# No more copying.



## whiskywill (18 Feb 2016)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... fence.html


----------



## MickCheese (18 Feb 2016)

Absolutely right. There is no way these big businesses should be allowed to rip off a designers intellectual property. 

Mick


----------



## NazNomad (18 Feb 2016)

Yet another reason not to be an EU member.


----------



## RogerS (20 Feb 2016)

NazNomad":1mq46ytp said:


> Yet another reason not to be an EU member.



Why? Are you saying that it is perfectly acceptable to rip off someone else's design ideas?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Feb 2016)

Why 70 years? It's random figure. Why not 100 years ... or three thousand? I'd have though 25 was fine.


----------



## deema (20 Feb 2016)

It's 70 years after death which is ridiculous.

If you file a patent it only lasts 14 years from being accepted. Copyright laws IMO have lost all sense of reality. For instance, if you sing happy birthday you should pay a royalty to Disney. Which of course we all gladly do.


----------



## mind_the_goat (20 Feb 2016)

I can see the lawyers being the main winners here, what constitutes a 'copy'?
'after the death of the designer' how does that work if a design is owned by a company, there may not be a single designer, or anyone named as such. 
There are enough issues over patent disputes, and patents usually have a fair amount of paperwork defining what is actually protected, what does design protection cover exactly? A shape, a joint, technique, a colour, material choice, smell?
75 years after death seems very excessive. Maybe a good time to retrain in the legal profession.


----------



## Doug B (20 Feb 2016)

Whilst I agree that big business shouldn't rip off designs of smaller makers, how many will this change in law benefit? Would a small maker have the resources to take on a major manufacturer however justified his case, I doubt it.


----------



## NazNomad (20 Feb 2016)

RogerS":orsusk5d said:


> NazNomad":orsusk5d said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another reason not to be an EU member.
> ...



I think it's unacceptable that the EU think they can tell me that I can't.


... and we'd all be driving around in a Model T if nobody copied.


----------



## RogerS (20 Feb 2016)

NazNomad":9y9f18x5 said:


> RogerS":9y9f18x5 said:
> 
> 
> > NazNomad":9y9f18x5 said:
> ...



Utter rubbish. I'm bailing out of any further discussion on this.


----------



## NazNomad (20 Feb 2016)

Jolly good


----------



## thetyreman (31 Mar 2016)

lol it's a good time to be a filthy rich big business owner


----------



## Jacob (31 Mar 2016)

NazNomad":zv663t7e said:


> ....
> ... and we'd all be driving around in a Model T if nobody copied.


Surely the other way round - we'd still be driving in Model Ts if everybody copied.
You can still copy anything you want as long as you don't sell it or, even worse, pass it off. 
Doesn't matter with respect to furniture - we can all live quite happily without an Eames chair. 
But it does matter where there are patents and copyrights for things which affect our lives - medications etc.


----------



## deema (31 Mar 2016)

Just my view, a period of protection is reasonable, the question is how long should it be. Looking at the development of a truly new novel idea that a patent would protect, a period of 14 years is granted for its exploitation, after which anyone can copy / use the novelty. For me the creation of something new that is protected under a patent is equally if not more beneficial to mankind that a style or design. I can't understand why copyright / design right applies for so long, to me the two form of protection should be harmonised with similar periods of protection for the novelty.


----------



## RobinBHM (31 Mar 2016)

Regarding the daily mail article, it seems to me that original designs that have price tags in 3 figures, the market is minute, so not much chance of much money getting back to the designer. 

All these changes will mean is that either the replicas will just be dropped or re-designed enough to avoid the wrath of law suits. 

I cant see it benefittjng anybody.

Maybe after a period of say 15 years maybe designers could opt for a period of authorised replicas with a modest royalty. That way a designer piece could be enjoyed by a wider, mainstream audience and the designer therefore also has a wider audience and some financial benefit.


----------

