Recently, I was looking through a catologue and saw a bookshelf that I liked. The fine people at Design Within Reach wanted around $1,200 for said bookshelf and on imediate inspection figured the material cost to be around $75 – 100. In my spare time over the next few weeks built and finished the shelf. After hanging the shelf at home a couple people expressed interest in having me make them one. This got me thinking what is the liability in copying a piece of furnitue? For example there are a lot of Maloof inspired rockers out there, and that’s acceptable. Tons of books with Greene & Greene furniture plans, Morris chair plans, Nakishima etc.. So my question is what’s fair game? I know that on a small scale, like just a few pieces there should be nothing to worry about. But, I’m currently putting a web site together and I would like to add photos of this bookshelf to my portfolio. I don’t want to run in to any problems down the road. I would have no problem selling this shelf for half what DWR sells the shelf for.
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Rudder; I notice that you work in construction. Do you belong to a union
ron
yes and no
For about 3 1/2 years I was affiliated with a local film union. Currently I'm not an active union member. I mostly do small cabinet jobs, trim out houses and furniture refinishing now.
can-o-worms
Hey this is a common topic around here from time-to-time. As I understand things, copywright is for printed materials i.e. plans/photos printed materials etc. copying them and distribution without permission is infringing and potentiall actionalble. Taking that picture out of a catalog and putting it in brochures and deriving profits could cause issues. If you make your own version of the thing take pictures then thats entirely different. I think what you are speaking of being concerned about would be a design patent and a topic unto itself. The most famous I've heard of if the morris chair and those folks go after people. I think you will be fine just make a few and if you make some bucks so be it. Change the design just slightly and if you make 10k of em you should be fine (I'm just kidding). I remember I saw plans for something I liked and there was a stated restriction that you could only make one copy! without buying the plans again. I thought it was funny.
Copyright?
This has been covered a few times here on the forum, I believe there was even an article in FWW (Or maybe Pop...) in the last year or two. In the end the argument is fairly polarizing, and the conclusions are fairly grey.
Greene and Greene has become a style more so than particular items (I doubt they built entertainment centers for flat panel tv's...). Further the guys/companies have been gone a long time... As for using Maloof or Nakashima as inspiration that's a whole different bag. Designing something that is inspired by maloof (or anyone else) is not copying (Unless of course you just copy it, and add the tag 'inspired by'). Finally many of these plans are for personal use, they're not intended for you to go into production with...
Are you likely to be sued... no. Could they, probably. In the end this is more of an ethical question. In the case of selling you've got to ask yourself: Is it okay to profit off someone else's work? If you're making copies that's all your doing.
Finaly if you plan on selling these things do you really want to be known as 'The guy who builds Design within Reach furniture at half price'?
Don't get the wrong impression
Thanks for all of the replies.
I don't post or comment often, but I can easily send an hour or two in these forums. Hey... it's better than watching mind numbing TV. Right?
Bones, I think your right that design patent is more of what I was getting at.
I don't want to go into production as the guy who builds DWR at half price. Nor would I like being a wood worker who only copies other peoples designs. But building a copy or two occasionally does not bother me. Beause it buys new tools and a really nice piece of FAS 8/4 x 12" x 12'-3" cherry board that I'm building a original coffee table with!!! Also I'm able to teach myself new techniques or open my mind to a different approach to building furniture. Last the enjoyment of something new to work on.
I will leave y'all with two of my favorite quotes
A man is what he thinks all day long.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult.
--Hippocrates
Most comments have been helpful
I appreciate all the Info regarding my actual query.
For the rest of the more highly opinionated views... well... thanks!!! to your moral highness.
Dillon
Copyright
It's all fair game. Most things just aren't that unique. We all base what we make on what we have seen others make. And what's the worse that can happen. You could get a cease and desist letter and be asked to remove a picture from your web-site. Really, how many do you plan to make?
My brother's brother in-law, a graphic designer had a copyright on the coyote howling with a bandana round his neck. Despite the copyright people saw the image and made their own version of it. My brother, who is a lawyer said, it's one thing to have a copyright and another thing to enforce it. The people who copy it just don't generally have enough net worth to go after. It even cost a bit of money to track them down and first send out the cease and desist letters.
In the end we all hope you are actually making a better product than what is shown in the stores. It is somewhat humbling to take a retail price and work it backwards to what the person who made it is getting. $100 in materials to $1,200 in the store sounds not out of line.
Peter
Once a unique item is made and sold it becomes copyrighted. It is a form of stealing when you copy someone's design and try to sell it. Try to make something original. Whoever designed the original item has a lot of time invested. It is easy to copy. Don't take the easy route.
MeR Dan, Shurely shome
MR Dan,
Shurely shome mishtake and you meant to write:
Once an item is made it is very unlikely to be unique as it incorporates hundreds of design elements commonly available in a culture's design-language. It is a form of stealing when a person tries to annex a culture's design language and make it his own via copyright laws, which are another dreadful con-trick invented by avaricious property-speculators and enclosure-thiefs to steal the commomweal.
One may try to make something original but unless one is from outer space and lacking in all human understanding, this is not really possible; "novel" is about the best we can achieve. Whoever designed an item has spent a tiny amount of time inventing any novel aspect compared to the thousands of hours spent by innumerable people throughout the historical evolution of current design motifs and ideas.
It is easy to copy rather than pretending to invent something "new" which is why human society is based wholly on copying each others' succesful behaviours, including spoken and written languages, moral and ethical codes of behaviour and....design motifs.
Take the easy route or otherwise become a mumbling anchorite in a cave somewhere all alone and probably bereft of all ideas, not just those for configuring and decorating furniture.
Of course, it is hard to see this viewpoint if one has spent too many hours reading Ayn Rand or becoming enamoured of the economic klaptraps proposed by the likes of Milton Freedman and other looters&plunderers.
Lataxe, a terrible fabianista pinko commie thang, in all liklihood.
Lataxe, Nicely put.
Thank you. And so "early Christianity" of you to associate with that "pinko commie thang." What? You mean Uncle Karl stole ideas from the Bible. You mean he lifted words like distributing the wealth "each to his need" straight from the word of God? Looks that way.
You've hit upon the silliness of asserting we are special, when we're not. Too bad Lindsey Lohan hasn't realized that lesson.
For those reading the next post, I smile when I see copyrights applied to architecture. Architects borrow, steal and copy parts of each others designs all the time. Copyrights have more to do with providing compensation to cover increased risk if a building is stamped out on another site, than protecting some special design concept. Applying this to furniture, I think it a reach to say someone would sue the original designer of the shelf unit because the guy they bought it from couldn't figure out how to make it hold together.
In the end we all copy each other's ideas and actions. It's playful. It's wonderful we still can do it.
Peter
From the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ:
What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what
Another informative document: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
The latter stating:
Copyrightable works include the following categories:
1 literary works
2 musical works, including any accompanying words
3 dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4 pantomimes and choreographic works
5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6 motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7 sound recordings
8 architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example,
computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered
as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may
be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”
My guess would be that a bookshelf would not be considered either sculpture, or architecture. So, while it might be considered rude or even unprofessional to "copy" a bookshelf design, how could it be a copyright violation, since the work doesn't qualify for copyright protection?
Copy right etc.
I think it goes like this. You can make a measured drawing of a historic piece of furniture, and copyright the drawing. This precludes someone from selling duplicates of the published drawing. You can make the piece in the drawing and someone can duplicate the piece in the drawing over and over without issues.
There are article and design patents which can cover very specific items for very specific uses. As an example, there are many famous chairs which have design patents and cannot be reproduced and sold legally.
On the other hand, if you have a head full of ideas, why would you want to exactly duplicate anything?
Jerry
That would be consistent with my understaqnding, as well. The act of making the measured drawing is an act of "authorship" which would be covered by the law.
Furniture designers can and have asserted copyright protection for design elements expressed in furniture. Cases have been taken to court, and settlements paid over the issue. Now these are in commercial contexts, but having dollar amounts significant enough to pay lawyers doesn't affect the essence of the matter. Here, as an example, is a notice of the settlement of a suit based on copyright infringement against furniture makers.
http://www.habershamhome.com/files/2009/11/Habersham-Settles-Copyright-Lawsuit-111209-Release.pdf
For that matter, you can find a fair chunk of information on the issue by googling furniture copyright As usual, some is worthless. It's clear that design, not the utilitarian aspect, of furniture is copyright protected.
As a practical matter, is a custom furnture maker making a few knockoff's for clients going to be sued--not likely. Will an individual making furniture for his or her home be sued--again even less likely.
Exactly how close...
Rudder,
You saw a picture on a web site, probably had some general dimensions on it. How do you now you even built it so it is the same? You are probably off the mark to begin with. Your choice of material will be different, your finish, your construction method etc etc etc.
As they saying goes there only 7 original scripts in Hollywood, the rest are remakes.....
I would use it as a starting point, but what can you do that makes it special to you and your clients?
AZMO.... a known modifier of the universe.
How much of a copy is a copy?
I think this is the grey area. I often look for 'inspiration' in catalogues, books, stores... But I make things for my space.
MY wife loved a storage bench from Ikea of all places... It was pine, knock down fasteners, etc etc etc. I took the general idea, made it a little longer, from Cherry, mortise and tennon... In the end did I copy?
The OP wasn't looking for inspiration. He said he wants to make a copy and not for a learning experience, but for economic reasons. There's no grey area. He's trying to advance himself on the back of the manufacturer/retailer he mentioned.
hi sap,
do you never go to the works of others to gain some profit?
eef
Grey Areas?
Sapwood
I was replying to AZMO not the OP.
It is a fine line. In my case I 'copied' the piece but changed it to fit into my space. It looks significantly different than the original... but that wasn't my intention.
I do disagree with the OP; copying someone elses work for profit just isn't cool.
But lets look at it a different way: What if someone is looking to get one made to fit his space. For arguments sake lets say the DWR is too big, or doesn't work with the colors. Is it then okay to make a 'copy'?
Truly Gray....
Sapwood,
I don't think looking at a lot of pieces and finding your own solution is an issue here. The OP has now gone on record in a public forum that he is knowingly and willfully making copies... that is an issue.
I use a lot of ideas in my landscape business, but each home/site is unique and it is how I marry the elements that makes whole. Furniture fits the same mold to me. My end tables, borrowed ideas and thougths from many, but was nay a copy of anything directly. To me if the DWR is not perfect, and you need one that is, then find your solution.
John White is correct, if something really has intellectual property, and is truly unique, then copying it verbatum is a theft. No doubt in my mind about it. So, my original post is, did you take an idea from it, improve upon it for your needs and end up with something unique? That is my litmus test.
AZMO
The shelf copy would be infringement.
Design Within Reach started out maybe ten years ago selling furniture designed and manufactured by top studios. When the company started to run into financial troubles they decided to sell knockoffs that looked very much like the originals but could be sold for considerably less. They also gave the knockoffs very similar names to the original pieces, if the original was called the "Anthony Chair" the knockoff was called the "Antonio Chair". Apparently in one case they continued to use a photo of the original designer piece in their catalog even though they were shipping the knockoff.
Not too surprisingly, two of the infringed on companies took them to court and numerous other companies refused to deal with them. They apparently also lost some high end clients and interior designers who felt that they had been duped. A couple of years ago DWR was close to bankruptcy and bailed out by an investment company that installed all new management. As a result of the lawsuits, which were settled out of court, and the need to get the companies reputation rebuilt, they now have a tag on their website that they "are the source for fully licensed classics".
So in short, DWR pays for the right to use the designs they sell and they might not look kindly on someone making a knock off, which brings up the question of what is allowable and what isn't.
Within copyright and design, the look of a piece of furniture falls into the category of "trade dress". A knockoff is considered to be an illegal use when it is substantially the same in look and is so similar that it would confuse a consumer as to whether it was an original or a copy. Of course the terms "substantially the same" and whether a consumer might be confused are open to interpretation, which keeps lawyers and courts employed.
Personally I feel that copying and selling a unique and innovative design that was created by another designer who is still alive and in a position to profit from selling or licensing the use of his or her design, is theft.
If you ask a "morals"
If you ask a "morals" question you shouldn't be surprised to get "moralistic" answers.
Ron
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled