Part of what architects do is to sell something not dissimilar to computer software — that is, intellectual property.
Isn’t the obvious corollary to the use of pirated software that the information produced by such practices should be free to their clients? (News January 11).
I’d also add that it’s shockingly unprofessional to do this. And, in my experience, when you get drawings with educational or demo watermarks you generally find it’s an indicator of low quality, ill-considered work.
Barry Reid
via bdonline
Times have changed
When I started out — and as a student — I spent a small fortune on Rapidograph nibs and stencils (what a pain); it was taken as read that you supplied your own tools.
But times change. Software is a corporate responsibility now. There is no excuse for practices to use unlicensed software, which is theft (News January 11).
Practices should build it into their costs/fees — not claim exemption from legitimate software licences. I’m pretty sure my dentist owns/leases his own equipment.
Oh, I forgot. Architects have special skills, including exemption from ethical behaviour — no wonder the profession has such a poor reputation. For once Arb should step in, legitimately.
Clichy
via bdonline
Postscript
email letters to buildingdesign@ubm.com including your postal address. We reserve the right to edit all correspondence
No comments yet