A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the reproduction of it in a private workshop.
The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece illegal.
A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws. Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.
So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.
One of the guys I drink with is a solicitor. His only comment when pressed was "must be nice for insperation". Apart from that he said very little on the subject.
Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift), have at it. Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of CD's, records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit, then you can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least. Copyright owners frown on you making money off of their work.
Common misconception. While they do frown on you making money from their work, they also frown on not making money from you. You may make a copy of a record for use in a second player, but no, you are not allowed to give it away. Just because millions of people have done that, it is still not legal.
Try copying a Mickey Mouse on a Tee shirt and wear it to Disneyworld. They are one of the staunchest fighters for copyright protection and have gone after grandma that put the Disney figures on kids clothing. Ed
Some folks actually make a living, raise their kids, pay their mortgage by selling copyrighted work. The next time you think about making a "freebie" for your own use, think about someone getting a portion of your next pay check.
There are two things about copyright that are generally applicable worldwide. Firstly it's automatic - you don't need to "register" anything for copyright to be applied, although you can choose to relax this copyright, or to permits its use by others.
Secondly (and most relevantly here) there are several things you can't copyright. Designs are one of them (titles of works are another). You can copyright the _description_ of a design, but not the design itself.
So if you find the drawings of a design, photocopy them, then use them to build your copy then you've breached copyright. But you did it to the copyright of the _drawing_, not the item, and you did it when you did the photocopying of the drawing not when you made the copy of the item.
What happens if you built it quickly from the original drawings, then returned them ? Well you haven't breached the copyright. You may have committed some other act to obtain them (perhaps breaking and entering), but it wasn't a breach of copyright.
This leads us to the question of magazine designs and building them for profit. In general, the magazine (or maybe an author) retains its copyright on the design drawing and you as a purchaser of the magazine are granted a _licence_ to use those drawings for some purpose .This might be for admiration only, it's probably to build one or more copies for non-profit use and it _might_ be a full license to commercially produce them - but that would be somewhat unusual. If you breach these terms, then you're in breach of the _licence_ they granted, but you still haven't broken the copyright itself (this may vary locally, depending on how the law is phrased).
It's also possible to renounce the copyright entirely and to place it into the public domain. This has much the same effect as giving everyone a licence to dop whatever they want with it, but it's legally distinct.
You also can't "steal" a copyright. Theft has a legal definition, and copying something is outside it (you need to deprive the original owner of it, not just reduce their benefit of it). In countries where the legal system is controlled by large corporations, such as the USA, then copyright infringement may of course be treated as any act up to and including terrorism.
So how can you protect a design ? In general, this is possible, difficult, expensive, time-limited and requires some explicit action to register this design right (i.e. the opposite of automatic copyright). These rights are not standard between countries (very much so), but they're usually only for short periods and may or may not be renewable. It's quite rare for designers other than Alessi, Starck and their ilk to go as far as registering as design right.
There's also the question of trademarks - these are somewhere inbetween copyright and design rights. They require some action to register, but they're relatively cheap and long-lasting. It's notable that Gustav Stickley was vehement in defending his compass trademark and the "Craftsman" name, but was very lax over the designs themselves and even the name "Stickley".
If you want clear information on some useful ways to apply copyright, with country-specific boilerplate, then a look at the Creative Commons project
Generally true -- and internationally you can (almost) bank on it. US law look down on "unregistered copyright" -- even though they are treaty signatories... But some countries -- like Taiwan -- insist that any IP protection be done there first.
That is really splitting hairs. I wanna think about that one. :-)
And after thinking -- since a bowl, a chair or sculpture _might_ be viewed as a design - then be really careful on this one. In general I would say that you are wrong. IMHO
There you also get into moral rights -- which are part and parcel of the copyright act -- so IMO -- you are likely incorrect on the last two points. IMO you breached copyrights and moral rights by copying the item, the drawing or both. Since the author can claim that it somehow affects his rights of display and sale -- quite easily.
Pretty sure you are wrong here Andy -- better read my other post.
Different issue. You are granted permission. Copyright does not inherently have any licensing arrangement. Yess you could claim that the permission is a "license" -- but really...?
Don't think you should be giving copyright advice without thoroughly reviewing the Berne Convention... :-)
Do you mean license as in "permission" as a synonym?
See the criminal copyright violation permissions in the conventions and the Canada Code for example...
Sorry -- wrong again. Many other countries recognize criminal theft of copyrighted material and designs. And yes the EU supports M$ in it's holy wars. AN in North America the rights of European vendors are respected.
Patent. Copyright Registered copyright. They all work in various fashions. Copyright and secrecy are IMO best for software. Moral rights act to protect "perversion" of an artists' copyright.
Not really -- different issue. A Trademark is a symbol/word set that defines a the origin of an item via a set of characteristics belonging to an entity might be the simplest way to look at it. It is like a defined "business shingle" that can be "hung out" in many media. Could you copyright a trademark? Why not -- silly really -- but you can't trademark a copyright or a patent. A trademark is used to define the "origin" of goods -- not to define the goods. Perhaps you could say it is to to tout quality, or the lack thereof -- but not necessarily the exact goods. Copyrights and Patents define the "goods".
Better still look at my post and read the darned acts via the links. They are actually quite clear and are not an "interpretation" of what someone thought the act might mean.
Andy -- I've written agreements that stood up in courts and that were used internationally. I accept that I could be wrong or out of dates on some points -- but you are definitely out of whack on enough issues that you should be careful about giving advice without a proviso as to the currency of the information you give out. I believe that I would have accepted your info 20 years ago -- I think you may be out of date by that much at least.
If you take a photograph of MY home and dog, YOU own the rights to that photographic image as the "artist." If I take the same picture and sell it have I violated your copyright?
Go have another pint or three while you argue that one
the 'approach', itself, is definitely *NOT* illegal.
FALSE TO FACT. Copyright law recognizes that "independant, parallel development" can, and _does_ happen. Copyright protects the particular "expression" of an idea, _not_ the underlying idea itself. If you 'indepentantly' create a duplicate of a copyrighted work -- where it can be shown that you never had any access to the 'original', you are
*not* infringing on the copyright on that 'original'. You are free to copy/sell, etc. _your_ "createive work" without let or permission from the 'rights holder' in that _other_ work.
Factually accurate, and *very* relevant
The authoritative answer is: "It depends".
This holds for virtually *ALL* questions involving copyright issues, BTW. :))
Yes, there *can* be copyright involved in a piece of furniture.
However, copyright applies *ONLY* to the elements that are "unique creative effort" in that piece.
"Approaching the store", with the intent of copying is _not_ illegal
Actually _doing_ the copying, +may+ or *may*not*, infringe on a copyright, if there is one. There is a '*DEEP* swamp' of copyright law, called 'fair use exemptions' -- under which you _can_ reproduce something protected by copyright, *without* the copyright owner's permission, and *without* infringing on their copyright.
*IF* there is a copyright involved on that piece of furniture, one then gets into _why_ one is 'copying'/'reproducing' it --
for your own 'personal use', is _probably_ O.K.
for sale to someone else, is pretty-much guaranteed *not* O.K.
As a practical matter, with 'generic' mass-produced furniture, the issue of copyright is not likely to arise. Pretty much 'by definition' there are no 'unique' design features to point to.
Copying a "Sam Maloof" chair, on the other hand......
Along the same lines -- if you 'study' (with your tape measure, that is :) several 'representative' pieces, from several different manufacturers, extract the 'common elements' from those, modify in a way to suit _your_ needs, then there is -no- issue of copyright infringement in the piece that you end up constructing.
"Stealing from one source is called plagiarism. Stealing from two or more is called research."
"Research" your project well, and don't worry about it.
============================= Have not read the other replies BUT I have done it more then a few times.... BUT not with the intention of selling the "copy"....
In fact the furniture store (well the salespersons anyway) allowed me to photograph the items and take measurements....
I also did this for a writing desk that I saw in a Colonial home in Willaimsburg ...also asked permission ...and did not have a problem..
Only once was I ever turned down....( at a Plantation in Charleston SC) ... but they still let me draw the table, and take measurements...just would not let me take a picture...
If I went into production and made these items for resale then "maybe" it would be ethically wrong... but making a "copy" for my own use in my own home (or even for a gift) is not in my opinion anything that would cause me to toss and turn all night...
WRONG. What law does "approaching the store" violate? There is _no_ violation of _copyright_ laws, until a "copying" is performed.
WRONG.
A 'copying' of a piece of furniture _may_ involve a breach of copyright law, or it MAY NOT.
A 'blanket' statement *either*way* is demonstrably false.
WRONG. Copyright protects a specific "expression" of an idea. If "someone else" comes up with that *exact*same* idea, entirely independently, and "expresses" it in exactly the same manner, That expression is *NOT* an infringement on the copyright on the other expression of that idea. "Proving" that it is an "independently, parallel, development" and not 'derived from' nor 'based on' the prior copyrighted work can be difficult and messy. However, there _are_ cases in the legal record where this *has* been done.
There are some notable cases arising from the pop music industry -- where two different artists have _independently_ developed nearly identical tunes, without any knowledge of, or exposure to, the other's work. It took lawsuits, going all the way through actual trial, to establish conclusively that the works _were_ 'independent developments' and that neither one infringed on the other.
Since I have had occasion to research it (U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, and a few other countries), I can state with some authority that you would be surprised at the size of the differences. The majority of them come under the areas of: "fair use exemptions", ability to 'disclaim' copyright (i.e., to 'place in the public domain'), "moral rights", "work done for hire", and "lending libraries".
The Berne Convention is applicable *ONLY* to the extent that any particular country has incorporated it into statute.
The country-to-country differences *are* significant.
An overly broad answer. Given the right set of specific circumstances it _could_well_ involve a violation of copyright statutes.
Copyright law is _very_ 'fact specific' to particular situations.
Virtually *any* statement that says something always "is" or "is not" a particular way is going to be in error, including _this_ statement. :)
WRONG. See: Title XVII, chapter 13, U.S. Code. (17 USC 1301 et. seq.) available online at:
For U.S. statutes expressly providing for copyright protection of designs.
The photocopying of the drawings is a copyright violation.
*BUILDING* the object from the drawings is a 'derivative work'. Which may, or may not, be a violation in and of itself. (Building from infringing plans *is* a violation. an 'aggravating' violation, that increases the severity of penalties for the infringement of copying the plans, in point of legal fact.)
"Derivative work" still applies..
In the U.S. it *is* copyright infringement, in legal fact. You have exceeded the permissions granted by the copyright owner.
They *do* sue for 'copyright infringement', not "breach of contract".
*THAT* depends on jurisdiction. In a number of (even well-developed) countries, "Public domain" is _not_ legally recognized. In those countries you _cannot_ renounce copyright -- all you can do is aggressively 'fail to enforce' it. :)
>
U.S. policy changed utterly with the re-write of Title 17 US code to bring it into compliance with Berne Convention policies.
The _only_ thing that copyright registration 'buys you' these days, is the ability to sue for "statutory damages" instead of only "actual" ones.
*ALL*OTHER* protections accrue *regardless* of whether the copyright is registered or not. Copyright registration filings have fallen precipitously since the "Berne Convention" changes were introduced.
And registration is allowed at any time up to 6 months _after_ initial 'publication'.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.