If one was lucky enough and they were around for the beginning of what became know as the Studio Crafts Movement ,essentially post WWII ,You would be quite old now but you would have lived through a very creative period with a lot of leeway for original design. If your a woodworker and primarily a furniture builder your limited in a lot of ways. We’re limited by graphic standards. Tables for different purposes are more or less a specific height, chairs are designed to dimensions that human beings can sit on,( though I did do some work for an NFL player once) a bed frame is for specific size mattresses etc. Those woodworkers in the 50s and 60s, Tage and Krenov , Nakashima ,Maloof, Art Carpenter, and all them Danes etc.had almost no limit on being able to experiment with original design.
I look around now and sometimes see really exceptional workmanship but I see very little, I mean almost none, truly original work. That pretty much goes, in my opinion, to some of the most revered current builders.. A person can present a very clever piece but if you’ve studied the former generation of craftsman you can almost always see where the idea came from and who they copied the idea from. The reason for that is simple, almost everything that could be tried was tried by that generation of builders. So what you see now simply put are variations,or mix and match pieces of ideas that were done by others. It’s almost impossible not to copy.
Every piece of wood is different so there are no exact copies and if I want to reproduce a Maloof rocker there is nothing wrong with that, morally or legally, as long as I don’t try and pass it off as a” Maloof.” I use that as an example because I have never made a Maloof rocker and have no plans to. Original ideas are very rare.
I do quite a bit of bent lamination. As far as technique goes I ” stole” that from Jere Osgood . Recently in FW there was an article about a shou ishi ban stool and I’m looking at it right now in the corner of my living room- almost an exact “copy”, except I did it a few years ago. That wasn’t stolen from me. It’s in my house,it’s never been shown. Someone had the same idea as me!
Years ago ,about 1970, a friend was going on a trip to pick up a set of chairs that he had ordered and invited me to come along and we went to Nakashimas work shop. I met him, got the tour and was ,of course, completely blown away…so I did my live edge stint 50 years ago. Didn’t know to call it “live edge” then. I think I referred to it as flitch sawn. So that style, very popular these days, is all Nakashima. Did I “steal” from him? I definitely emulated him! They weren’t actual copies but they were based on his work that I saw. I sold some of those pieces. Do the thousands of woodworkers now making live edge slab coffee tables even know where the idea came from? Are they stealing?
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
Probably 25 or 30 years ago, there was a style coming out of California that was all curved inside corners, heavily rounded edges, etc. Very definitely modern and West Coast. I walked into an exhibit of folding privacy screens at a gallery in the Smithsonian, and the screen that divided the room with the screen show from the main permanent area looked like it had just been made in Califoria. It was made about 1905 in Spain by the great architect, Antoni Gaudi. One could surmise that someone from California saw his work in Barcelona or in a book, emulated the basic idea, and it caught on (i.e., was copied) by others around him. But it could have been independently created.
One of the things that has helped me tremendously in designing the pieces I make is all the things I've looked at before that. I recently made a low side table where one of the main visual influences was the skyscrapers of the '20s and '30s. The customer requested that the upper shelf be set back a bit from the lower shelf. I'll put up pictures.
From time to time there does come the opportunity for originality - for instance the ready availability of resin led to the river table, and CNC is allowing many inlaid designs that if not impossible without are impracticable to execute.
New materials will arise and be combined into new forms from time to time, but almost all work is, as you say, incremental.
What fascinates me is how fashion changes - the awful mid-century modern 'style' is currently fashionable again. Items people were happy to give away for free in the 70s now fetching thousands. It won't last - a box on legs is just a box on legs after all, but for now, like ABBA, once again briefly fashionable.
I hesitate to start a disagreement, but since you took such a hard stance...
Not everyone would agree with you that MCM is "awful"...that's why it has remained popular since it's inception and why there are very upscale stores selling such furniture in every major city in the US. Many of them have been in business for decades - hardly "briefly fashionable".
Some cultures, societies polities or other organised human groups have a highly developed sense of personal property and ownership. Other cultures, societies, polities and organised human groups have no such traditions of highly monopolistic ownership. And there are societies etcetera that are somewhere in between.
The former kind of cultures, such as many now termed Western, have developed an extreme form of individual ownership with associated property rights that are similarly extreme, as are the laws that establish and enforce them. Every hour of every day sees attempts, by those well-off enough to afford the lobbying, annex even more exclusively to themselves, with a mad scramble to patent or copyright every little notion, including commonly-used words or names!
Things that are currently impossible to make are imagined and patented so that if someone does eventually invent one, some patent lawyer will immediately claim the sole rights of ownership despite having done nothing but vaguely imagine the idea 20 years before.
And those who own lots have a huge weight of law that enables them to take ever more, often on the basis of owning capital but rarely on the basis of ever producing new value themselves. They have shares or hedge funds, which suck the produced real value (goods and services) out of those who produce whilst the fund owners sit on their fat ...... doing nowt.
In the global village, those with different attitudes to ownership have nevertheless taken advantage of this Western model. They'll copy any and everything then make a better one for less. But they'll also buy up property in The West and use the West's own extreme laws of ownership to subvert the place they're busy buying up.
*************
Many will not agree the above. But a study of the history of property (as an idea and then a series of laws and institutions to do away with common land, shared ownership rights and other "socialism") is a very revealing study. Consider the particular history of the various Acts of Enclosure along with the history of events such as the Scottish Highland Clearances. They tend to support the notion that "Property is theft". The theft is from most in a land to the benefit of a the very few members of a current aristocracy. The current aristocracy are big business and those who do a Wall Street.
*************
Myself, I obey the law concerning property as I'm a law abiding citizen who puts the rule of law above my personal beliefs, since the alternative is a vicious anarchy. However, I find no moral force in the sort of extreme property laws that give a monopoly to people who patent or copyright ideas. I see ideas, including furniture designs, as an exudation of a common culture, with a thousand contributors, mostly now dead, not as the products of some current self-appointed (or PR-appointed) "design-genius" waving a patent or a copyright award.
Lataxe
ABBA is fashionable again? Oh Lord!
That California soft edge style that was referred to was Art Carpenter primarily or rather I'd venture to say, originally. I spent some time around Art, his workshop is(was) a walk from my house. I guess still is, his son has taken over the shop. The last time I saw Art was maybe a year or so before he died. I picked him up hitchhiking! 80 whatever years old hitching a ride on the side of the road....you know,, car trouble! Sam Maloofs work was similar in a lot of ways but he did that hard edge / soft edge thing. Maloof claimed that his style originated as a mistake.. His son screwed up a commission and he fixed it with an angle grinder.. It's interesting that someone would refer to their work as "California style" when during that same period there was Krenov and Gary Bennett who's work had no similarity to those guys and they were all pretty equally influential. The hippies bought into Art's stuff. Square edges were hard to see on acid! So, OK, California style.
I think back in the mid century we referred to that style as Danish modern. I always called it MOH-derrrrn. I like some of that style,simplicity of design ,clean lines, new materials, It was a social democratic political design movement. Furniture for the masses for the houses that they imagined everyone would be living in and it turned out that a lot of people did.. Eames', Jacobsen and that crowd were great designers and a proper mid century piece isn't wood at all unless it's plywood but better in plastic and mass produced. But like anything else a great deal of bad furniture was also produced by people who didn't have a clue or care to know what that design movement was about . Its also, as a style, pretty much the opposite of what was and is going on in the crafts movement. If anything its anti- craft!
Someone wants to patent your DNA so then what? They own you?
Simply put, call it money, power, fame, woodworking, and figuring out where copying and creativity comes in to play. Is there anything really new under the sun?
Inspiration comes from many sources conscious and unconscious. Styles change over time and by region.
If you like something and want to make your own version, do it.
There are plenty of "new" original designs out there by very skilled artists/crafts people, some will become popular and some will not.
If you look hard enough at any piece, you can pick apart every aspect and try to attribute it's individual elements to the style of a predecessor but to what end? Whether a piece share similarities to another does not mean that's where the inspiration was drawn from, your own stool proves this point.
"Do the thousands of woodworkers now making live edge slab coffee tables even know where the idea came from? Are they stealing?"
As I pointed out using your example, not every piece with a similar design to another was "stolen".
If I build something with veneer and dovetail joints am I stealing from some ancient Egyptian?
We build what we like with the knowledge we have. We draw inspiration from a culmination of thousands of years of woodworking history and build with the skill we have. We are free to include any elements we want to in the construction of our final product. Whether these elements have been used in a similar manner by another at some point in time is often coincidence and usually done for practical reasons not intentional design theft.
Personally, I see no merit in making an "exact" copy of someone else's work. Draw inspiration or emulate in your own style but copying is a bit lazy IMO.
As far as the "ethics" are concerned, that's an individual moral decision.
As far as stealing is concerned, that's a legal definition.
JMHO
Nothing is new under the sun! Woodworking has been around for millenia, and pretty much everything we do has been done before, or has something that was done before at its core. Which is great. It one of the reasons why passing down the skills is so satisfying - knowing that the tradition will continue
Agree with WHMW. There are similar parallels with bands and music -- how many different sounds can a guitarist, bassist, drummer, and keyboardist make? Not many that we haven't already heard, but we are continually pleased by the never ending circle of same, but different.
As mentioned earlier, there are very few original bands in woodworking. There are however, many inspired cover bands who do well by delivering what people want.
I agree but think it’s applicable everywhere…the arts, the sciences, the humanities…
I googled “is there such a thing as an original idea”, and what do you know, Mark Twain had an answer:
“Mark Twain said there is no such thing as an original idea.
He said we can turn old ideas into new, curious combinations, but he reckoned they are “the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.”
The word ‘copying’ has a bad connotation, and yet, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”
"The word ‘copying’ has a bad connotation, and yet, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”"
The reason is that if you copy, you didn't do any of the intellectual work required to conceive the piece. You "took" someone else's idea, (usually without permission) made it as close as possible to the original and passed it off as your own creation.
Imitation is not an exact copy nor is it meant to be. If you imitate someone's work, you're taking their idea and making it in your own way. This shows the originator how they inspired you to take their idea and personalize it to your own liking in ways they may have never considered.
Making "exact" copies on someone else's work serves no purpose other than period recreations and things of that nature.
IMO, if you copy or imitate someones work, the originator should be acknowledged in some way.
You can have your 'own style' if you're willing to build silly looking and mostly useless little cabinets featuring lots of contrasting woods, tiny drawers, and more or less the same inlay and bandings that you use on almost every project.
Not talking about Krenov just to be clear. His work was great.
To me the question of ethics comes down to commercial intent. Copying an active maker to compete with him / her in the same market is unethical to me and worthy of that maker's anger. Making something visually close out of more or less precious materials with more or less quality to appeal to a different market segment is why you can buy Arts and Crafts furnishings from both Ikea and Stickley. I doubt the two are ever confused for each other.
I'll wager that pretty much every contractor/ maker (in business) have been shown photos of other work as a jumping off point to get into their client's head without ever telling that client that the right thing to do is to seek out the maker who's work is in the photo. That's how comissions work and I've been through that process myself without remorse.
Making anything you like for your own home is pretty much fair game. We have offered advice to many right here on how to make something from a photo of another's work posted to the forum without calling them out as thieves.
There are hobbyists that work from the plans and projects in FW and other magazines, and there are those that assemble details from various styles to make things they would simply like to have in their homes.
For a hobbyist, he statement "I made that" is unlikely to be followed with "...from plans in FW # XXX" and I don't think it needs to be.
....and what people want to hear is simple stuff. Americans no longer have an ear for complicated music . If I hadn't done woodworking for a living I would have been a musician. My Mom was ,I had the background but maybe wasn't good enough or lucky enough or made bad choices. I had a good run as a teenager.. Music possibilities are endless ,maybe infinite. Listen to BB King, he could play the same 3 notes over and over and never play the same thing twice. Seemingly very simple! BUT....
Woodworking at least I got paid!
There are a lot of aspects to woodworking, so in a sense the possibilities are also endless. If your making things that are utilitarian ( furniture etc ) then your somewhat limited. You can't make a chair that a person can't sit in. Well, it's been done but that's either a mistake or sculpture. There is sculpture or carving ,high art forms that can at times transcend craft. If your into period reproductions then you are copying.
So, here's the deal ,some living woodworker is making and selling something that is somewhat unique, a certain combination of old ways of doing things that has a bit of a look of its own. Maybe it's a jewelry box. You see it you like it and you copy it - maybe making some very light tweaks to make it ever soooo slightly different, maybe a different combination of woods - and then you begin selling them yourself. So, what are the ethics there? OK, Not OK, Who cares?
Make it labeled as a box resembling "so and so" style. Try to give credit where it is due and make what you want (hobby maker) or think will sell (pro). I think it's okay that way.
Plans, are by their very nature, are meant to be copied.
If you Copy another artists style so closely that it goes beyond a subtle resemblance, then the artist should be acknowledged or at least acknowledge as to where you got the inspiration.
Too many seem quick to jump to "steal" in discussing this. Stealing usually only comes into play when you are trying to pass off someone else's work as your own.
The original topic was about ethics.
If you feel uncomfortable copying or using elements from someone else's work, don't do it.
If you draw inspiration from as many sources as you can and in the process of making you pieces, you use a style or element from someone else's work, it's not illegal or unethical IMO
I am not a professional, it's only a hobby for me, but twice have had pieces in a gallery, just for fun. About 8 years ago, a gallery owner approached me about making twelve copies of an arts & crafts style mantle clock that he had been selling successfully for $700. He had been selling them for several years until the craftsman died suddenly and they were no longer available. He even offered to loan me his last one to photograph and measure to see if I would be interested in making them. Before doing so, I made contact with the craftsman's daughter through his website, which was still operational, and asked her if she had any issue with me basically copying them. She was fine with that, and said that it was a nice way for her father's work to continue. In the end, I made some design changes of my own with regard to materials used, which the gallery owner felt was an improvement over the originals and he raised his selling price to $750. A month or so later the craftsman's daughter emailed me to ask me to stop, since her brother had since decided to start making them. (I don't believe that ever happened). I told her that I had almost finished a dozen of them, and she had no problem with me finishing them and selling them to the gallery. (I would have done so anyway, since she had previously given permission for those twelve.)
I would have felt a bit funny had I never sought permission to use the basic design, since it was rather unique, even though it was in the arts & crafts style. On the other hand, IMO nearly everything you see is derivative (including furniture design, automobile design, movies, television, music, etc.); how can it not be, and why should it be - shouldn't people make what buyers are seeking out?
It seems that the only truly new things in woodworking are usually gimmicky and aren't very successful. I, too, am tired of seeing live edge slabs being slapped onto a simple base (or even worse yet, hairpin legs) that has nothing style-wise in common with the top itself. I also don't care for "river tables", spoon carving and cutting boards made from more glued-up pieces than a puzzle, but all of this is just my opinion, and if I was doing this for a living, it's probably something I would have to consider doing as well. In fact, I once made a live edge bench, long before such things were popular, and sold it in a gallery.
Good story and thanks for telling it. An interesting development would have been if the brother started selling the clocks using your improved design rather than his late fathers.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled