Can anybody tell me what the laws are about reproducing pieces that someone else has designed?
For example, if I wanted to create a replica of a Thos. Moser piece for a client.
Specifically, There are these chairs that an artist on the west coast has designed and I really want to build one or two as prototypes. I will not claim these designs as my own, and will indicate that they were designed or inspired by that particular artist. Can I sell them? Or am I unintentionally getting into the despicable act of theft of intellectual property?
Replies
A lot of it depends on whether Moser has any kind of copyrights on the particualr design. It is not black and white. Do a few searches for copying furniture and industrial design issues.
The function, method of construction, etc can't be protected. But that all gets very vague in terms of where that ends and the actual creative design elements begin. I would guess that Moser protects some/most of their original pieces through some kind of copyrights.
JH
somertime ,
My thought is as long as you don't use the makers name who you are imitating or copying there are no problems . I believe we can with our own hands re create anything we are capable of as long as we do not market or sell or display the item as for instance a Moser original . Perhaps the phrase Maloof inspired chair or the likes could be safely used , check with an attorney to be sure .
dusty
Again, it is not that simple. Moser may have copyrights on some of their design elements or signature elements. So even if you don't use their name or anything, there are industrial design protections under intellectual property laws.
However, there is also caselaw in support of Right to Copy issues, so again, it can be pretty convoluted.
Copyright law is not only vague, it is changing. The artist owns the design of the object. Whether he or she actually registers the copyright with the government doesn't affect ownership. Registering copyrights just make it easier to prove a date when the object existed. (I own several registered copyrights.)
I think the latest revision of the copyright law protects the artist until they have been dead fifty years. So designs of Arts and Crafts furniture are probably copyright-free. However, to copy a living artist's work would be wrong. After all they worked long and hard to create the design, shouldn't they be entitled to own it exclusively (at least for a period of time)?
Just how much change to a design makes it a new design is a murky question. Just changing the proportions is probably not enough.
Here's an idea ... contact the artist and work out a business arrangement whereby you make chairs to his design and he gets a percentage of the selling price. In my experience artists love to make the first rendition and hate to make duplicates.
Edited 8/1/2005 4:14 pm ET by John Huber
It is never OK to copy someone else's original design unless you are given permission from that person. It is OK to be inspired by another's work. Direct copying is not the sincerest form of flattery......it is theft.
Jeff
Does this mean period furniture reproduction is wrong?
Moser has an entire published collection of measured shop drawings of mostly Windsor style furniture. These are pieces that he essentially copied, making some modifications, and then made drawings of his copies available to the public.
I operate under the premise that "nothing's new under the sun". Which is to say that everyone is influenced by someone, and that no one has a monopoly on any design element. One way to avoid the issue is to vary the design that you are being influenced by. If you aren't working from measured drawings, then it will follow that the piece will be considerably different any way. This attitude is offered mainly to balance the other more legalese sounding attitudes. Bill Lindau
Edited 8/1/2005 8:21 pm ET by Bill Lindau
It's not good to make exact copies of others design work without permission. But most work is always based on bits and pieces of ideas from others. Even with Thos. Moser, majority of his pieces are based on earlier work by others. He has a few truly original pieces but not many.
What happens when a Co. goes out of business do their designs die with them? I feel in the context of furniture, you would have to purchase or otherwise obtain a piece to explicitly copy it for it to be a Copyrite infringement. My reasoning for saying this, cause with 30 yrs. in the furniture business in and around retail, you see duplicates all the time with very minor exceptions.
Use your best judgement and design your own based on observations and never have to worry, even if it is similar.
