copies

[Steve Maskery]

I agree Grim. But two points:

1. Every design was new once. Only the good ones survive. Just as in nature, most "mutants" are not as good as their predecessors, and the same is true of design. Any design. But occasionally, just occasionally, something new and excellent is born.

2. There is a difference, is there not, between copying something traditional, and copying something innovative where the originator is still relying on it for his bread and butter, quite possibly after spending a great deal of time, money and energy in getting his product to the market-place.

S

 

[PAC1]

Mr G. I agree. That is why my avatar is an unashamed copy. I did pay Hal 175 quid for the drawings and instructions. I must say I learnt a great deal from slavishly copying. Having followed the instruction once I would feel confident to do my own design. I would not have had the confidence or the know how before.

 

[mr grimsdale]

PS (This a reply to Steve above, crossed with PAC who posted before)

Yes yes but what I am thinking about is closer to home - my own efforts to get to grips with things, and the efforts of others such as we see in these forums.
A lot of people seem to be trying to be original when perhaps they don't have enough grasp of the basics. Not enough appreciation of the long established (and evolving) ways of doing things developed over generations etc.
Unfortunately in some ways, we have before us (or had) the influential example of Jim Krenov, who, however attractive and original his designs, was really bad at basic woodwork.

 

[woodsworth]

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.

I agree with this. If you look back to the Renaissance there was a lot of copying going on, that's how people learned to paint.

I think there are very few "designs" that can actually be called a new design and i would think that it would be almost impossible to copy right a piece of furniture unless it was so. That's why there is design protection. But even then you can copy it if you know the loop holes in the document.

Just because someone sat down with a ruler and paper and spent or wasted a lot of time coming up with something doesn't mean it is unique. It just means they spent there time trying to design something new. A table is a table is a table unless you change it. Same goes for any piece of furniture. There are some exceptions though i think. When a piece becomes art or a one of a kind.

It would be like copying a Rembrandt. It is still a copy and thus of less importance, interest and worth. Some people can get vast amounts of sums for there work and even though we might be able to make similar type furniture we will never command such prices until we have made a name for ourselves.

If something is easily copied it is worthless in terms of real value. Which would you like to have a copy of maloofs rocker or one of his actual rockers?

 

[mr grimsdale]

......
If something is easily copied it is worthless in terms of real value. Which would you like to have a copy of maloofs rocker or one of his actual rockers?

Don't agree. A copy is worth exactly as much as the original in real terms. Having a genuine Maloof or an indistinguishable copy is the same thing in chair terms.
The difference is in marketing - if you can prove the thing is 'genuine' it will sell for more.

 

[PAC1]

Woodsworth: There are a good number of people over the pond making a living making and teaching how to make a "maloof style" rocker. They sell for 10 to 20% of the genuine article but everyone knows that they are not getting a maloof. so they are not worth as much but the market shows they are not of no value.

For me I learnt a lot of new techniques that I would never have come accross had I not had Hal Taylor's instruction.

Copying as an educational exercise is good for society. Copying without express permission for profit is the reason we have copyright laws

 

[bugbear]

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.

You say "language", I said "design elements", but I think we're saying the same thing.

BugBear

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Some visitors might find an experience of mine where another woodworker copied my work for money interesting at this link.

Some of you may think I'm a pompous self-regarding pillock for being the type that expresses a special dislike for a certain type of copyist. The amateurs, students, etc doing a copy to learn, or in some form of homage, or just because they like it and want a piece for themselves don't bother me-- they're not likely to be buyers anyway, but those doing it to earn money I particularly despise. I wish that type of copyist would just get on and devise their own solutions to design challenges instead of 'borrowing' mine. Slainte.

 

[TrimTheKing]

Going back to the original question of whether Brad or the customer is liable, see the below email chain between myself and a friend who works (is not an expert, but has a lot of experience working with her team of experts) in this field. Enjoy...

My Email:

"It's a discussion on the woodworking forum around whether a maker making a visually identical copy of another makers work at the request of a customer is infringing on copyright/IP law?

One person suggests that the client requesting the piece would be liable, I suggest that the person making it, and making profit from it, would be liable.

Trying to find out the legal position but understand it is probably a grey area and each case taken on relative merits."

Her initial reply:

"What you described in your email sounds like fairly obvious design copyright or IP infringment.

Simple answer is that everyone is in trouble as only the IP or copyright owner (or any licensee) or their direct customers (who acquire use rights under the terms of sale) will have rights to make, sell and / or use the design in question.

In reality, what tends to happen is that the IP owner tends to go after the copying manufacturer, as they are the ones cheating and directly profiting from the copy. It's usually this that gets battled in court.

If clear cut, the infringer (or case loser) tends to get hammered with a big fine, court fees ......and is prevented from continuing business (WRT the design in question), unless the IP owner agrees to negotiate commercial terms for a license deal with royalty payments etc. The offending articles can legally be confiscated and the copying manufacturer retains no rights to them .

The user faces the same threat, however, in my world, IP owners rarely go after the user as it's bad business to get a reputation for being heavy handed with customers.........it does happen in other areas (consumer stuff and fashion) though.

The area of finding infringement is where it gets very techie and tricky.
Court rulings will rely on what is written in the original patent application and even then it's not always that black and white.
(I've been involved with cases which on paper were a dead cert but where the judge ruled the opposite way and appeals processes gave differing opinions at each step!!).

A visual copy, or even something with different design / similar use or similar design/ different use, can get you into trouble.

Copies of IP applications can be got from the patent office for a small fee so, it's often a good idea to have a look at those, though it's also worth saying that not all granted patents are watertight and some can be readily challenged by proving the existence of prior art, or lack of inventive step.

Having said all that, if you are a small business and can't afford to go to court at the best of times, a simple rule is not to copy as you could end up with a court case that could wipe you out. Most largish companies will think nothing of running an IP action to protect IP, Copyright or Trademark as for them, it's not that expensive a process when considered vs the potenial impact on the business earnings. This position will be even more so for establlished brands or designers and furniture makers where design and functionality of their goods is what sets them apart from their competitors so, they'll fight hard to protect their bread and butter!!

Hope this helps."


My reply:

"So one last question, am I understanding correctly that the company who market the piece would have to have applied for IP protection in some form through an official capacity or is there any implicit protection should they be able to prove that they had designs dated before the opposition?"

Her reply:

"To have a registered patent, copyright or trademark you have to apply / register (and pay a fee to maintain).

On the second point, it's much trickier, however, the design owner will still have rights, though could be harder to prove in court. Would say that it comes down to the individual case here ....not to mention the judge!! If in this position and in doubt best to seek proper legal advice, a bit of cash upfront could save a lot of cash later."

My reply:

"So there's only a legal infringement if they have taken the trouble to protect their design?

What I mean is, if I design a table unlike any other table ever seen, for you, but don't do anything about protecting it, then it appears in a magazine and someone else copies and sells the exact same thing in their own shop marketed as their own design, do I have any rights?"

Her reply:

"Aaah getting trickier.

If table manufacturer has allowed pic to be printed and has no design protection in place then I would have thought it's hard for him to fight, however, if he's registered his design he will still have rights.
If pic printed without the manufacturers permission and item gets copied ....it's likely to be a mess for everyone, as the manufacturer may have claims all round.

Design protection and copyright infringement can be tricky and can be a very grey area. I'm not an IP lawyer so, wouldn't like to pretend to be able to offer detailed advice especially, if things are grey and peoples livelihoods are at stake, however, the IPO is helpful in setting out the basics. Have a look at the following links - no 2 especially

1. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-othe ... eption.htm

2. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-ot ... fringe.htm "

Then:

"Also forgot to mention that copyright is automatic so, doesn't need to be applied for.

Think designs require registration thou and patents certainly require application and grant "

So, in summary, I'm not sure where that would leave you Brad, but it's interesting all the same.

 

[Mr T]

Hi

I agree with MR G. to some degree, that there is something to be learnt from copying, however there ar limitations. One issue with copying in order to learn is that as technology moves on certain techniques become redundant or less important. For instance the variety of modern adhesives on the market compared to the days of animal glue means that traditional jointing techniques become less important. The development of man made boards had a big impact on furniture design, frame and panel construction was no longer required, giving more freedom for the designer, until we ended up with IKEA (Oh dear, perhaps I've just shot myself in the foot!)

Chris

 

[woodsworth]

Woodsworth: There are a good number of people over the pond making a living making and teaching how to make a "maloof style" rocker. They sell for 10 to 20% of the genuine article but everyone knows that they are not getting a maloof. so they are not worth as much but the market shows they are not of no value.

That was my point. I wouldn't consider 10-20% worth anything considering the effort put in and that is the point.

Lets take Brads little side board. How much is he going to make off it? £1000 for three weeks work? Unlike the original maker who has a cnc and knocks these things out? And what is the owner going to have? Just a look, not the original item.

 

[PAC1]

Woodsworth: 20% of 50,000 is 10,000 for 2 weeks work less 500 for materials. It might be nothing to you but 5k per week or 220k a year is not a bad living over the pond and even the 150k sterling equivilant is not bad for woodworking. I only wish I could get half of that for woodworking!

 

[promhandicam]

I'm just interested to see if Brad changes his location again -

Turning other people's designs into gold in leafy Cheshire

perhaps :wink:

 

[woodsworth]

WOW!!! I had no idea they were worth that much. Point taken.

 

[PAC1]

Unfortunately this side of the pond most punters say "Sam who". I even had one punter who knew the difference between Sam Maloof and Hal Taylor's work and I still could not get any interest!

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Unfortunately this side of the pond most punters say "Sam who". I even had one punter who knew the difference between Sam Maloof and Hal Taylor's work and I still could not get any interest!

And even fewer have heard of Gary Weeks, a chairmaker I know from my days living in Texas that makes 'Maloofian' chairs. Hal Taylor is one of the better known of the derivative makers of the type. There are a host more sub-Maloofian chair makers that visitors here can do a search for if they are curious enough.

In fairness to all the Maloof inspired chair makers, Maloof's work is in any case heavily derivative and strongly rooted in a traditional country or vernacular idiom. Slainte.

 

[BradNaylor]

Unfortunately this side of the pond most punters say "Sam who". I even had one punter who knew the difference between Sam Maloof and Hal Taylor's work and I still could not get any interest!

And even fewer have heard of Gary Weeks, a chairmaker I know from my days living in Texas that makes 'Maloofian' chairs. Hal Taylor is one of the better known of the derivative makers of the type. There are a host more sub-Maloofian chair makers that visitors here can do a search for if they are curious enough.

These guys seem very much to be 'one-trick ponies'; turning out the same piece time after time. It surprises me that if the market in the States for Maloof-style rockers is so large that no-one seems to have geared up to have them mass-produced in China.

Repititious work like this must get rather dull. A bit like coming up with an exaggerated version of a traditional cabriole leg and then slapping it ad nauseum onto each corner of every undistinguished cabinet you make for the next quarter century.

Everyone to their own, of course. What sticks in my craw a little though, is when a man of such little originality and flair sets himself up as being an equal of such genuine design premier leaguers as Savage and Makepiece when in reality he'd struggle to make the bench at Stockport County! (Figuratively, not literally of course. I'm sure he'd make them a lovely bench with some of those legs he presumably gets his students churning out as test pieces!)

This whole 'Woodwork as Art' thing makes me smile. There are true artists around such as those mentioned above, our very own Chris Tribe, and my friend Garry Olsen. Those that I know and respect however, lack all hint of 'preciousness'.

http://www.christribe.co.uk/about-chris ... furniture/
http://www.garryolson.co.uk/

Then, to cap it all, he has a go at Sam Maloof!

Maloof's work is in any case heavily derivative

Original design is not just about coming up with new and gimmicky ideas that have never been thought of before. Maloof's rocker may have incorporated elements used previously but there is no doubt whatsoever that when assembled into a single piece it is a design classic immediately recognisable and quite unlike anything seen before.

If you don't think that Maloof's work is original Richard, how can you think that your own is?

Some of you may think I'm a pompous self-regarding pillock

:lol:



I was very interested to find this on your website, Richard.

Not a bad effort, although I could give you some useful pointers on how to improve the aesthetiscs of a piece like this.

Just think, if you'd have stuck to this kind if thing you could have made a good living from woodwork without resorting to teaching!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers
Brad

An artisan, not an artist.

 

[Ross K]

This is an interesting thread!

I think the answer is "it depends".

I make my living from furniture making, but I'm happy to occasionally post images of my work on here in the full knowledge that some of you may tell me it's rubbish while some may be influenced by it or even inspired to make a copy. Assuming this is done by a hobbyist as a one-off for his own use, then this doesn't bother me at all, since anyone can look at my website and do the same. I'm a sole-trader with no spare time or cash so would never pursue a legal claim.

One of the main things I love about my job is being inspired to make something truly original that I have never seen before and bringing it from a middle-of-the-night idea to completed piece. Such works often involve a lot of graft from design to making. It does grate somewhat to think that the same design may be reproduced in perhaps a less loving and lower quality way and perhaps to a greater financial advantage to the copier compared to me. That's theft, like illegal music downloading. Can't say I lose sleep over it, mind you.

Then there's the "stealing of a design before it's made" thing. This is down to trust. I am always careful but I suspect that some of my clients (one of which I recently designed a unique staircase for) have called me to say they do not wish to go ahead but have then had a cheaper joiner make it to my design. That is a 10 out of 10 on the "sticks in my throat" scale.

 

[JoinerySolutions]

Then there's the "stealing of a design before it's made" thing. This is down to trust. I am always careful but I suspect that some of my clients (one of which I recently designed a unique staircase for) have called me to say they do not wish to go ahead but have then had a cheaper joiner make it to my design. That is a 10 out of 10 on the "sticks in my throat" scale.

I completely agree. Years ago I did a stint of kitchen designing for a company who offered a free design service, we were not allowed to leave the designs with the prospective client due to the number of them who had just used them to buy cheap units from the sheds. This is when the plans and views were done by hand not with a cad program.
Now my clients only get drawings once they are signed off and a deposit is taken.

 

[BradNaylor]

Then there's the "stealing of a design before it's made" thing. This is down to trust. I am always careful but I suspect that some of my clients (one of which I recently designed a unique staircase for) have called me to say they do not wish to go ahead but have then had a cheaper joiner make it to my design. That is a 10 out of 10 on the "sticks in my throat" scale.

That kind of thing happens to all of us from time to time. My view however, is that in these circumstances I have failed as a salesman, or that my design is more than the client can afford; in which case I have failed as a designer!

Anyway, I doubt that the client ever thinks of in terms of stealing a design. They have asked you to quote for a job and you have done them a drawing. They get other quotes and go with the cheapest.

It all seems very reasonable from the client's point of view. They have no concept of intellectual property rights - a drawing is just a drawing of a job they want doing.

More and more of my work is now kitchens. Most kitchen designers don't release the drawing to the client until an order has been placed. I prefer to email a drawing of my design to the client as soon as I have prepared it and follow up with my irresistable sales charm. So far I'm getting around 60% of the jobs I pitch for - the rest I consider my failure rather than the result of a sneaky client.

You win some, you lose some.