The American Architect and Building News, VOL. XXXIV.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 830
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
November 21, 1891.
Summary:—
What are the Proprietary-rights of Contributors to Public Exhibitions.— The Ownership of Plans. —The Legal and the Sentimental Aspects of the Matter.—-An Instructive Lesson for Every One. —The Madison Square Garden Tower.— The Enlarging of Chimney-flues towards the Top. — Our
Trade Surveys........................................................................................109 Italian Architecture. — II...................................................................................111 The Pratt Institute, Brooklyn.......................................................................113 Letter from Canada................................................................................................115 Letter from Australia.........................................................................................116 Letter from Paris.......................................................................... 116 Letter prom Chicago...............................................................................................117 Letter from London................................................................................................120 An Exhibition of Walter Crane’s Work...............................................121 Artificial Rain-making...........................................................................................122 Illustrations:—
House of Mr. James Barrett, Bowdoin Ave., Dorchester, Mass. — “The Triumph of Labor,” etc.— Ceiling and Wall Papers. — Pour Panels. — Design for a Schoolhouse at Barre, Vt.—State Normal School, Bridgewater, Mass.— Bay Hall, State Normal School, Eramingliam, Mass.— Design for a Country House. — Entrance Halls, No. 303 West 76th St. and No. 304 West 77th St., New York, N. Y.
Additional: Chateau d’Ecouen, (Seine et Oise,) France. The Chapel. — The Chapel Ceiling of the Same. — The Chapel Gallery of the Same. — A Chimneypiece of the Same. — Alliance Assurance Company’s Branch Offices, Leicester,
Eng. — The Entrance, Somerset House, London, Eng. . .123 Communications : —
Computing Lattice Members.— A Customs Question. . . .124 Notes and Clippings................................................................................................124 Trade Surveys............................................................................................................124
W
HAT are, or rather what are to be, the rights of the contributors to exhibitions of architectural drawings as opposed to the asserted rights of the manufacturers of the exhibition catalogue ? We ask because the point has just been raised in the most unexpected and, we feel, most unjustifiable way, and though the narration of facts implies the existence of personalities (which we have done our utmost to avoid) the matter is of enough general interest to speak of in its impersonal aspect. On visiting the recent exhibition of architectural drawings in this city, we purchased a catalogue and, without glancing at the illustrations, made a tour of the room and checked off on the printed list those drawings which struck our fancy. This done we, at the first opportunity addressed notes to their authors expressing a desire to publish the drawings at the close of the exhibition. To these notes we received in every case prompt and courteous assent, the artists taking the trouble to write to the committee directing that the drawings in question should be delivered at this office. The result of this was a letter from the proprietors of the catalogue, who declared that we had “ stolen a march ” on them, and that we must see the expediency “ of not publishing any of OtJK cuts until at least four months after the exhibition.” We were then warned to abstain from “cutting the ground from under our feet as you [we] did last year.” To this we replied that the matter at issue concerned not only ourselves and the proprietors of the catalogue, but it affected primarily the proprietary rights of the authors of the drawings. The reply to this, a mere reiteration of the original demand, is of interest only as it contained the admission that it was not possible to “ argue the matter ”— a rather significant confession of weakness. It is quite needless to say that our course needs in not the slightest particular any defence, and it is only necessary to turn to any of the illustrated technical and popular papers in every country during or after an art exhibition to discover proof that it is not usual for catalogue-makers to interfere with the right and freedom ol.action .of. the atffhors. o£ the works exhibited.
THERE is one point, however, where a defence may be needed. We are accused of “cutting the ground from under ” the feet of last year’s catalogue owners. On examination, we find that of the fifty drawings published in that catalogue, only fourteen have at any time been published, of which only two were published within “ four months ” of the exhibition, and for doing this we are told we are mere pirates and highwaymen. The great damage done to this business enterprise by so slight action on our part is either evidence to the great importance of this journal as a medium of intercommunication, or to the feeble vitality of the infant industry architects are expected to protect, willy-nilly. And if publication in this journal is so destructive of Vested interests, how comes it that this catalogue contained five subjects illustrated in these pages before the exhibition opened ? Was not this enough to ensure a still-birth? Is it necessary to point out that if one catalogue-maker may assert a proprietary right, all others of the class may do the same, not only against the newspapers and journals, but against one another? If each asserts a four months’ proprietorship, and an artist elects to send a fine drawing to half-a-dozen exhibitions, it would take little figuring to find out when he could maintain a right to his own. Assuming that exhibiting a design in public, or publishing it in a professional journal, is but so much advertising, are architects prepared to abandon in favor of catalogue-makers — for four months or any multiple of the period — the broader benefits to be secured through publication ? Exhibitions and professional journals are both of great value to the profession, and we sincerely hope there is to be no clashing of interest between them. We ask an expression of opinion upon this matter of proprietorship, which has, without warning, been sprung on unsuspecting contributors, as we desire to know whether architects are quite ready to assign their proprietary rights under such duress as this. The technical journals can accommodate themselves to any condition of things when once that condition is fixed and understood.
THE question of the ownership of plans, under French law, is brought up, and very clearly answered, in La Semaine des Constructeurs for October 3. A correspondent asks the “ Committee on Jurisprudence ” of that journal, which is composed of persons thoroughly acquainted with the subject, whether an architect is bound to deliver the plans of a building to the proprietor of the building, after the work is completed. The reply, which is certainly definite enough, is as follows : “ The architect is obliged to deliver, to the proprietor who has employed him, the plans of the constructions which have been carried out under his direction, as soon as the work is completed, on the condition, however, that the architect’s fees have been fully paid.” This view of the law is supported by several decisions in France. In one case, reported in Dalloz, Jurisprudence Generale, 1871, Part 2, page 83, the Court of Paris decided that the architect had a right to retain the plans until lie had been entirely paid; a decision which implies the contrary — that when he has been entirely paid, he must give them up. The Appellate Court of Bordeaux rendered a decision to the same effect in 1848, saying that, “ in the absence of any agreement establishing, for the benefit of the architect, a fixed price ior the execution of the building, and a second price for making the plans, custom and equity decide that the owner of the thing constructed, when he has paid the constructor, is also the owner of the plans which have served for the construction.” We think we have met with better legal reasoning than this, in accordance with which the proprietor of the building is apparently entitled to appropriate all the workmen’s tools, and contractor’s machinery and plant, which have “ served for its construction,” but French courts, like others, follow their own ideas of logic in preference to those of outsiders, and there can be no doubt of the rule which they hold for the present on the subject. In England, the precedents are to the same effect; and in this country, although inferior courts, in one or two instances, have recognized the architect as the proper and rightful custodian of the plans, the chances are that the ancient English precedents would prevail over the mom.enlightened view taken by all our architects and by their most intelligent clients.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 830
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
November 21, 1891.
Summary:—
What are the Proprietary-rights of Contributors to Public Exhibitions.— The Ownership of Plans. —The Legal and the Sentimental Aspects of the Matter.—-An Instructive Lesson for Every One. —The Madison Square Garden Tower.— The Enlarging of Chimney-flues towards the Top. — Our
Trade Surveys........................................................................................109 Italian Architecture. — II...................................................................................111 The Pratt Institute, Brooklyn.......................................................................113 Letter from Canada................................................................................................115 Letter from Australia.........................................................................................116 Letter from Paris.......................................................................... 116 Letter prom Chicago...............................................................................................117 Letter from London................................................................................................120 An Exhibition of Walter Crane’s Work...............................................121 Artificial Rain-making...........................................................................................122 Illustrations:—
House of Mr. James Barrett, Bowdoin Ave., Dorchester, Mass. — “The Triumph of Labor,” etc.— Ceiling and Wall Papers. — Pour Panels. — Design for a Schoolhouse at Barre, Vt.—State Normal School, Bridgewater, Mass.— Bay Hall, State Normal School, Eramingliam, Mass.— Design for a Country House. — Entrance Halls, No. 303 West 76th St. and No. 304 West 77th St., New York, N. Y.
Additional: Chateau d’Ecouen, (Seine et Oise,) France. The Chapel. — The Chapel Ceiling of the Same. — The Chapel Gallery of the Same. — A Chimneypiece of the Same. — Alliance Assurance Company’s Branch Offices, Leicester,
Eng. — The Entrance, Somerset House, London, Eng. . .123 Communications : —
Computing Lattice Members.— A Customs Question. . . .124 Notes and Clippings................................................................................................124 Trade Surveys............................................................................................................124
W
HAT are, or rather what are to be, the rights of the contributors to exhibitions of architectural drawings as opposed to the asserted rights of the manufacturers of the exhibition catalogue ? We ask because the point has just been raised in the most unexpected and, we feel, most unjustifiable way, and though the narration of facts implies the existence of personalities (which we have done our utmost to avoid) the matter is of enough general interest to speak of in its impersonal aspect. On visiting the recent exhibition of architectural drawings in this city, we purchased a catalogue and, without glancing at the illustrations, made a tour of the room and checked off on the printed list those drawings which struck our fancy. This done we, at the first opportunity addressed notes to their authors expressing a desire to publish the drawings at the close of the exhibition. To these notes we received in every case prompt and courteous assent, the artists taking the trouble to write to the committee directing that the drawings in question should be delivered at this office. The result of this was a letter from the proprietors of the catalogue, who declared that we had “ stolen a march ” on them, and that we must see the expediency “ of not publishing any of OtJK cuts until at least four months after the exhibition.” We were then warned to abstain from “cutting the ground from under our feet as you [we] did last year.” To this we replied that the matter at issue concerned not only ourselves and the proprietors of the catalogue, but it affected primarily the proprietary rights of the authors of the drawings. The reply to this, a mere reiteration of the original demand, is of interest only as it contained the admission that it was not possible to “ argue the matter ”— a rather significant confession of weakness. It is quite needless to say that our course needs in not the slightest particular any defence, and it is only necessary to turn to any of the illustrated technical and popular papers in every country during or after an art exhibition to discover proof that it is not usual for catalogue-makers to interfere with the right and freedom ol.action .of. the atffhors. o£ the works exhibited.
THERE is one point, however, where a defence may be needed. We are accused of “cutting the ground from under ” the feet of last year’s catalogue owners. On examination, we find that of the fifty drawings published in that catalogue, only fourteen have at any time been published, of which only two were published within “ four months ” of the exhibition, and for doing this we are told we are mere pirates and highwaymen. The great damage done to this business enterprise by so slight action on our part is either evidence to the great importance of this journal as a medium of intercommunication, or to the feeble vitality of the infant industry architects are expected to protect, willy-nilly. And if publication in this journal is so destructive of Vested interests, how comes it that this catalogue contained five subjects illustrated in these pages before the exhibition opened ? Was not this enough to ensure a still-birth? Is it necessary to point out that if one catalogue-maker may assert a proprietary right, all others of the class may do the same, not only against the newspapers and journals, but against one another? If each asserts a four months’ proprietorship, and an artist elects to send a fine drawing to half-a-dozen exhibitions, it would take little figuring to find out when he could maintain a right to his own. Assuming that exhibiting a design in public, or publishing it in a professional journal, is but so much advertising, are architects prepared to abandon in favor of catalogue-makers — for four months or any multiple of the period — the broader benefits to be secured through publication ? Exhibitions and professional journals are both of great value to the profession, and we sincerely hope there is to be no clashing of interest between them. We ask an expression of opinion upon this matter of proprietorship, which has, without warning, been sprung on unsuspecting contributors, as we desire to know whether architects are quite ready to assign their proprietary rights under such duress as this. The technical journals can accommodate themselves to any condition of things when once that condition is fixed and understood.
THE question of the ownership of plans, under French law, is brought up, and very clearly answered, in La Semaine des Constructeurs for October 3. A correspondent asks the “ Committee on Jurisprudence ” of that journal, which is composed of persons thoroughly acquainted with the subject, whether an architect is bound to deliver the plans of a building to the proprietor of the building, after the work is completed. The reply, which is certainly definite enough, is as follows : “ The architect is obliged to deliver, to the proprietor who has employed him, the plans of the constructions which have been carried out under his direction, as soon as the work is completed, on the condition, however, that the architect’s fees have been fully paid.” This view of the law is supported by several decisions in France. In one case, reported in Dalloz, Jurisprudence Generale, 1871, Part 2, page 83, the Court of Paris decided that the architect had a right to retain the plans until lie had been entirely paid; a decision which implies the contrary — that when he has been entirely paid, he must give them up. The Appellate Court of Bordeaux rendered a decision to the same effect in 1848, saying that, “ in the absence of any agreement establishing, for the benefit of the architect, a fixed price ior the execution of the building, and a second price for making the plans, custom and equity decide that the owner of the thing constructed, when he has paid the constructor, is also the owner of the plans which have served for the construction.” We think we have met with better legal reasoning than this, in accordance with which the proprietor of the building is apparently entitled to appropriate all the workmen’s tools, and contractor’s machinery and plant, which have “ served for its construction,” but French courts, like others, follow their own ideas of logic in preference to those of outsiders, and there can be no doubt of the rule which they hold for the present on the subject. In England, the precedents are to the same effect; and in this country, although inferior courts, in one or two instances, have recognized the architect as the proper and rightful custodian of the plans, the chances are that the ancient English precedents would prevail over the mom.enlightened view taken by all our architects and by their most intelligent clients.