The original question was directed toward copying a specific individual's work. I inferred from this that his intent was a direct ("which one is the real Moser?") copy. This, I contend is immoral, unethical, and illegal. Now if Thomas Moser has relinquished his copyrights then the legal aspect becomes moot. However, since Moser has popularized those works (the original posters future client probably saw the piece in a Moser catalog) so the copy is still a rip-off, plain and simple. One may argue that to make a copy for one's own self and not for sale is OK, but I think that is only splitting hairs and is a matter each individual is going to have to answer for him/herself. Allowing an established work to influence a design is perfectly acceptable. All one has to do is open any text on furiniture styles and similarities are readily apparent. I don't believe that "copying" a period piece is part of this discussion. For the most part, those works conformed to established standards that all makers shared. And, the specific maker of the piece being reproduced is long since dead.Jeff
Earl,
I'm pretty sure that when a copyright owner "passes away", whether the passing is a person or a business entity, the intellectual property of that entity passes into the public domain unless it is explicitly transferred into another entity. These days, I think most companies that own valuable IP such as designs, patents, copyrights etc. would liquidate that asset prior to dissolving the entity. I would think that the same would be true of personal estates where such matter is concerned as well. If a company just goes under without selling such assets, I believe that they become public domain and are fair game for all.
Disclaimer...I am not a lawyer and as others have pointed out this is an extremly convoluted and dynamic topic. Get legal advice before you get into a dicey situation unintentionally.
Regards,
Woodchuck
I am not an Intellectual Property attorney. But my thirty years of experience managing new product development in a Fortune 500 company well-known for innovation has given me a lot of practical knowledge in this area. Furthermore, I have been involved in several Intellectual Property disputes. I know how the law works when the chips are down.
I will not repeat my previous post on this thread, but if you haven't read it, you should.
An important part of Intellectual Property law is "fair use doctrine." This doctrine allows you to make a copy of part of a book or magazine for your own use. It is wrong to sell those same copies to all comers. The important distinction is make-for-your-own-use versus sell-for-financial-gain.
For reasons of developing your techniques, it is generally okay to make a copy, exact or approximate. Budding painters copy the masters all the time. Just don't sell it.
In furniture design, it would generally be "fair use" to copy and sell a piece that uses a detailfrom another piece of furniture that is not a "signature design." An example of a "signature design" is the arcuate stitching on the back pocket that identifies Levi's jeans. In furniture design, any detail that causes the observer to say "that's Thomas Moser" or any other designer, probably would be considered a signature design. Put the opposite way, copying and selling the generic, widely-practiced, designs is okay.
For your specific question, don't copy and sell Thomas Moser or the west coast designer or any other designer not dead fifty years. Use them as inspiration and develop your own design and sell that.
Edited 8/2/2005 10:07 am ET by John Huber
Perhaps I should start a new post - But I'm on the other end of this situation being discussed. read: somebody ripped off my design.
A few years ago I volunteered to design and lead the building of 20 school desks for a private school. We had spent a lot of time looking for an existing product that would meet our need, but came up empty. So I developed something that was really new - with a very distinguishing corner/post combination of joinery. It's the most brilliant thing I've ever done. (besides having a child, lol). In no way did I ever give the school rights to copy the design.
I recently found out that a another professional furnature maker (with a back door connection) was hired to construct a number of carbon copys of the design. Though he knew who the designer was, and the school did also, he did not seek permission or any business agreement.
Frankly, I'm mad as hell. In a petty way I'd like to go in there with my design branding iron and tatoo those units. In a not so petty way I'd like to send him an invoice for a liscensing fee for each unit.
Appreciate your thoughts,
WBJ
WannaBeJazzer ,
If you had no patent on this design , and since you designed it for this school that had them made , then shame on them , but in all reality unless they put your name on them , that's the way the chips fall .
sorry next time have them sign your design plans to have proof
good luck dusty
I can understand your anger. Did you get paid in any way for this work? If you did, the law that appears to apply in your case is called "work done for hire." If you were paid to do specific work, then that work (including the object itself and its design) belongs to the people that hired you. This principle applies to inventors who work for companies, authors who work for newspapers and magazines, and so on.
Of course it's too late now, but the way to protect yourself in these situations is to not work as an employee, but as an independent business. That is, take the position that you will design and manufacture and hope you can sell the results.
Even so, getting and protecting intellectual property rights is not something that amateurs should attempt. Just for openers, it costs about $10,000 to get a patent, and you have to jump through a bunch of tough legal hoops as well. Copyrights are cheaper, but generally only protect the EXACT item. This is why "knock-offs" are so common in the garment industry.
Chalk it up to "life's lessons learned." It's unlikely that you will get through life without suffering an injustice. This one is yours. May you not suffer another.
If you want to try to salvage something positive out of this, take a big gulp and swallow your pride. Go see the person you worked with at the school. Say something like, "I'm flattered that you liked my work and had lots more of them made. I would appreciate it if you would give me a letter of recommendation that I can use with other clients." You might voluntarily say that you are not claiming any rights to the design. It would be a good idea to take an example with you that says something like, "So-and-so's workmanship and design exceeded our expectations so much that we have incorporated them extensively."
Edited 9/6/2005 11:12 am ET by JohnH
Edited 9/6/2005 11:27 am ET by JohnH
Edited 9/6/2005 11:50 am ET by JohnH
Thanks John, appreciate your assessment to chalk it up to a learning opportunity. Just fyi, I was not paid to do this project. As a former pro furniture maker (I only woodwork for my own satisfaction now) I volunteered to help a subgroup of the school, my child's class, to "build desks". I spent more than 40 hours on design and research, did the design, produced the work in my shop with help from 3 other class parents. I have had thoughts of returning to this line of work (someone shoot me) and marketing this particular design.
Anyway, I would like to hear more on the possibility of copyrighting a signature element of the design. Is the process just that you submit some drawings to the copyright office, pay your fee, and someone evaluates whether your design qualifies under law? If so, and if copyright would protect proportional changes to the design, I would be happy.
However, a patent application as you noted, would not be affordable until I get to the scale of, say, Green Designs, as I think Sarge shared that website. (patent on sliding dovetails?? I tried to see the specifics on what was registered under his patent but the link to the web site they provided was not working...)
The personal dark side of this is that the school, of which my child has attended for 6 years and my family's been active in, has the goal of sustaining a healthy community - they certainly instigated the antithesis in this case.
From your description of the events, it appears that the design belongs to you and you alone. Most likely, copyright protection is the best approach for you. It will protect your design from simply proportional changes. Go to your local public library and get a book on how to file a copyright. I personally have several copyrights and it is a painless process.
Satisfying as it may be to have copyrighted your design, on the practical side it is only a license to sue a rip-off. Lawyers are expensive! And the first thing the opposing attorney (and your attorney) is going to ask is how much money you can prove that you lost because of this copying. If it is small, both of them will lose interest.
My experience with private schools is that they emphasize ethical behavior. Do you think that it is possible this is an accidental mistake? Could the furniture manufacturer have said to the school, "I can make those for $x." And they said, "Fine." And nobody thought they were doing anything wrong. In my experience, people who are not creative themselves have little appreciation for the inspiration and effort of an original design. That's just my suggestion, I could be wrong.
Looking to the future (the past is dead and cannot be changed), maybe you should consider signing every piece that you make. You don't have to have a government registered copyright to put the word "copyright" or the symbol (c) on your work. It is still protected, but you have to keep records to prove the date it was created.
One thing you could do to get your bloodpressure down is to send a registered letter to the school and to the manufacturer informing them that you consider the design original to yourself and tell them not to make any more desks using your design.
Edited 9/6/2005 3:05 pm ET by JohnH
John, your powers of observation are scary.
It's possible that, as a whole, the "Capitol Projects committee" didn't grasp a rip-off happening. However, the furniture maker that did the rip-off is a member of that committee - haha. And as I understand it, he told the committee that he had my permission. nice, eh? Oh, and his wife is a new teacher on staff.
Well, that's the seedy little bits. I'm going to brand my work from now on and go through the copyright process - if for nothing more than the exercise that will hopefully exorcise my anger.
I really appreciate your effort.
WBJ
If the facts are indeed true as you have presented them here, I would not hesitate to confront the craftsman who both copied your design and lied about having permission. I think that a well worded letter would be the method to use. A telephone call is too informal and face to face could result in some hasty and/or nasty words. Carefully craft a letter in which you demand an explanation, an apology, some monetary compensation, and a promise to not do it again. Or simply call him an SOB and be done with it. He is a thief and ought to be called on it. I'd also write to the school folks and inform them that he had no permission, you own the design, and they can jolly well deal with you for future desks. If you don't they will probably have more made in the future and they may even give your design to colleagues in other schools.
Frankly, I'm mad as hell. That is why they have Lawyers or Barristers?
If its in the public domain they can do whatever they want with it. Protect your designs or get over it is all I can tell you. Imitation is also the highest form of flattery..... aloha, mike
That's just not correct Mike. Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean anyone can copy it. Large companies go to endless lengths to protect their intellectual property and patents. Some products have several patents protecting them, along with other protections which might include registered design status and artistic copyright.
I imagine (without checking the details) that large multi national pharmaceutical companies manufacturing drugs to treat aids are using these protections to fight producers in so called third world countries that are copying their drugs.
True, we are talking on a different scale to the levels in this example, but every artist, designer, author, photographer, etc., has access to copyright protection just by producing the work of art and showing it. It can be difficult to prove ownwership of copyright, and sometimes it's easy.
You're correct to say that if you want to protect your intellectual property then steps should be taken to protect it, but it's a fallacy to say that anything in the public domain is 'fair game' to reproduce. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Slainte, I didnt say it was fair but it is copyable unless protections are put in place and even then you have to pursue the violators. I agree its not right. This issue is finally getting the treatment it deserves in the market place but dont think you can enforce your right without spending a lot of money. People like us doing one-offs are always preyed upon by the mass marketers looking for a new look but unwilling to pay for the development. aloha, mike
All that's true Mike, and as you say deep pockets often win over legal ownership of intellectual rights. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
The phrase "public domain" has a specific and important meaning in this context. Please read my earlier posts for my credentials on this subject.
"Public domain" does NOT mean merely being viewed or viewable by the public. It means that any ownership rights do not exist, whether or not they existed in a previous time.
That being said, if a designer (or author or inventor) does not act promptly to protect his or her ownership, that ownership can be weakened upon later claim to ownership. Specific to this particular issue, if WBJ does not write the letters suggested by several participants, he may be a victim of copying by the same party or by any others forever.
How much does a piece that has been designed and built, from visual observance, have to resemble the original to be considered a Copy???For instance, if someone builds a piece, that's essentially a box with some design on the doors, and you use their dimensions and proportions, but use different styled doors. Is that a copy?? To me the test would be if someone mistakes what you did for another"s original. If Sam Maloof had Patented his joints, no one could make anything with a similar type of joint, even if it wasn't a chair. I think the idea is to have a piece that would be difficult at best to manufacture, so no cheap knockoffs, and then don't worry about it. I don't believe Sam has been hurt by any of the many similar chairs to his available at a fraction of his selling price.To the original poster, I understand how you feel like you've been slapped in the face. You worked your tail off designed and built something you feel is unique and special. This is one of those things, are you better off to pursue action against one or both the parties or forget it and get on with your life? Unless, your talking about something worth a great deal of money, I would send them a letter voicing my disappointment, and forget about it. Never do anything for them again. Furniture...the Art of a FurnitureMaker
Interestingly, Maloof lived and worked in a time before this type of knockoff issue was prevalent and I dont believe we can use difficulty of mfg as a screen to save us any more. Take Le Chair as an example, Hans Wegner patented his design and method and created an industry around its production. It was knocked off to the extent that it is the predominate chair style in commercial production right down to the plastic injection molded green and white lawn chiars sold at the big box. Is this flattery? Is Hans moved at the acceptance of his vision? How many of us have knocked off Maloof? Some of these issues are like words that become common in our language for a short while then disappear (cool, far out, 24/7, moving forward, to name a few). Are we not all guilty to a certain extent? Be this as it may, YOU have to make the effort to protect your designs and enforce the issue. aloha, mike
