, not all buildings under construction were blurred. And was the legal reason a worldwide item?

[UniDerp]

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

This new policy is required for legal reasons.

That's annoying... I would've thought the drawings would fall under fair use. Copyright law is so dumb sometimes.

[Martin H Unzon]

It's explained:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=251377

But IMO (c) copyright infringement only apply for material created by companies or directly responsive architects, the drawings we made are on our "free" interpretation with our own imprecisions, creativity and capabilities, our graphic material since some years ago have got (c) but by Skyscrapersourcemedia Inc. (we've sign a contract many years ago) & for every creator participant on the site, our own interpretation have no (c) infringement at all 'cause doesn't have relationship with original and copyrighted material (we never touch it on our hands and we haven't access to official construction drawings or first-hand (c) material).
If some drawing comes from an illegal act of plagierism, must be deleted and the illustrator banned from the site, but where is the protection by Skyscrapersourcemedia to our own work? We don't make any (c) infringement at all, in fact we have our own (c)... I've supposed All illustrators with a signed contract with the site must be protected by copyrights... or not now?

[Quilmeño89]

It seems that at least now we can see all the drawings if we are logged in and only casual visitors can't see them. That's a bit better and makes more sense.