While searching last evening for a step stool design I ran across the following:
The first one is a picture of a stool by Kelly Mehler (http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/Gallery/GalleryImage.aspx?id=5060). The second one is a picture of a stool by Bill Thomas (http://www.billthomaswoodworking.com/cabinets.html).
Now this begs the question: If an establishment, be it a museam, collection, or individual, owns the “original” or “only known existing” or “one-of-a-kind” piece of furniture, can they not charge a royality for copies? This then begs another question: Does the owner of such also own the copyright even though he may not be the maker of the piece? And then, Are designs of furniture in the public domain copyright-free?
If you notice, the Bill Thomas photo has a copyright tag, which after seeing it brought all of this to the forefront.
Thanks,
dlb
.
Replies
I believe it is the photos that are copyrighted in this instance.
------------------------------------
It would indeed be a tragedy if the history of the human race proved to be nothing more than the story of an ape playing with a box of matches on a petrol dump. ~David Ormsby Gore
It would have to be a distinctive piece with a form making it unique.
The step stool design fails on both tests. It is so ancient it is public domain.
Which is not to say that someone could copyright it, but thye would find it very expensive to try and defend their copyright.
That design was first produced by the Shakers over 100 years ago. Kelly Mehler copied it from them. I don't see where any copyright laws were infringed.
Lee
"If an establishment, be it a museam, collection, or individual, owns the "original" or "only known existing" or "one-of-a-kind" piece of furniture, can they not charge a royality for copies?"
The owner of a piece does not necessarily own the design copyright. The designer/author does, unless the copyright (as opposed to a piece made from the copyright) is sold. Think music CDs. Even if you own a CD, you don't own the copyright (technically, you only own a license), so you can't sell (or even give away) copies. However, the composer may sell the copyright to, e.g., a record company. The record company can then sell as many copies as they wish.
In the situation addressed in your question, if a designer made one unique and original piece and sold it to a museum, the museum could not, without permission of the designer, sell copies or seek royalties for others to make copies. That right would still belong to the designer unless that right was also sold by the designer. This transfer of intellectual property is often covered in the contract by which the designer is commissioned. Such contracts typically specify which party will own the copyright when the work is complete.
Mike Hennessy
Pittsburgh, PA
Edit: As another poster said, the copyright notice on the photo pertains to the photo itself, not the stool.
Edited 1/7/2008 7:57 am ET by MikeHennessy
Thanks for the reply and info. Your e-mail does raise another question: In the case of a deceased furniture maker, say John Townsend, does one have the 'right' to an exact copy of his work? The field to which I relate this to is in the art world and the copying of work. In this case it would be called forgery, which I believe is a punishable offence. Would not the same apply to making a 'reproduction' piece of furniture?
Thanks,
dlb
.
The undisciplined life is not worth examining.
Copyright is transferable, and in general transfers to a person's heirs upon "deceasement."
-Steve
Although the duration of copyrights can be a complex issue since laws have changed over time and differ in various parts of the world, I think it's a safe bet that any copyright owned by John Townsend, or his descendants, would have expired by now since he died almost 200 years ago. You could freely make an exact copy of his work without fear of prosecution for forgery so long as you did not try to sell the piece as a Townsend original.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
The original terms of your question relative to copyright ... The term (for the purposes of these stools) would better fall under patent infringement as the 1978 Copyright laws (rev.1976) Copyright pertains more directly to intellectual properties and certain visual products such as photography, sculpture, movies, novels, recording etc.
Wood working has the potential of falling under both categories, but only once in that as soon as plural copies are made it is no longer a one and only original work.
"Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship" are not copy or patent protected.
Shaker furniture in and of itself was not original, merely the collective influence of it's refinement. Most of it was common property longer before from Farm, Rude and Gothic roots. Look at some of the early German and Dutch styles.
A single unique piece in a museum could be copyrightable(S) as art. Technically an individual record (the disc) is not copyrighted so much as the intellectual property embodied in it. Many things in woodworking are under patent. There are patents on almost every type of table, chair and yes, even simple individual drawers.
Go look on line at the actual patents in the Patent Office. It's fun. Some are a real hoot. But...
A majority of patents on furniture are very old and many are unenforceable as invalid. Just like copyrights, patents are only valid if they are legally arbitrated and found to be in a "virtuous state"(meaning the holder does actually have something unique and that he was the original creator).
Just because a patent was issued, doesn't mean an absolute search was done or that it's unique and valid.Copyrights have a limited life. Most common standard ( not all) is from the moment of creation to 70 years after creator's death.(Post 1976). More for the owner/s of a "work made for hire" piece. Copyrights are infinitely divisible and may be passed to heirs and assigns.It is not a forgery unless it is being passed on as being the work the original artist.Some states to have doctrines on unfair enrichment relative to ownership and subsequent sale of an artists original work. (ownership of the piece does not constitute copyright ownership of the work.) Another subjectIf your interested you can get a brief overview of copyrights athttp://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wcior patents athttp://www.uspto.gov/#JohnJohn
First of all I personally think it is wrong to make exact copies of others work. Now with that said, I see nothing wrong with using someones work as inspiration towards your piece. Now I don't think that if you try to copy exactly another persons piece that you would get every detail exactly. you don't have to change much in order to call it yours.Kaleohttp://www.kaleosworkshop.com
Copyright seems to be a fairly grey area when it comes to woodworking. So I dug a little deeper.
First I think most forms of woodworking are fairly derivative. It's hard to pinpoint the origin of most designs, with the exception of really sculptural furniture.
Most woodworking objects, with the exception of pure sculpture fall into the category of being a 'useful article'. According to wiki, a useful article is only copyrightable if the the aesthetic features can be separated from it's utilitarian features. (I.e. a carving in a chair) Wiki outline s a series of tests to determine copyrightable: Primary use (art or function), marketability as art, and temporal displacement (conceptualizing the article as art without conceptualizing functionality at the same time). Fairly vague. In the end it seems to me that the builders intended use of the item determines if it is copyrightable. So it seems to me copyright over woodworking is not automatic, or at least not meaningful.
That said it seems to me that furniture would qualify for a design patent. (A patent granted on the design of a functional item, Wiki). But as a patent, they wouldn't not be automatic. Design patents have a much shorter lifespan than a copyright. However the protection seems to be stronger. Being eligible for a design patent, does not exclude an item from being protected by copyright.
A patent for an invention is good for seventeen years, I think. Is a copyright good for ever?
"Is a copyright good for ever?"
Nope. Check out Post # 9 in this thread.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
Oops. Sorry about that. I'm just not set up to read the whole thing and then ask the questions. By then, I've forgotten my questions.
Now this begs the question: If an establishment, be it a museam, collection, or individual, owns the "original" or "only known existing" or "one-of-a-kind" piece of furniture, can they not charge a royality for copies? This then begs another question: Does the owner of such also own the copyright even though he may not be the maker of the piece? And then, Are designs of furniture in the public domain copyright-free?
The creator of the piece owns the copyright, unless the decide to sell it (in certain cases the creators emplyer may own the copyright). Mearly owning a a pice of work does not grant copyright status. Think of it like a book, you could own the last remaining copy of Harry Potter... but you don't own the copyright.
The mueseum could create blueprints pf the piece detailing it's construction. They would own the copyright to the blueprints (provide dthey were original), but not any item created from the blueprints.
Being in 'public domain' and being copyrighted is mutually exclusive. Something can only be in public domain if it is not legally encumbered. Just because something has been published does not put it in the public domain.
Make something unique and the Chinese or another eastern power will have it on the market within the month. That applies to the new American currency. I never have given a thought to getting a copyright because you don't have enough money to sue and enforce it anyway. Most people don't have the talent to copy it anyway so who cares?
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled