Interesting Legal Article...

[CustomMadeChris]

Hi Everyone ,

Happy friday!

As people who are all about Custom work, we love reading about people who are giving mass production a run for its money. But we've come upon another topic we'd love to hear from you guys about. We recently found an article from a law blog here:

http://womblefurniturelaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/custom-furniture-innovative-plan-or.html

About this original article from the wall street journal here:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703846604575447781590965788-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html

To sum it up, some custom workers are making good money simply making what's claimed to be cheaper replications pieces of furniture of equal or better quality than their big brand name's (like pottery barn, crate & barrel, etc.) counterparts.

Do you feel this is okay, or is this infringing on someone else's work? either way, do you think these businesses will last?? Let me know if you have any feedback.

[Vic]

This has been discussed several times both on WTO Live and within the older forums. Personally, it depends for me. While I think it's OK to build a piece in the style of the older masters such as Krenov, Maloof etc. If the original designer is still "at it". No. Recently I was asked to build a cradle and the design that was chosen was of a contemporary artist. I simply tracked down the artist and got permission to replicate the build. It wasn't hard to find him and he was very gracious, so I'm building the piece. But, if he had objected, I would've had the mother-to-be pick another style or we would have worked out an original design.

[CustomMadeChris]

@CustomMadeCom Thanks for the feedback Vic! We have a few lawyer friends looking deep into every aspect of it for a thorough and comprehensive legal stance on the matter. Hopefully we'll see this published in our blog coming up!

[Derekkest]

This has been discussed several times both on WTO Live and within the older forums. Personally, it depends for me. While I think it's OK to build a piece in the style of the older masters such as Krenov, Maloof etc. If the original designer is still "at it". No. Recently I was asked to build a cradle and the design that was chosen was of a contemporary artist. I simply tracked down the artist and got permission to replicate the build. It wasn't hard to find him and he was very gracious, so I'm building the piece. But, if he had objected, I would've had the mother-to-be pick another style or we would have worked out an original design.

Interesting article indeed. I do agree though, if I ever get a chance to make something for someone who took it from another designer, I would sleep better at night with their permission instead of just making a knock off.

But I am confused a little here. Since I have never been to Cracker Barrel or whatever that shop is, why are their prices so high if it is all automated factory furniture? I mean automated Vs. Hand made should be the other way around for cost no?

[minorhero]

When it comes to furniture the particular type of intellectual property right you will most likely be dealing with are copyrights. With copyrights you can protect artistic additions to a piece of furniture but can not protect structural items. So you could argue that a certain compound angle on a chair arm when made of a certain thickness and attached in a certain way is copyrighted. You could not however say that chair arms in general are copyrighted. Nor could you copyright a design that someone else made before you.

In the US the copyright statue is a total mess when it comes to figuring if something older then about 1976 is still under copyright. Some things are and some things are not. Today if someone working for a company designs a chair which then goes into circulation that design is protected for 95 years. If they make it not for a company but to sell themselves, then the design is protected for the life of the creator plus 70 years. It didn't use to be this way though. The law has changed a number of times and if the right filings weren't done older designs from before the 70's could be in the public domain now. Trying to figure out if a design is public domain would probably require a lawyer, and a lot of money in legal fees, good luck.

And then there is the next piece of the puzzle. Risking getting sued. It costs 10s of thousands of dollars to bring a copyright lawsuit against someone. Similarly it costs 10s of thousands of dollars to defend against a suit. It doesn't cost much to get a lawyer to send a letter. The result is that a lot of people risk getting sued because 1) unless their furniture is really popular most folks will never know they are violating someone's copyright, and 2) if they make 1 piece of furniture that does violate someone's copyright it is not terribly likely they will be sued for that one piece of furniture. Of course either could happen. Or you might just get a letter that says stop copying my designs and that would be all.

Most folks won't copy a design simply because it rubs them against the grain (ha ha wood joke).

The people that need to worry the most about these sorts of things are the production shops. If a company is turning out hundreds of pieces of furniture a day that are violating someone's copyright and the violation are of a type that can be proven in court then they are a likely target for a lawsuit. Why? Because they will likely have the money to pay a judgment made against them and it is easier to show that they should have known better which is important when dealing with juries.