The significance of this “flagship” consultation process extends beyond its impact on the NGA. Supporters could argue that the consultations – which may never have occurred had Madigan not been able to rely on his right of integrity – have been extended beyond the statutory timeframe because of possible benefits to all parties. The most high profile example involves Tonkin Zulaikha Greer’s proposed alterations to the National Gallery of Australia (NGA), and the ensuing consultations with the NGA’s architect Col Madigan.īoth critics and supporters of the new right of integrity could find something in the NGA process to support their perspective.Ĭritics could argue that the consultations have bogged down the project, resulting in negative publicity, delay and additional cost to the client. While there is little evidence of this, some consultations have occurred. One might expect this to lead to a rash of consultations. But has the new right of integrity had any impact on the way architects and their clients do business?Īlthough a building owner is not compelled to consult with the original architect regarding proposed alterations to, or demolition of, a building, such consultation does ensure that the proponent will not infringe the architect’s right of integrity. On the other hand, Ashley Bell argues in the Property Law Bulletin that the right of integrity “dramatically limits the rights of building owners to alter or demolish their buildings”. Opinions differ as to the appropriateness of the balance struck in the legislation.Īrchitects concerned about protecting the integrity of their works may be disappointed by the breadth of defences available to those who allegedly infringe an architect’s right of integrity. It is certainly more practical than relying on individual architects to agitate their claims. This strategy of using the new legislation as a platform for negotiations with peak bodies is probably the most effective way to achieve changes in industry practice. The guideline definition of architectural work encompasses models, drawings, illustrations, buildings, groups of buildings, urban environments and furniture. This states that “where a visual, spoken or written reference to a work of architecture is integral to the purpose of an advertisement, in any media, the architect for the work is to be clearly identified”. For example, the RAIA and the Advertising Federation of Australia have jointly issued a guideline for the advertising industry. In the midst of these debates it is worth reflecting on what this first year has meant for the profession.Īlthough progress is slow, there is some evidence that the right of attribution will increase the recognition of the work done by architects and heighten the visibility of the profession. These and other aspects of the new regime fuel both conceptual debates (is architecture art?) and practical concerns. If their creative contributions are indivisible then each will hold moral rights in the whole. When a number of architects contribute to a project, if their contributions are divisible, each will hold moral rights in their divisible portion. This means that an architectural partnership or company cannot exercise the moral rights of its partners, directors or employees. Unlike copyright, only individuals can hold moral rights. As Christmas rolled by so too did the first anniversary of the new moral rights regime.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |