paulanna
However I do have a theory...
However I do have a theory that knock off sellers, having made the moral lapse of selling this stuff in the first place, are consequently more likely to commit the moral lapse of ripping people off.
What a F@#$%^* stupid statement have you been to grade school yet? I guess you would have been the one to say if the Nazi was nice to me they must be o.k.
These guys are not selling fake rolexs on the street and from Ethopia
They are selling first class materials made by companies in Italy and China geeeeez a lot more stupid people out there then i thought.
First Class or Not
First class materials or not the design is still stolen.
Paulanna and Lucifersum - you're great for staying focused on the argument without resorting to insults and excessive use of exclamation points and CapsLock.
LRF - I'm sure I'm not alone in finding your insults to be childish, rude and a disgrace to the forum. Wasnt it your post that this forum is for everyone? Way to live up to your own standards.
First of all, I agree that th...
First of all, I agree that the prices of originals are often totally blown out of proportions. But, selling an unlicensed repro is really just re-selling stolen property if you ask me...
Another thing, I think we should not forget about, is the way these cheap reproductions are produced. There's of course a reason why theses can be so much cheaper than the originals. They are produced in the 'People's Republic' of China, a country which is not exactly know for Human Rights or for that sake human working conditions.
why did you jump my butt
How come you all did not jump turbos butt when he said www.pgmod.com was having a great sale,
For the 10 th time I own the finest mid-century modern furniture collection any where see 1 picture of 40 seperate pieces all ORIGINAL I simply am trying to defend inocent people from getting ripped off and to be maligned and slandered by people who want to blame shop owners This is more than
enough for me ...
"What a F@#$%^* stupid...
"What a F@#$%^* stupid statement have you been to grade school yet? I guess you would have been the one to say if the Nazi was nice to me they must be o.k."
Nah the Nazis shot my grandad at Monte Cassino so they're definitely in my bad books. So tell me caped crusader - if the sellers of knock off furniture are all such great guys why are you trying to (very nobly) protect us from some of them?
stupid statement
However I do have a theory that knock off sellers, having made the moral lapse of selling this stuff in the first place, are consequently more likely to commit the moral lapse of ripping people off.
I guess now you can READ what stupid statements read like!!!!! I am not trying to defend any one Let it be buyer beware. But I happen to know some very nice people
who own stores that sell the finest
modern furniture are hard working , pay there people well, pay there bills,go to church ,. and you on a internatioanl forum makea a stupid statement like this and i quote " are consequently more likely to commit the moral lapse of ripping people off.
This is a outragous statement and you know it.!!!!!
Charles Eames Tribute
Today Charles Eames, on the centenary of his birth, would have been appalled by this whole argument. In the Toronto Star on Sunday there is "a tribute to his revolutionary chair, which helped launch the notion of democratic design".
Rip Off or Knock Off - is this the only option?
http://www.thestar.com/article/226240
LRF
In all honesty I'm sure you're a nice person and well meaning. But you're a drag on this forum. I mean that as constructive criticism, not an insult. You contribute frequently and often have good ideas. Your presentation and attitude is disgraceful though. There are lots of differing viewpoints on this forum, and we like hearing them all. Some of them you and I will agree with, some we wont. You do yourself a huge disservice if you rabidly counter each disagreement with some crazy ranting post.
Calling people Nazis is not going to prove your point, its going to make you look like an idiot. Namecalling and trashtalk dont do anything for this forum except make it an uncomfortable place to visit. You said that this is a forum for everyone. Lets please try to make everyone feel that they can comfortably contribute without getting yelled at or called names or being told that they are stupid.
Im sure we all would like you to stay and contribute ideas and thoughts and experience. Please just show some respect when you do disagree with someone.
As many of you know...
I am not very supportive of insults and other verbal violence, but on the question of official licenses versus good quality reproductions I am on LRF's side. At least to some extend. As a designer I have high respect for whatever legislative measures that are in place to protect intellectual property, and I use them whenever suitable. Patents for inventions, Protection of models of industrial design, copyright etc. But the legislator and different negotiators at international conventions on the subject have always respected the fact that at one point the intellectual property should become a public property. The underlying principle is that nobody creates anything outside a social and cultural context. If Ray and Charles Eames had lived in the 16th century they would not have designed the products we know. The principle of returning the property to the public is also based on the simple fact that most of us have benfited of an education that to a small or larger extend has been paid for by a public education system. The things we are capable of in our professional career are partly the result of talent tc, but also of that education. Thes principles and the historical origine of patents (the first patent was granted, not as a way of protecting a particular knowledge, but as a protection for a limited period of time in exchange for full publication of the procedure)
In many cases the legal protection of many of the classic models we are so often discussing here is long gone. In other words they are in the public domain and they can be made legally. So I habve to object to qualifications like "thieves" "stolen property" etc. simply on the basis that it is not thru.
