online photo etiquette
Social media websites offer architects the opportunity to connect with other professionals and clients regardless of geographic location. But absent clear legislation about what can be shared electronically, common sense must prevail: Pay attention to copyright, give credit where itâs due, and avoid online communities that disrespect creative rights.
For example, Seattle photographer Peter Vanderwarker shoots projects with the intention they will be widely viewed. But he wonât release images without the approval of the architect, the building owner, and the major team players. âSome folks are sensitive about whatâs in the pictures,â he says.
Liza Hausman, vice president of marketing at Houzz, says the websiteâs photo-upload language explains that participants need to have rights to the images theyâre sharing. She reiterates Vanderwarkerâs approach to ethically navigating social-media websites. âSet expectations with the homeowner,â she says. âMake sure you have a release from them, and that the use is clear. They should understand that the images might get broad exposure.â In addition to getting rights from the photographers, she urges participants to credit them and the cast of professionals who contributed to the project. âHouzz provides an easy way to display this information on every photo,â she says. When a copyright claim does arise, Hausman says the company works with legal professionals to verify and resolve them, and follows Digital Millennium Copyright Act procedures.âc.w.
the giveaway
As a marketing tool, social media is a mixed bag. With the saturation of the Internet comes the expectation that everything online is free, and architects struggle with how much intellectual content to provide gratis. Treff LaFleche, AIA, LEED AP, principal of LDa Architects, Cambridge, Mass., created a Houzz account two years ago. He recalls the Seattle woman who emailed for help solving a design problem. LaFleche took 10 minutes to respond, but after four more email exchanges he politely advised her to hire an architect.
Simmons has had a similar experience. He says he gets âgoofyâ emails from homeowners every day asking for the source of a sofa or wall color theyâve seen in his portfolioâeven requesting the plans for a particular house. âItâs dumbfounding that I spend a year creating this house for a client, and others expect to get it for free,â he says. Still, the effort has helped him broaden his reach beyond the local area. Recently he landed work on a new house in Boulder, Colo., and a remodel in Los Angeles.
Itâs the architectâs responsibility not to enable people who abuse the situation, perhaps innocently, by squeezing out information, LaFleche says. âOur marketing person monitors the account, and if a question involves a five-minute response, weâre OK with that because it builds our brand, and we try to keep the conversation within Houzz because it benefits other people, too,â he says. âArchitects donât fight for our rights the way musicians have, but collaboration is in our nature. The Internet is just a more sophisticated version of a lifestyle magazine.â
LaFleche joined Houzz to draw traffic to the firmâs website. âItâs all part of establishing ourselves as thought leaders,â he adds. âWeâre willing to shoulder the risk of people ripping us off, because the upside is that we get good feedback on our work.â
Mark English, AIA, principal of Mark English Architects, San Francisco, also answers three or four questions a day from homeowners on Houzz and says the flow to his website from there has doubled in the past nine months, to 28 percent of all traffic. (The number of photos circulating, the number of questions professionals answer, and the number of recommendations they give or get are part of the algorithm that determines visibility.) In fact, one client hired him after checking out his work and the way he answered questions from others. âIt gave her a sense of my personality and that Iâm helpful,â he says.
the vision thing
House plans are easy to rip off, architectural ideas less so. In an era when information is at our instantaneous disposal, architects will always own the alchemy that materializes on individual projects. That became clear when Taylor defended his house plans at the Signature Homes trial. âThey kept saying, our kitchen is different, our great room is different,â he says. âI didnât create all those elements, but itâs the way I arranged them thatâs unique to me. There are little tells. In one of my designs I said to myself later, âI shouldnât have done it that way,â and they copied it. I recognized my thought process, why the walls were lined up a certain way.â
As Simmons, too, discovered, details can be copied, but vision cannot. Inspired by some of his work on Houzz, the two out-of-state clients Simmons recently acquired had asked local architects to adapt his ideas. When both failed, Simmons was asked to pick up the slack. âMy first year in architecture school, I was told, `If you think opening an architecture book is going to make you a good architect, quit now,ââ he says. âYou have to diagnose and create; architecture is art.â
Itâs probably a given that others will abuse your copyright. But rather than overreact and lose the advantages of connecting widely with potential clients, many architects are treading carefully and learning to live with it. Jonathan Junker, Assoc. AIA, principal of Graypants, an architecture and product design firm in Seattle, says that as much work as he and his partner have put into copyrights and trademarks, whatâs most important at the end of the day is building a strong brand.
âI think itâs still worth it to share ideas that are good,â Junker says. âIf anyone tries to copy our work, weâll still do a better job. We never want to stop innovating, pushing ideas farther, and trying to lead the way.â
