> I had financial expenses that I did not intend to have. I spent a lot of time doing research, analyzing drawings and different information. I did put an effort to protect my intellectual property and integrity of my original design. Above all, I experienced a lot of negative emotions while I was working on this case.
Probably reflects my generally unfavorable view on IP law, but honestly I feel more sympathy for those on the other end having to scrap/redo the work.
May have been one thing if the window was copied close to 1:1, but from what's shown here it mostly just seems to be small geometric patterns, likely present individually on countless other stained glass pieces.
Presumably the goal would be to have the designer of the stained glass dome receive some kind of royalty for its use in the new building. And so the losses from not having it licensed correctly would be whatever those fees would be.
> As a result, I had financial expenses that I did not intend to have. I spent a lot of time doing research, analyzing drawings and different information. I did put an effort to protect my intellectual property and integrity of my original design. Above all, I experienced a lot of negative emotions while I was working on this case.
> Consequently, I stopped working on all design projects developments for all my current clients that I was under the contract with. The reason was that stressed and depressed I could not provide the quality design services to my clients as I usually do. Sadly, four months of my professional life were taken away. The case has not been fully resolved.
So, rather than getting the royalties he was presumably owed under a license, he instead became so stressed and financially burdened that he had to stop work entirely.
Ironically, it seems like he would have come away with more money if he had done nothing at all.
As someone who had analogous experiences, I find this take highly uncharitable. It’s easy to say what the most financially advisable course of action should be, it is a totally different matter when something which you had committed personal pride into being exploited like that puts you in the kind of emotional rut which is further exacerbated by being keenly aware that you are sabotaging your financial interests by sulking. It takes a significant amount of courage to acknowledge how much the emotional toll had gotten in your way, knowing full well of how people might deride your sulking as self-sabotage.
But Huawei’s offices are all copies of European buildings so there is definitely a chance that this is not an accident or somehow guided by a client brief.
Seems crazy to steal a design for something like this. Wouldn't you want something original and innovative? And when the author offered to design them something new, why turn that down?
Ultimately they probably plagiarized from something else.
There are similar geometric elements, but it's clearly not a copy. I support artists but very loathe to copyright "style" and other such slippery slopes.
> I had financial expenses that I did not intend to have. I spent a lot of time doing research, analyzing drawings and different information. I did put an effort to protect my intellectual property and integrity of my original design. Above all, I experienced a lot of negative emotions while I was working on this case.
Probably reflects my generally unfavorable view on IP law, but honestly I feel more sympathy for those on the other end having to scrap/redo the work.
May have been one thing if the window was copied close to 1:1, but from what's shown here it mostly just seems to be small geometric patterns, likely present individually on countless other stained glass pieces.
This is from 2019, and the final glass dome design is not similar to these early renderings and imo uglier in comparison but still pretty. https://www.trip.com/moments/detail/dongguan-212-125302011/
Presumably the goal would be to have the designer of the stained glass dome receive some kind of royalty for its use in the new building. And so the losses from not having it licensed correctly would be whatever those fees would be.
> As a result, I had financial expenses that I did not intend to have. I spent a lot of time doing research, analyzing drawings and different information. I did put an effort to protect my intellectual property and integrity of my original design. Above all, I experienced a lot of negative emotions while I was working on this case.
> Consequently, I stopped working on all design projects developments for all my current clients that I was under the contract with. The reason was that stressed and depressed I could not provide the quality design services to my clients as I usually do. Sadly, four months of my professional life were taken away. The case has not been fully resolved.
So, rather than getting the royalties he was presumably owed under a license, he instead became so stressed and financially burdened that he had to stop work entirely.
Ironically, it seems like he would have come away with more money if he had done nothing at all.
As someone who had analogous experiences, I find this take highly uncharitable. It’s easy to say what the most financially advisable course of action should be, it is a totally different matter when something which you had committed personal pride into being exploited like that puts you in the kind of emotional rut which is further exacerbated by being keenly aware that you are sabotaging your financial interests by sulking. It takes a significant amount of courage to acknowledge how much the emotional toll had gotten in your way, knowing full well of how people might deride your sulking as self-sabotage.
It was a Japanese company, Nikken, that did the copying.
Interesting Huawei would hire a Japanese company to design their headquarters.
If they were a true government backed organization, I would think they would have hired a local design company.
But Huawei’s offices are all copies of European buildings so there is definitely a chance that this is not an accident or somehow guided by a client brief.
Seems crazy to steal a design for something like this. Wouldn't you want something original and innovative? And when the author offered to design them something new, why turn that down?
Ultimately they probably plagiarized from something else.
> Wouldn't you want something original and innovative?
Some cultures promote originality more than others. Some cultures are good for getting things done.
If all of your offices are copies of famous European buildings, it only makes sense that your glass dome is also a copy of something.
There are similar geometric elements, but it's clearly not a copy. I support artists but very loathe to copyright "style" and other such slippery slopes.
Probably the chinese they just asked chatgpt to draw them some glass ceiling