3CPO Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Calatrava sues for 'violation of copyright' over bridge changes Santiago Calatrava's steel and glass Campo Volantin footbridge has become as distinctive a part of the Bilbao skyline as the nearby Guggenheim Museum. But in a spirited defence of his artistic integrity, the Spanish architect is suing the city of Bilbao for €3m (£2m) for violation of copyright, for allowing an extension to the bridge to be built by another star architect. The Japanese architect Arata Isozaki designed an extension to the 10-year-old footbridge to connect with his recently completed riverside housing development nearby. The court case has prompted a heated debate over whether a public building can be deemed a work of art. Calatrava is renowned worldwide for his soaring, airy bridges, and, in the case presented by lawyers in Bilbao's law courts yesterday, he claims that the new link "breaks the symmetry of the bridge, clumsily distorts the design... and damages the integrity of his work". He is demanding €250,000 compensation and the dismantling of Isozaki's extension, or, if the new link remains, - €3m for "moral damages". Initially ridiculed for "leading from nowhere to nowhere", Calatrava's footbridge is beautiful, but not exactly user-friendly. Its limpid glass floor tiles, designed to reflect the grey-green waters of the river Nervion that flow beneath, are notoriously slippery when wet. For 10 years residents and visitors have complained of skidding and tumbling. The city authorities who approved Isozaki's housing complex and his bridge link vigorously disagree. "The paintings of Goya are works of art; a bridge is for people to walk on," insisted Bilbao's mayor, Iñaki Azkuna. Without the bridge link, pedestrians would have to walk down to the old riverside jetty, then up two flights of steps. Mr Askuna concedes that a metre of banister was removed from Calatrava's bridge to accommodate Isozaki's extension, but reckons "this has no negative impactwhatsoever upon Calatrava's work", and that the structures co-exist harmoniously. Calatrava's lawyer, Fernando Villalonga, thinks otherwise. "This mustn't happen, because in this country, architecture, like other arts, is protected by intellectual property rights," he said. Mr Villalonga accused the town hall of "cheek, arrogance and ignorance". To which Mr Azkuna countered that all 560 glass tiles of Calatrava's bridge have cracked over the years, ravaged by the extremes of climate, and had to be replaced at the cost to taxpayers of €200,000. "If it's his intellectual property, let him take his intellectual property," fumed Mr Azkuna in the spring, when Calatrava launched his suit. "We've had enough of the dictatorship of Calatrava saying we can't touch his little bridge. We've had enough of this superstar." Isozaki has stood his ground. "We don't know what arrangement Calatrava has with the town hall," said the Japanese architect's office in Barcelona. "Isozaki thinks that in architecture it is very difficult to seek author's rights because we're talking about a work for public use, so how can you claim intellectual property?" The judge is expected to rule on the matter shortly. The case comes days after Calatrava's grandiose Arts Palace inValencia was flooded after torrential rainstorms. Mud jammed the stage machinery last week, causing the startof a star-studded opera season to be postponed for a fortnight and some performances cancelled. Fonte: The Independent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forumdacasa Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Segundo o Sr. Calatrava, 3 milhões de euros pagam isto? À esquerda a ponte de Calatrava e, à direita a passagem de Isozaki. http-~~-//estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2007/02/23/1172227292_g_0.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_donna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunomiguelneto Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 entao... mas o Arq. Calatrava foi processado ou foi a cidade? http://nunomiguelneto.tumblr.com/http://canaisdoneto.wordpress.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 entao... mas o Arq. Calatrava foi processado ou foi a cidade? Santiago Calatrava processou o município de Bilbau por este ter feito uma ligação da passagem projectada por Arata Isozaki à sua ponte anteriormente construída. Ele acusa o município de ter mutilado a sua obra sem o seu consentimento. A nova passagem agora construída faz a ligação a um edifício projecto por Isozaki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JVS Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Por outro lado a Camara de Bilbao acusa o arquitecto de nao ter feito bem a ponte porque o custo de manutencao eh muito elevado porque semana a semana eles tem que substituir os vidros que se partem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampir0 Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Isto faz-me lembrar o manifesto do Pancho Guedes, aliás está ali mesmo no avatar do JVS. Quem é que vocês acham que tem razão? O starchitect com o ego ferido, mas com um legítimo direito de defender a sua criação artística ou a Câmara de Bilbao que aparenta defender os interesses dos cidadãos, que são, no final de contas, para quem a ponte se destinava..... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forumdacasa Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Se o homem não pedisse dinheiro, até diria que sim, que estava no seu direito de defender a obra. Pediu dinheiro? Prefiro não adjectivar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JVS Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 A Camara devia ter falado com o Arquitecto e juntos procurar uma solução. Se houver problemas ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lllARKlll Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Esteticamente é uma opção ridícula, o conjunto fica comprometido, dou toda a razão ao Calatrava. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forumdacasa Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 E é a estética o factor predominante? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lllARKlll Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Qualquer Arquitecto dirá que sim...mas se queres um argumentos mais forte, simplesmente temos os direitos de autor conexos, ninguém pode alterar as obras de outrém sem beneplácito do autor original, está tudo dito. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now