No more copying.
- Thread starter whiskywill
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Absolutely right. There is no way these big businesses should be allowed to rip off a designers intellectual property.
Mick
Mick
RogerS
Established Member
NazNomad":1mq46ytp said:
Why? Are you saying that it is perfectly acceptable to rip off someone else's design ideas?
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Why 70 years? It's random figure. Why not 100 years ... or three thousand? I'd have though 25 was fine.
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.
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
Established Member
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.
'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
Shy Tot
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.
RogerS
Established Member
NazNomad":9y9f18x5 said:
Utter rubbish. I'm bailing out of any further discussion on this.
thetyreman
Established Member
lol it's a good time to be a filthy rich big business owner
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Surely the other way round - we'd still be driving in Model Ts if everybody copied.NazNomad":zv663t7e said:
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.
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
Established Member
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.
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.