We all know that there are planty of "tricks" including such simple things as prohibiting photography in museums in order to protect copyrights of for instance the Mona Lisa (the painting itself is no longer copyrighted but a picture taken by the Louvre museum is...at least for a while..so if you make picture taking illigal than you can claim copyrights practically for ever, you just have to take a new picture from time to time. The copyright legislation gives the longest protection but does not apply on industrial products unless they are declared works of art, an un-usual status given to some products especially by U.S. juges who have taken interest in any protectionist measure they can think of as long as it is in U.S. interests.
cont.
But back to the subject. Many of the foundations and other organisations that have picked up the so called interests of passed away designers and architects have access to very good layers who use the existing legislations to the maximum in order to generate a revenue. It might in some cases follow the letter of the law, it certainly does not follow the spirit of the law. In a number of cases the protection does not apply on the product because that has axpired, it only relates to the copyright on the name of the designer or architect. The manufacturer dealing with these faoundations can still claim that they are official licencees of the foundation because they do not have to reveal that the license is on the use of the name and not on a particular model.
I think that it is possible to discuss differnt aspects of "reproduction" without resorting to moral qualifications that have no legal or moral base.
undermining that education
Koen, I understand your point and I agree - nothing exists in a vacuum. There are always those things that influence what we create, and in return our creations reflect those influences. Example: Jacobsen was (so the story goes) so impressed with the Eames LCW that he bought one and installed it in his studio - studied it, an eventually produced the Ant Chair. Did he rip off the Eames design? No, he interpreted it an expanded on it, making it his own. It's a synthesis akin to jazz, where one musician riffs off of another while creating something completely unique.
However, I emotionally approach the issue of knockoffs as an artist (my formal training) in which "moral rights" come into play. Moral rights are those that protect my name, and therefore, my reputation. For example - if I paint a mural, and at a later date someone alters that mural, they are in violation of my moral rights. The reason being that my name is applied to the artwork, therefore any alterations made to it are also attached to my name. It is not so much the artwork that is protected as my reputation, and the quality of work that my name represents. (whether my work is any good or not is an entirely separate discussion)
I know that moral rights apply only to works of art, and not to industrial design, but I feel as though a greater sense of that extends to those pieces of design that have become ingrained in the common design lexicon: Barcelona, Eames 670, Jacobsens Egg & Swan chair, etc.
What will become of the ingrained cultural familiarity with designers like Jacobsen, Eames, LeCorbusier if the products that represent them are sullied by lower quality knock offs?
This is the greatest problem I find with knock-offs. Most people that knock off the great designs dont do it with the lesser known objects - they do it with the iconic pieces, pieces that represent not just the furniture, but the designers themselves. As such I'm all for the holders of these licenses to go after people, to enforce the strict prohibitions on using a designers name. If people want to be influenced by a design thats great. Altering the design just slightly, attaching the designers name, and then hiding the disclaimer in the fine print is misleading and disingenuous. It may not violate the letter of the law, but it undermines the cultural education and violates the spirit of ingenuity and creativity.
Dear LuciferSum
I agree, both with your description of your moral rights as an artist and with a certain application of those rights outside the field of arts. Most legislations agrees with it to and so they granted the longest protection to copyrights. I also agree with your arguments on the destructive nature of some of the silly knock-offs that are on the market.
My argument is not about the validity of protection, my argument is about the protection itself. If we truly want to protect these design icons (at least that is what they are right now...I can remember a time that the same pieces were considered in design circles as mediocre products of a past period) we should not create a division between the license holders and the rest, but between those who respect the original quality of craftmanship, choice of materials and measurements and those who do not. You know as well as I do, that some of the manufacturers that are called by all kind of names on this forum are making a product that in some cases is actually better than the original Barcelona or Le Corbusier chairs. There are also periods in which the licensees were not as careful or as carefully controled and these products are of inferior quality in spite of being respectful of the license. I also think that the disrespect for the spirit of the legal protection shown by well healed layers in favor of "licensed" manufacturers is one of the reasons behind the often stupid small variations and changes made in un-licensed reproductions. If it was clear that to all these models are now in the public domain and that no harm is done or can be done to the designer, I suspect that publishing the original drawings or acurate measurements of originals would do more for the cultural education in general than the strict application of copyrights on names etc.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com