copies

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
We seem to be talking about different things.

Most of the thread seems (to me) to be about design aesthetics.

Grim and Andy are now talking about constructional technique, which is a different thing (and also neccessary).

Of course, one can be applied to the other.

BugBear
 
bugbear":2oklktdm said:
We seem to be talking about different things.

Most of the thread seems (to me) to be about design aesthetics.

Grim and Andy are now talking about constructional technique, which is a different thing (and also neccessary).

Of course, one can be applied to the other.

BugBear
Same thing. They are inseparable. You can't design anything without due regard to the craft.
 
mr grimsdale":1fq0m5bv said:
bugbear":1fq0m5bv said:
We seem to be talking about different things.

Most of the thread seems (to me) to be about design aesthetics.

Grim and Andy are now talking about constructional technique, which is a different thing (and also neccessary).

Of course, one can be applied to the other.

BugBear
Same thing. They are inseparable. You can't design anything without due regard to the craft.

You haven't been to IKEA much, have you :lol:

More seriously, it's perfectly possible (common, even) to make a well crafted but ugly table. So while adequate constructional technique is needed, it's not enough. What logicians normally term "Necessary but not sufficient"

BugBear
 
bugbear":1dq39d77 said:
...
You haven't been to IKEA much, have you
Ikea is the epitome of closely integrated design and technology. About the worst example you could think of!
More seriously, it's perfectly possible (common, even) to make a well crafted but ugly table. So while adequate constructional technique is needed, it's not enough. What logicians normally term "Necessary but not sufficient"

BugBear
Also vice versa. Beautiful craftwork with primitive techniques.[/quote]
 
I don't think any of the thread has been about aesthetics, and it doesn't need to be.

The design of a piece of furniture could be thought of under two headings - "what it looks like" and "how it's made".

To some extent the two are separable, and it's possible to make a piece that looks like another but is made differently. (Especially easy if working from pictures and guesswork, or making for an inexperienced customer.)

Both aspects of design can be traditional or original and the more original they are the more important they will be to the designer - who can morally and legally object to being ripped off.

I suggest that where either aspect of a design is original we can learn from it but should respect the rights of the originator where commercial profit is at stake. But truly original designs are (as has been said) very rare.
 
BradNaylor":25ssmr2x said:
My point is that it is the client, as the person commissioning the piece, who runs the risk of being sued under copyright law. It would be a very different matter if the maker copied a piece speculatively and then offered it for sale to the client.
I'm not sure that's right Brad.

I don't know for absolute certain, and I make no judgement on you, but effectively you will be making a profit from a direct copy of someone elses design (the aesthetics, maybe not construction) regardless of whether they have asked you to make it or you have offered.

I suspect there would be a small but negligable difference in law should the designer choose to pursue it. If you client suddenly appears in Beautiful Homes and they highlight your piece and the text says 'Oak sideboard by Brad Naylor of Cheshire...' and the original designer saw it then the vagaries of who asked or who offered would be moot I would imagine.

Just my thoughts though, could obviously be b0ll0cks :D
 
Even if your design is or was registered (had several) or is or was patented (have several) it's of no use till you get into court and use them to prove you have on balance of probability more right to claim ownership of the design and a legitimate loss of earnings as a result of the property infringement by the defendant. If you think your work has been "copied"... good luck with that.

The question I would ask if you have been copied is... who did you copy? There are very few original ideas, I can't actually think of any. For instance electricity wasn't invented, it's always been here. The pleasing aesthetic of a "golden rectangle" is from the receptive area on the retina, nobody invented in.

Apparently some of my real work has been copied in a certain far eastern country and I can't wait to see it, wonder if they made the same mistakes? :roll:

Aidan
 
Brads point is interesting and I would argue that if he is making a unit/desk/chair/cupboard/whatever from a picture in a book or magazine that a client has seen then he will make it look about the same but his methods of working may well be a million miles away from the original design so would be different.

My other thought on the subject would be that surely as soon as a designer/maker puts his design (complete with a how-to) in a woodworking magazine then he's plainly asking for it to be copied. If he's that up-tight about people copying it he'd just make it and show it/sell it and be done. Surely he waved all rights good bye when he got his cheque from the mag??

Cheers

Richard
 
Hi Richard

I have written articles for F&C and have always assumed that amateurs would copy them, but that I still have rights where professional copying is concerned. I have a feeling this is enshrined in the contract I have with F&C, I don't have it to hand at present but will check it out. I don't understand why my rights would be affected because I was paid for an article.

Chris
 
A student at Leeds College of Art on another course than the one I run made an homage piece based on Mark Newson's Lockheed Lounge-- do a search to see the piece I'm discussing. Mark Newson's organisation found out about it because (and some might say stupidly) the student contacted them and asked for pointers and tips after declaring that his work was intended as an homage, how much he admired Newson's work, blah, blah, blah, and the piece was for his HND at college and for exhibition at his end of year show. It only looked something like Newson's original, was made out of different materials and had different feet and even different colours.

That opened up a whole can of worms. Mark Newson's lawyers were all over it like a bad dose of pox. The piece did not go on exhibition at the end of year show because of legal threats to both the student and the college, and they demanded its destruction after it had been assessed and marked. The piece didn't leave the college until at least two years after the student left, and it may even have been destroyed-- I can't now recall in the end what happened to it.

Many furniture makers plunder the design work of other contemporary designers thoughtlessly and without fear of legal redress, but they should really not do so. Those pillagers of intellectual property will more often than not get away with it because most furniture designer makers are not rich people and cannot pursue the offenders due to lack of funds. However, organisations such as Mark Newson's and other large design houses are very rich indeed and employ or engage big fee lawyers with equally big teeth. Large rich design houses defend their intellectual property vigorously and relentlessly, and have no qualms at all about bankrupting small fry furniture makers with the temerity to infringe what they feel is their rightful property.

So, my advice to the copyists, even the ones that are not out there to make money off the copy, is be careful who you tangle with-- you could end up in deeper doo-doo than you ever thought posssible, and I know an ex-student from about four years ago that will back up every word I've just written.

Personally, I'm not especially fond of people that copy my work, although it can sometimes be mildly flattering even though the copy might show evidence of poor interpretation and/or execution. I do have a special loathing for those that copy my work for money, and I've come across a couple of examples of people doing that. If I'd had enough money at the time to pursue the offenders that copied my work for financial gain, I think I would probably have enjoyed the process of making those copyists' life pure bloody misery for many months or even for a couple or three years just to ensure they'd really got the message, ie, that theft sometimes attracts a painful price somewhere down the line. Slainte.
 
Yebbut that's a particularly tedious designer being especially obnoxious.
In the real world copying is absolutely the norm - it's called 'tradition' and most of it's products are anonymous. Copying is essential - could be seen as 'studying in depth' and is the best way to learn.
I generally deprecate the urge to be original and if I was a teacher I would attempt to suppress it!
 
mr grimsdale":5py2rq0n said:
Yebbut that's a particularly tedious designer being especially obnoxious.

... but also exercising his legal rights to the full Jacob. You forgot to mention that fact. Slainte.
 
mr grimsdale":1zs67r50 said:
Yebbut that's a particularly tedious designer being especially obnoxious.
In the real world copying is absolutely the norm - it's called 'tradition' and most of it's products are anonymous. Copying is essential - could be seen as 'studying in depth' and is the best way to learn.
I generally deprecate the urge to be original and if I was a teacher I would attempt to suppress it!

You're using the word "original" as if it's an all or nothing thing.

In most pieces of furniture than aren't millimetric copies of existing work, some originality is inevitable (by definition).

However, existing aesthetic design elements will almost certainly occur - ogee mouldings, curved aprons on tables, "hay rake" rails.

So is a new piece, using these elements, but in a new permutation original or not?

The question is ridiculous - it is partly original.

Nobody (other than, perhaps, students at Goldsmiths) strives for 100% originality.

The same notion, of reused design elements, also applies to constructional design.

BugBear
 
Sgian Dubh":2zw7x7mz said:
A student at Leeds College of Art on another course than the one I run made an homage piece based on Mark Newson's Lockheed Lounge-- do a search to see the piece I'm discussing. Mark Newson's organisation found out about it because (and some might say stupidly) the student contacted them and asked for pointers and tips after declaring that his work was intended as an homage, how much he admired Newson's work, blah, blah, blah, and the piece was for his HND at college and for exhibition at his end of year show. It only looked something like Newson's original, was made out of different materials and had different feet and even different colours.

That opened up a whole can of worms. Mark Newson's lawyers were all over it like a bad dose of pox.

That's interesting. It sounds a LOT more like brand protection (of the kind embodied when Rolex go after the Chinese watch makers) than design protection.

If Newson is selling stuff to customers for "big bucks", his customers are partially paying for exclusivity, and copies, version, homages etc dilute that exclusivity.

Mind you, it does appear to show there's money in coming up with original designs.

BugBear
 
Hi

Mr Grimsdale quote:

I generally deprecate the urge to be original and if I was a teacher I would attempt to suppress it!

Surely it is only through original thinking that we progress, without originality in furniture design we would all still be sitting on logs. Chippendale was original at one time. I recently heard a program on R4 saying that Haydn was the 18th century equivalant of todays experimental music when he visited London.

Chris
 
bugbear":3399lqhi said:
It sounds a LOT more like brand protection (of the kind embodied when Rolex go after the Chinese watch makers) than design protection. BugBear

You may be right BugBear. Whatever they were protecting they made the life of a student pretty bloody hellish for quite a while. The college wasn't very comfortable either.

Whatever they thought they were protecting, I saw the text of some of the letters from the lawyers, and it was pretty uncompromising stuff. There was no evidence of sympathy on their part for a daft nyaff student that had simply made an 'honest' mistake. I got the feeling that they were more than happy to screw the boy's head up until they'd made his ears bleed, and worse, if they were in the mood for it. Slainte.
 
Sgian Dubh.

If it ever happens to another student, send him my way. I would have advised your student for free in that situation.
 
I've always had a bit of a dislike for Newson, never really got what all the fuss was about with his designs and he always had the overly pretentious air of a designer! Like Ronaldo just one of those people that I know if I met I wouldn't get on with!

Students do projects like this all the time on the course I did. One whole module is about designing new products for an existing brand! Why would he take legal action against a student?!?
 
PAC1":2qxd63gj said:
Sgian Dubh. If it ever happens to another student, send him my way. I would have advised your student for free in that situation.

Peter, that's a very kind offer. I'll bear it in mind. Thank you. I had no idea that you are in the legal profession until a few minutes ago-- I'm not a great one for probing into the background of posters here. Again, thanks. Slainte.
 
Mr T":1ips0r2e said:
Hi

Mr Grimsdale quote:

I generally deprecate the urge to be original and if I was a teacher I would attempt to suppress it!

Surely it is only through original thinking that we progress, without originality in furniture design we would all still be sitting on logs. Chippendale was original at one time. I recently heard a program on R4 saying that Haydn was the 18th century equivalant of todays experimental music when he visited London.

Chris
I'm not suggesting that there should not be progress or change. But with with woodwork I feel that people need to learn the 'language' before they attempt to 'say' anything, and that copying is the way to learn it.
 
Back
Top