Posted by narnia, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2010 at 10:04 am
The article is wrong* to suggest that "as with all artists who work for money, an architect's work, once sold, is subject to the intents and purposes of the owner ". In fact, there have been court cases on this subject.
An architect's work is his/her intellectual property. It's not work for hire in this case because the architects (or their firm) were not employees of Portola Valley. That is why the architects, Larry Strain and Jim Straja won the awards. Portola Valley didn't, though it owns the building. Portola Valey didn't create it.
The architects encountered a very tough problem: if they resist too much the idea, perhaps they risk future commissions, if they don't they dilute the essence of their work. Portola Valley would do well to respect the architects' creation and not add elements that alter their work. Why can't such tiles be placed where they would meddle less with the cohesion of the building architecture and therefore minimizing the harm to the architects' work?
Presumably, if the proponents of this injury on the integrity of the design knew how to design award winning buildings with the inclusion of the tiles, they should have done so, or at least suggest or impose by contract that the tiles would be used. And what else are they going to discover that they think it's "nice" to append to the facade, thereby rendering the strength of the design moot?
As for the children's work, do they own it or is it not subject to the same intellectual property rights as the architects?
ps. No doubt the article's writer will want to learn about the legal aspects regarding intellectual property ownership, copyright, patent and other such laws designed to protect the results of work product.