Are you talking about "The Chair" produced in 1949. Done in wood and with a cane seat. Are you comparing modern day plastic chairs to his, as a copyright infringement issue. I see no resemblance between these two items. I see a need to copyright only, and that is of little use, unless you're willing to spend lots of money with a Lawyer to protect that right every time someone seemingly violates your copyright. And when involving Lawyers, the Deepest pockets almost always win.Unless your designing for manufacturing to the masses, copyrights and patents are not your best protection against people copying your work. Do you think people go to Sam Maloof, just because they want a rocker, no, they want one made by Sam. It's his name, which has become a brand and or a trademark (now that can protect you). Which people seek!! I use Sam Maloof because he was approached with an offer to manufacture his chair, which I understand he turned down. Yet he freely allows his chair to be copied, even teaches how to make them. I believe he does this because he knows that the others will only be a Maloof style chair not a Sam Maloof original with his signature.Everyone has to decide what is best for them, as for me. I would only persue someone if they copied my work and tried to sell it as one of my pieces. Thats why all of my pieces have my sig and date on them. Furniture...the Art of a FurnitureMaker
I am talking about Le Chair (The Chair) designed by Hans Wegner and updated through a few incarnations. PP Mobler became his manufacturing arm (still today) in Copenhagen. The chair was copied in bent plywood with metal legs and widely seen around the world without ever seeing Denmark or Mr Wegner. It then became a fiberglass seat and back with metal legs. My source says these makes were all unauthorized. I am not championing this behavior by any means but commenting on an established, institutionalized, industrial piracy. Wegner and PP Mobler are well known in the design world and registered their award winning designs. Now China is on line with manufacturing for the masses, do you think a copyrighted design will prevail? I understand a sense of loss and betrayal at the theft of an intellectual process made real in craft I just dont see how it stops with current regulation, law notwithstanding. Any billionaires out there willing to take this issue on? aloha, mike
You wrote, " Imitation is also the highest form of flattery....."I disagree, in the context of this discussion, it's stealing. No amount of spin will make it otherwise.
Even if this was a work done for hire, the author/creator retains the copyright unless it was specifically transfered to the school (and obviously it wasn't). However, having the copyright for the design won't protect you too much, and the cost in lawyers to recover anything will exceed whatever it is that you recover--if anything.
I would go ahead and send a letter to the other woodworker requesting a licensing fee. The fee must be reasonable and in line with other design licensing fees, or else you'll probably never see a cent.
I would also send a letter to the school asking them not to copy the design anymore, but do it nicely and maybe they'll use you in the future for other work. Perhaps you can get them to offset your "loss" by sole sourcing a contract to you.
Copyright and the right to use a copy is an often misunderstood bit of law. Your design might be better protected if you could get a patent on it. But consider the costs and potential benefits--they usually don't match. Woodworking designs have been shared without consent through the ages; rely on having a good reputation to get work, not unique designs. Think of how many people have copied Sam Maloof's rocker design, but how few Sam Maloofs are out there.Recommending the use of "Hide Signatures" option under "My Preferences" since 2005
I know how you feel. Something similar happened to me a few years ago. It happened while I was making a delivery to a dealer. While I was attempting to unload a cherry cabinet from my truck a man who happened to be in the area helped me carry it into the store. While in the store we struck up a conversation and I found out he was the new owner of a local cherry repoduction furniture shop in my area. The original owner had sold their business to him and he was to carry on in their name. Myself and the original owner were never really in competition with each other, I done my own "little" line of furniture and he had his line. They actually complimented each other and I was able to "squeeze" into the cherry furniture business and into their area of the market without offending/affecting their well established business. Little did I know all of this was about to change. It turns out the fellow who helped me carry in my cabinet had a digital camera with him and within a month or two I was seeing my cabinets (although changed a little in the dimensions) in some of the stores I was doing business. I found out they were bought by the dealers at a lower price than what I was selling them for. He even had the audacity to give them the same name I used on them and went as far as making up flyers with those names to display on top of the cabinets. Of course the flyers used thier established/recognizable name on it, calling them the "original" , etc. I was devastated!!!
