Major Extension To Furniture Copyright

[Phil Pascoe]

Whether it is right to extend the time span for commercial reproduction or whether it makes sense to ban domestic copying surely is two separate arguments? Banning home copying is about as daft as telling us to take a dead AAA battery to a recycling centre - it might be a perfectly sensible thing on paper, but is 100% unpoliceable - how is anyone to know? Who has the will to prosecute for a single offence? You can imagine the headline - "Fred Bloggs was found guilty of two offences after the police searched his flat because of his suspected involvement in the disappearance of Miss Victim. While they were there, they found the body of Miss Victim, and also a crude copy of a Charles and Ray Eames chair. He was found guilty of both offences and gaoled for life and a month to run concurrently"

"I suspect that anything sold / bought before the extension of the period would not suddenly become illegal (the law is rarely retrospective) and therefore by extension anything bought in the transitional period would also be OK." Add made to that.
It may be possible to prove a sale after a certain date, but the manufacture?
How long ago did you copy copy that chair? Oh, that. I made it June 2016, officer. How are they to prove differently?

 

[Aggrajag]

Banning home copying is about as daft as telling us to take a dead AAA battery to a recycling centre

A bit off topic, but why is this daft? You're stopping toxic chemicals being burnt or sent to landfill and ultimately helping to save money and the environment. Many shops and most supermarkets have collection containers, you don't actually have to go to a recycling centre.

 

[transatlantic]

I get really annoyed by the prices these pompous artsy fartsy type people will pay for this "Designer" stuff.
I mean that lamp for £1400! ..really!! aaarrrrrgghhh!!

Why does it bother you? I mean, it doesn't sound like you're planning to buy one, so what possible reason could you have for being annoyed at how other people spend their money? FWIW a client of mine has an original 60s Arco lamp and it's absolutely magnificent - I'd be all over a cheap copy if I had a room of the right proportions, but I don't, so I get to admire his original (and his Eames chairs) whenever I'm around at his home.

One of these days I'm going to create a website with some posh sounding name and simple pieces slightly tweaked for the silly designer look charged at ridiculous prices and see what happens.

Be sure to let us know when it's up & running

Pete

Ok, fair enough. If the piece really is of superior quality and materials then sure, the price should reflect this.

I was meaning more the cases where people are just paying for the name.

 

[bugbear]

But thinking back to my DSR chair, which retail at £230 a piece at Aram. How ironic that when designed it was as part of a low cost furniture design competition

Long, long ago, I saw an Open University program, which described the design process of the Tizio lamp, showing how marvellously efficient it was, both in terms of material design in the final product, and production engineering in the way its made.

Enthused, I set out to buy one.

Only to discover its really rather expensive.

https://www.conranshop.co.uk/tizio-desk-light.html

BugBear

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Banning home copying is about as daft as telling us to take a dead AAA battery to a recycling centre

A bit off topic, but why is this daft? You're stopping toxic chemicals being burnt or sent to landfill and ultimately helping to save money and the environment. Many shops and most supermarkets have collection containers, you don't actually have to go to a recycling centre.

Sorry, it was badly worded. It's not daft to tell us, it's daft to have yet another totally unpoliceable law. No authority in the Country has any intention of ever prosecuting anyone under that law, unless it were done on a large scale ... which brings it back to the same argument as the furniture.

 

[custard]

I guess this will have limited impact, chiefly in the area of well known licensed pieces like the Eames chair now having more effective tools for restricting distribution of copies, even if they can't bring successful prosecutions in China they'll be able to lean on UK retail outlets more cheaply and more effectively. There are a couple of furniture designers I've met who are ferocious in defending their intellectual property, to the point of it becoming an expensive obsession, I imagine they'll be rubbing their hands in anticipation of all the money they'll soon be giving their IP lawyers!

I just googled Charles Rennie Mackintosh as I've had a few requests for copies of his chairs, but I've always pointed clients towards the dirt cheap versions widely available on the web and I've never had anyone ask me twice! Anyway, Mackintosh died in 1928 so I guess his stuff is still fair game.

 

[Aggrajag]

Banning home copying is about as daft as telling us to take a dead AAA battery to a recycling centre

A bit off topic, but why is this daft? You're stopping toxic chemicals being burnt or sent to landfill and ultimately helping to save money and the environment. Many shops and most supermarkets have collection containers, you don't actually have to go to a recycling centre.

Sorry, it was badly worded. It's not daft to tell us, it's daft to have yet another totally unpoliceable law. No authority in the Country has any intention of ever prosecuting anyone under that law, unless it were done on a large scale ... which brings it back to the same argument as the furniture.

Ahh right I see. I guess it's not really meant to be an enforceable law but just encouragement.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Buying the name? Me?
I remember about thirty years ago I had pulled a thirteen foot galvanised steel gate closed across my heel, and had my leg in plaster. I has to split some jeans to go over it, so I started with a £5 pair I got from the market. I had a pig of a job unstitching the sides. I then moved on to a £50 pair of Levi 501's ... which with one snip on the hem split right up the side. I never bought Levis again. :lol:

 

[custard]

Incidentally, talking about Eames, he and his wife once visited the Barnsley Workshops. The workshop had recently rescued some Eames designed stacking plastic garden chairs from a skip which the craftsmen used during their tea breaks. After spending the day admiring the workshops and the craftsmanship his wife suddenly spotted these and squeeled gleefully, "look Charles , they've got your chairs!". To my mind nothing more beautifully illustrates the difference between bespoke designer furniture and scaleable designer furniture!

 

[Wizard9999]

Have been musing this thread and wondered if anyone knows how decisions are made around this law. Is it a bit like the planning system where an appointed inspector dispenses 'the wisdom of Soloman'? Even if this is the case are there any rules around what would and would not be an infringement that they need to apply in reaching a decision or is it just 'gut feel'?

Using the example of the Arco lamp Samantha Cameron apparently bought a copy of how would similar products be judged if:
- the lamps size, etc. was exactly the same but the colour changed by using a different stone to Carrara marble?
- what if the material of the base changed to concrete?
- what if the stone base was in Carrara marble, but it was a cylinder rather than a cuboid?
- what if the lamp were exactly the same, but the hole in the base (designed to help with moving it) were omitted?
- how about if everything is the same except the shade is much larger than the original?
If all of those examples would still infringe copyright, what about a lamp where several of those changes were made, is that still a copy?

Not trying to make a point, just curious.

Terry.

 

[bugbear]

Have been musing this thread and wondered if anyone knows how decisions are made around this law. Is it a bit like the planning system where an appointed inspector dispenses 'the wisdom of Soloman'? Even if this is the case are there any rules around what would and would not be an infringement that they need to apply in reaching a decision or is it just 'gut feel'?

Using the example of the Arco lamp Samantha Cameron apparently bought a copy of how would similar products be judged if:
- the lamps size, etc. was exactly the same but the colour changed by using a different stone to Carrara marble?
- what if the material of the base changed to concrete?
- what if the stone base was in Carrara marble, but it was a cylinder rather than a cuboid?
- what if the lamp were exactly the same, but the hole in the base (designed to help with moving it) were omitted?
- how about if everything is the same except the shade is much larger than the original?
If all of those examples would still infringe copyright, what about a lamp where several of those changes were made, is that still a copy?

Not trying to make a point, just curious.

Terry.

See also Milo of Croton and his calf.

BugBear

 

[AndyT]

Have been musing this thread and wondered if anyone knows how decisions are made around this law. Is it a bit like the planning system where an appointed inspector dispenses 'the wisdom of Soloman'?

Terry.

As far as I understand it, if you are the rights holder and find out about an infringement, it's up to you to pursue a civil case against the infringer. In practice, you'd probably need to hire an expensive lawyer who would be knowledgeable about previous intellectual property cases, who would advise you whether you had any chance of winning. It would then be up to the decision of the judge who heard your case and the quality of arguments put on either side.

If you decided you had little chance of winning or could not afford to hire advisors, then the (possible) infringer would carry on making copies (and maybe profit) from your design.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... then the (possible) infringer would carry on making copies (and maybe profit) from your design.
But in the case of someone making one copy for his or her home, how on earth would the designer ever get to know? It's ludicrous.

 

[custard]

Have been musing this thread and wondered if anyone knows how decisions are made around this law. Is it a bit like the planning system where an appointed inspector dispenses 'the wisdom of Soloman'? Even if this is the case are there any rules around what would and would not be an infringement that they need to apply in reaching a decision or is it just 'gut feel'?

Using the example of the Arco lamp Samantha Cameron apparently bought a copy of how would similar products be judged if:
- the lamps size, etc. was exactly the same but the colour changed by using a different stone to Carrara marble?
- what if the material of the base changed to concrete?
- what if the stone base was in Carrara marble, but it was a cylinder rather than a cuboid?
- what if the lamp were exactly the same, but the hole in the base (designed to help with moving it) were omitted?
- how about if everything is the same except the shade is much larger than the original?
If all of those examples would still infringe copyright, what about a lamp where several of those changes were made, is that still a copy?

Not trying to make a point, just curious.

Terry.

I'm not an IP lawyer, but I used to work with plenty of them and asked this question many times. I never received a straight answer!

Your approach however does seem to be the way the law actually operates, breaking a design down into elements and weighing at what point it transitions into something else. Introducing minor differences is no defence, a copyright holder has the right to make exact copies but also has the right to make derivative copies. So I'd guess that all of the examples you gave would be covered.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

The general consensus of the designer makers I know, is that if a design varies by at least 10% from the original, then it starts to be OK. I don't know how this is measured, I guess it is a gut feeling, but above this threshold, I suppose it cannot easily be contested legally, so is not pursued. Copyright is not the same as patent, where a certain specific element has protection, so a thing can be vastly different from the original, but if using a device under patent, will fall foul.

TBH designers always have been inspired by the things they see around them, it is an essential tool. No one can innovate entirely original designs, from scratch, every time. It is a matter of opinion what constitutes plagiarism or inspiration. It is clear that exact, reverse engineered copies is just done for profiteering. But if I hand make a chair that 'looks' like a Malmsten chair, does that infringe the new rules? It cannot be claimed that it is profiteering since Malmsten chairs are mass produced, using techniques I wouldn't and mine would likely be more expensive to produce. If I 'copied' without reference to an original chair, just from photos, I suppose my work would be original, in the fact that all the subtle variations in proportion, shape and size, would make it quite different than an original. It is very difficult to see this law being enforced, except where reverse engineered, mass produced copies were involved.

Mike.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Use the 10% rule, Mike. Make your chair with 4.4 legs.

 

[woodbrains]

Use the 10% rule, Mike. Make your chair with 4.4 legs.

Hello,

Absolutely! Or make it 10% bigger and sell to the American market! :lol:

Mike.

 

[PAC1]

Andy, that is correct, save you missed the Led Zeplin effect that the Judge could decide it sounds (looks) nothing like the original and then there is the fact that if you loose you might have to pay for the other side's expensive lawyers.

 

[lurker]

Many moons ago I was a design engineer for a major british scientific and medical equipment manufacturer.
For some reason I visited the Jaguar car plant
They were proudly showing me the veneering shop (dashboard etc was walnut ), all very interesting.
What caught my attention was out the back was what I now know to be cyclonic traps we are all familar with here for dust removal.
Back at base I got talking to my boss and one thing lead to another and we used the idea to design a bit of pure water treatment equipment (you might remember condensers from School).
The company patented it and we made lots and it was (and still is) a profitable line.

So I essentially nicked the idea. I chose to say was inspired
Then Dyson came out with his cleaner & my company tried to muscle in on the basis of the patent.
Of course, he quite rightly said the idea was older than me.
But I remember a pleasant afternoon sitting around the table with the bloke, whilst the company lawyers fumed about my "admission".

i have designed quite a lot of innative technical stuff, but doubt I have had a genuine idea in my life.

 

[Steve Maskery]

The "inspiration v plagiarism" argument was what launched my (now somewhat defunct) woodworking journalist career.
A GW reader asked a q about something. I can't remember what it was, but I knew the answer. So I wrote to GW and told them, and finished with "how about an article about the fine line between design inspiration and plagiarism?"

"Good idea, would you like to write it?"

As it happened, I'd just made a set of dining chairs. They were part Ercol, part Sam Maloof and part Mackintosh. A real hybrid. Quite unique, of course. But truly original? Not a bit of it, entirely (multi-) derivative. So I wrote 300 or so words and they printed it verbatim. I was dead chuffed. I even got paid. What's not to like?

That was 20 years ago, and when Nick stopped a couple of years ago, my pay had gone up just 10% in that 20 years, and I was one of the lucky ones, I think. I'm sure most writers get less now than we did then. Certainly my Italian publisher pays a LOT less.

This law might have an impact on magazine articles (or online equivalents) in that a lot of home woody articles are "inspired by" pieces from IKEA, Conran and the like.

As a creator of intellectual property myself, I do welcome anything that strengthens IP, but given that fashion styles, in furniture as well as clothes, come along in waves, I can see it sometimes being difficult to decide who had the original idea and when.