There is a silver lining in this story. Over the next few years that business has been sold twice more I think. They had to raise their prices several times so I actually was able to "win back" these businesses with my cabinets because I was considerably lower priced than theirs, even after tagging on a 20-25% mark up over what I used to charge them. In the end I got a much needed pay raise, and last I heard I think they're either out of business or about to go out...
Robert
p.s. Just remember Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, I will repay!
There's a lot of misunderstanding about intellectual property, and sometimes it's worth going to the horse's mouth. True, the link below is to a UK government based website discussing copyright and other legislation, but it has validity and there is much useful information available.
I have in the past chased down and stopped people using my copyrighted material for their financial gain. A snotty letter or two in my case did the trick. On the other hand I've given people permission to use my copyrighted designs to build reproductions of my work, as long as it's only for their personal use, or as a gift. Slainte.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm
Richard Jones Furniture
This is a pretty interesting thread that has a lot of good points. Quite surprisingly, I have difficulty disagreeing with anything stated so far. I think you have hit on a very salient point that is often overlooked. Regardless of whether you have a patent, copyright or whatever, if you are unable or unwilling to enforce it, it means absolutely nothing. Sometimes, this takes a whole lot of moola and in the world of woodworking is seldom worth the effort.
Steve
My 2 cents.
I'm not an Intellectual Property Attorney, but I work closely with them, have read thousands of patent submissions in the course of my job, and think I have some familiarity with IPR legal issues.
First, keep in mind that, as a default condition, anyone may copy anything, anytime they want, without obtaining permission of a prior producer. The fundamental concept is that the law should maximize benefit to consumers; by allowing multiple competitive producers in a market, consumers will be afforded the maximum choice, and lowest prices.
You see this played out in the real world all the time. Remember when the Razor company introduced those cool little scooters a few years ago? They were so popular, it seemed that dozens of imitators popped up almost immediately. At one time, some people even called this "The Sony Syndrome", referring to how Sony would spend the R&D and introduce innovative gadgets like the Walkman, and then the concept would quickly be copied by other companies.
So as a general condition, if you introduce some interesting new product, your competitors do not need your permission to copy it. Capitalism is supposed to be a fierce, competitive, dog-eat-dog marketplace. That's the way the government wants it.
There are a small number of very important exceptions to this general rule. The law recognizes that, if free copying was always permitted, it would in some cases remove the incentive to produce a good. If goods aren't produced, that obviously doesn't benefit consumers. Therefore, producers or other IPR owners under some circumstances are afforded limited protections for their products. These fall into 4 categories:
* Trade Secrets - Don't tell anyone else about an idea, and no one else can use it. This seems so obvious that it wouldn't even require recognition in the law, but it is recognized to allow some protection, in some very limited circumstances, even if the idea is disclosed (as in the case of a disgruntled former employee who lets the cat out of the bag).
* Trademarks - Your signature can't be copied, nor similar "signature"-type things like logos and slogans.
* Patents - You can patent a qualifying invention. Once issued, a patent granted exclusive rights to the invention for a period of 20 years from when the patent application was filed. In exchange for this exclusive right, the patent publicly discloses how the invention works, so that other inventors can build on the work of the inventor.
You can also obtain a Design Patent, covering the look or appearance of a product. An example of these is one well-known vendor of audio/video cables in the consumer electronics market. In their advertising, they proudly trumpet their numerous patents. If you do a search on the USPTO database, you find that most of these patents are design patents, and cover things like the look of the cover on the RCA connector on the end of the cable.
* Copyright - IMHO, this is this most confusing, contentious, and controversial of the four categories of IP Rights. You hear about cases involving copyright making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court quite frequently, and Congress is tweaking with copyright law all the time. Also, I think the fact that copyright is acquired without any goverment intervention or registration further tends to confuse things in the minds of many.
As I understand it, copyright protects an expression of an idea (not, notably, the idea itself). It applies to expressions of creative or artistic ideas. It applies to plans of even utilitarian objects, but not to the function of such an object. A classic example of this is software, and the "clean room" techniques used to work around software patents. For example, when IBM produces the first PC, they wrote the BIOS software code, and owned the copyright to it. But any vendor wishing to build a PC-clone computer needed a BIOS that functioned exactly them same way. So, the IBM code was given to a team that analyzed the code and wrote a detailed description of how it worked, and handed this to another team of people who had never looked at the IBM code. This second team wrote new BIOS code based on this description, that was not subject to the IBM copyright. Thus the PC industry was born.
Similary, plans for a piece of furniture usually have a copyright. However, someone could examine a piece of furniture built from these plans, draw up a new set of plans, and this new set would not be subject to the copyright of the original set of plans.
U.S copright law was changed several years ago to align it with an international treaty on Copyright, known as the Bern Convention. Now, an expression of an idea acquires a copyright the moment it is "affixed to a tangible medium", i.e., almost everything copyrightable acquires a copyright as soon as it is created. A (C) mark is not required, nor is registration with the government. Many producers still include the (C) mark, however, as it makes it harder for an infringer to argue unintentional infringement when one is present.
I think alot of people think that you need permission to copy products, because they often hear about the Feds seizing knock-off copies of designer goods. But these are usually cases of trademark infringment: the knock-off producers get into trouble when they put imitations of designer logos in the products. If they didn't, they'd usually be OK. Here's another Sony example: you see Chinese Walkman's with the brand "Coby", which is intended to sound alot like "Sony', and even uses the same typefont. If they actually used the Sony logo, they'd be in trouble.
OK, back OT: can you copyright a piece of furniture? No (usually). In the case of the furniture sold to the school, no copyright will prevent the school from asking others to produce furniture just like the originals. That benefits the "consumer" of the school, remember?
If the joinery included an invention that was original and not obvious, then a patent could be obtained to protect its use. Also, a design patent could be obtained on the design itself, that would prevent others from copying it. I think a design patent would be the most appropriate protection in this case. Design patents are cheaper and easier to get than utility patents, but they still take a while.
I guess another thing that could have been done is to write a clause into a contract with the school that they would not allow others to examine the furniture for the purpose of constructing imitations, but I guess that's water under the bridge.
One thing that muddies the waters is the concept of "artistic" furniture. Furniture are usually considered utilitarian objects, and thus not subject to copyright. However, sculpture is an "artistic expression", and is copyrightable. Where does the line between "sculpture" and "furniture" go? Do one-off pieces
of artistic furniture, displayed in a gallery, qualify? It gets ambiguous, but in general, anything considered "utilitarian" is not copyrightable.
BTW, an "interesting" aspect of copyright law is that, especially since it is so easy to get, rich an powerful groups are always going to Congress an getting copyright protectiion extended further to benefit themselves. For example, a copyright used to expire 50 years after the authors death. Hollywood keeps getting Congress to extend this further. The hi-tech industry got Congress to extend copyright to the design of the masks used to built silicon chips (an "(M)" symbol is used instead of the "(C)"). And while one would think that house plans could be copyrighted but the house itself could not, architects were able to talk Congress into extending copyright to the house itself.
Thank you, Barry.Lee
Another Thanks. I believe you've answered most any question anyone could have regarding copyrights and Patents as they pertain to Furniture. Furniture...the Art of a FurnitureMaker
Barry
Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time.
Alison
Thank you Barry, for the extensive notes.
I had felt I was on pretty firm ground, despite grey areas, but now that I've looked at the copyright.gov site, it looks plain to me like there is no copyright for furniture design. And a Design Patent doesn't seem worthwhile.
count my faith in the goodness of humanity as trounced, once again. lol.
Interesting note you made regarding the exceptions congress has made, and also that in the copyright.gov link that describes what is covered under Visual Arts Works, that Jewelry Design is covered. If jewelry and, as you noted, a house itself is covered, it seems inconsistent that furniture design is not...
Thanks to everyone who responded for helping me feel supported in my argument with the school. That does help one get through the day.
best regards, mike - WBJ
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled