Legalities of copying museum owned work (furniture)

I know places like The Met & MOMA protect many of their works in some way, though I am not clear how.

But suppose there is an un-attributed piece in an obscure museum.

Do you owe anyone anything if you copy it for sale?
More specifically can they "come after you" after the fact?

Suppose the piece is ancient Egyptian, or Roman?

How about 18th c European?

How about if it was early American & once owned by a very early president?

Etc. Where is the line in the sand?

smt

I know that images of the furniture can be copyrighted. That is one of the main reasons many museums prohibit visitors from taking photos.

If the furniture is an antique I doubt there is much protection. More recent furniture may have some protection, but I don't know for sure. Here is a link to a 2010 article on the subject:

Is Copying Furniture Legal? - Fine Woodworking

Not a Lawyer here so not SURE, and the advise is worth what you are paying for it. But I suspect a museum would have a hard time coming after you for any sort of copyright on something where they own the physical item. If a museum owns a modern piece of art the artist owns the copyright not the museum, so I find it hard to believe that they can hold a copyright on the design of some cabinetmaker from 100plus years ago Where I think you might run into problems is naming the museum or showing customers pictures of the original.

If you are still concerned there is always "inspired by" If you use a different combination of woods, plywood for drawer bottoms, slightly larger (people are bigger) or a myriad of other minor changes which you are likely to make anyways it is no longer a copy. Look at how many Sam Maloof inspired rocking chairs are for sale, and that is a contemporary design that was being copied while he was still making chairs.

I would not have any ethical concerns about copying a piece of furniture from a few generations ago. But I would not commercially reproduce a contemporary design.

Looks like Scott types faster than I do. Good article in FW

As a practical matter, I don't see how anyone could complain about a reproduction. As a question of ethics, I also see no problem as long as the item is described as a reproduction rather than an original design. OTOH, if you make a piece of your own design in the style of Arts and Crafts for example - I see that as an original design.

I am not a lawyer caveat here as well, but my understanding of the subject is: A Museum doesn't own the rights to the design any more than you would when you buy an item. The trademark holder, if part, or all of the design is trademarked could come after you. I can't think of any furniture that would be in a museum that is trademarked but it is possible. Generally, if you're making an item to keep for yourself trademark cannot be used. If you intend to sell the item the trademark owner could possibly pursue you for recompense but the items should be of an age that they are not covered by trademark, copyright or patent protections.

The FWW article was interesting and informative. Intriguing that the selling of photos (images) of the original work is where most of the risk lies. Sort of makes sense.

The piece I'd like to replicate in a series multiple is somewhat complex & is only one on a very long list of life projects. Realistically probably one that will never happen. But this information clarifies the footing on which to negotiate if I even decide to go that far (negotiate to use the museum association). I took enough photos to probably do the work, many years ago. Apparently legally (and "ethically" in this case) there would be no foul to act in that direction so long as the photos of original work were not published or sold. Even the photos might be ok, since they helped me take them.

I had serious thoughts back then, on doing project. Now the question is about resolution of the the long thought about rights concerns; whether for the original purpose, or for future eventualities. This has been informative.

Thanks!
smt

SMT- Your far too talented a guy to pause for a "what-if" legality such as this. In a world where a robber can sue you for a broken leg occuring during the act of robbing you, anything can draw a lawsuit. That said, and IMHO, don't waste time you could be spending doing the project on researching the ligitamacies. For how sophisticated the system is today, one minor change in wood type, placement of a piece of accent trim, or jointery can be all that is needed to separate yours from theirs if a dispute were to even occur.

Oh, and think of how many times you've seen Norm with a tape measure on camera at a museum.

Jeff-

Don't we owe each other a visit?
I forget whose turn it is to make some sort of completely sincere half-hearted promise to visit at this point

Must be time to find some biggish iron and move it, but I just don't have any more room.

Have you had any time to put your planer to work?

smt

There is a great story about an older Japanese potter, a very good potter who never signed his work. His work was recognizable and he was well regarded in the potting circles in Japan. A young japanese potter started to copy the old master and was selling the work quite well. Many people asked the old potter if he was angry or upset that the young potter was copying his style. Each time he was asked he replied " I am not upset by the young potter, in fact it is a blessing, many years from now the best of his work will be considered mine and the worst of my work will be considered his".

I have had the copy discussion a few times with many other woodworkers and my own opinion is that anything is fair game to copy, once. If you plan on a production run then you better get permission, or risk the consequences. Usually it will be to cease and desist or be sued.

I made a copy of the chip carved chair by Kristina Madsen for a show at the Furniture Society Conference in 2007 to start the conversation about copyright and what it means.
As an art piece I was after the moment when the viewer realizes that the piece is a copy, this changes their perspective and is actually quite interesting to watch. Some people don't care, others are quite concerned and some people are downright offended! For the majority it doesn't really matter, but it was very interesting to do and mostly I did it because of the personal challenge to build something so difficult and amazingly beautiful, to my eye anyway. Also I wanted to meet Kristina, sadly she didn't attend the conference. I was hoping it would be controversial but it really didn't get much attention in that respect from other woodworkers who attended.

All I had to go on were two or three photo's, so my copy is really just an "homage" as I have no idea how accurate it is, I had to guess on all the dimensions and the carving details were not entirely clear in the photo's. I had never chip carved or any other kind of carving before I started so I had to teach myself how and then tackle a very ambitious project in a very short amount of time. You can see the chair on my website if you are interested.

Stephen,
Go ahead an copy! You have my permission!
Life is too short to worry too much about these kind of things, as long as the piece is well documented and you acknowledge the original if you ever display the piece then go ahead and copy. I would not be offended if someone copied my work, if they have the skill to copy the most difficult designs then I would be honored to see the finished work.
Anyone can copy an arts and crafts piece, they are simple and easy to figure out, if you have the skills to copy something that is really difficult to build then go ahead, I would never criticize the effort. I might criticize the work though. As a good friend and mentor always said, "without criticism there can be no improvement" and he was right.

Michael

I don't think I can agree with that elderly Japanese potter - I would be mightily offended if someone outright copied one of my pieces. It's not about legalities, but it would feel like stealing to me. I'd hope that anyone with the skills to reproduce my work would also have something of their own to say. In fact I used to feel safe from copying because of the extreme difficulty fo making my stuff. Of course it's a moot point these days, studio furniture is dead as I knew it, can't sell anything these days.

As to the original question, i can't see any reason to to worry about that. The museums can't object, and the makers are long gone. Copies abound in the furniture world, as in all other things. Madeleine Peroux sings just like Billie Holliday, except not as good, and is acclaimed as a great artist. Make that furniture Stephen, it will surely be much better made than the originals.

Sam Maloof was mentioned and he came up with a brilliant marketing plan, go around and teach people how to make his rocker, many copied his design. He was not offended in any way, his work became even more valuable.
A chair is a chair is a chair, there is not much new in chair design. No matter how much decoration it gets or how the legs are done it is still called a chair if you can sit in it. A chair should not have copyright, the concept of chair existed before you (or whoever) started to make one, if you came up with the idea of chair then that is a whole different ball game.
Richard Newbould is one of the few who can claim to have invented something new, his story is fascinating and he is a PM member, maybe he will chime in, but I doubt he reads the woodwork threads.

Any thoughts Stephen?

Michael

If you can find other copies, you are most likely safe, but you also Google " xxxxxxxxx furniture infringement" and see what pops up.

I found this:
Appeals Court Denies Copyright Claim Over Furniture on TV Show - Hollywood Reporter

Any thoughts Stephen?

Click to expand...

Good artists copy, great ones steal?

I was brought up to avoid being an "artist" though we were encouraged to develop artistic skills and design awareness. Something you were supposed to be competent in like occasional necessary butchering or like changing diapers, but took with you to more "important" tasks in the world. Much, much later in life, artist friends (practicing art school grads including MFA's) explained "look, Steve, you can have talent, but being an artist is about attitude".

You will note my OP asked about legalities. The Q is totally practical: how much can I steal up to & including referencing the source and the original owner, without creating an actionable situation. Don't have the time.
I have no qualms taking ideas and making them mine. If you can do it back we can start a conversation. For instance, lots of people have put adjustable throats in infill smoothers since I did it first. I mean come on, it's obvious. But none that I know of want the trouble of making a "loopie". I feel kind of like Richard Newman, though he has done much more and much more interesting original work than I have; but my unintentional insurance plan for those few original ideas is that no one else is dumb enough to work that hard & long for the income potential.

My interest in copying a specific early 19thc mechanical table & possibly commercializing it in series inspired this post. But I probably won't live long enough. I'm not at all slow at what I do and actually quite efficient. But I seem to stupidly pick things that inherently require immense time dedication anyway.

The comment about people like Krenov and Maloof basically creating a marketing plan by encouraging good craftsmen with lesser talents to copy them is very apt: to be recognized as an artist you generally have to be prolific, and your work has to be "recognizable". It's the original form of branding. It's pretty pointless to copy people who spend their lives copying themselves, but you can get some good ideas. Much "art" or at least "culture" depends on a communal awareness of connected references. So including a "reference" to a known work/school/artist can sometimes add interest to a piece and inform a masterpiece.

Having said all that, I have developed a few items recently that could be mass produced. If I get that far I almost expect them to be knocked off. How could I not. But am also slouching in the direction of at least understanding how to protect them.

Something I've posted before: If the carpenter industry worked like the music industry I would get a royalty every time anyone but the original purchaser went through an "interesting" door, walked on a floor, or climbed a set of stairs that I made. If not carpenters, then at least architects. So no particular reverence for the "rights" of songwriters as far as free sharing and downloading. Fundamentally, historically they never had other than bragging rights either, until lawyers and managers figured out how to protect income streams for themselves, and had to share a bit with the artists to not look totally foolish.

Above being random thoughts and pot stirring in no particular order.

smt

Your trademark can't be copied, brand it on the item.

Louis Vuitton made a pattern of his trademark, though it seems that pattern is getting old.

Vuitton Tries to Inject New Dash Into ?LV? Logo - WSJ

M. Moore said:

I have had the copy discussion a few times with many other woodworkers and my own opinion is that anything is fair game to copy, once. If you plan on a production run then you better get permission, or risk the consequences. Usually it will be to cease and desist or be sued.


Michael

Click to expand...

This has been bugging me all day. I disagree very much. I have been ripped off before. I would say the second anyone goes to sell the piece is when it goes from a compliment to theft. Making one copy is still theft. Making something for personal use is different, less offensive, albeit annoying.

I feel very strongly about copying living makers. Replicating a piece that is 200 years old is not trying to undermine someones livelihood. When my bench was copied, it took money out of my pocket. It is hard enough to make a living in this business, we shouldn't be ripping each other off.

Sam Maloof had many admirers. He was lucky that an original Maloof chair was actually worth substantially more, and he had a nice waiting list to get one. I still don't enjoy it when I run across a maker whose main line of pieces are Maloof knock-offs.

Peter

Crzypete,
All comments welcome, this is a good discussion about these issues. Bring on the different viewpoints.

I would like to redirect on some of your comments and opinions, hoping to broaden your view. As I understand if from your post, someone copied a bench that you built and you feel that you lost money, right out of your pocket?
Did the competitor charge the same as you for the bench? If they built something similar and charged way less then perhaps the customer would never have purchased one of your benches, therefore no loss for you. This is just a guess as I don't have all the details about what happened and I do wonder how you came to find out about the copy?

I have always been aware that some customers just don't want to pay top dollar and will keep shopping around until they find someone to build them something at the price they want to pay. i prefer the customers who are not concerned with price as much as getting what they want.

Perhaps your competitor built this bench for a long time customer who would never have walked in your door. If a customer of yours walked in and showed you a picture of a table, would you build it for them? What if it was a table that I designed? Why would I care? I live in another country, that customer is never going to come to my door, no loss for me and I would never know about it actually.

All those people buying Maloof knock offs are never going to buy an original Maloof chair, ever. What is wrong with providing a product at a price the market can bear? Sam is now dead, does that make it any different than when he was alive? His chairs are still being made, are they Sam Maloof originals?

Another point about knock-offs, if you don't want your furniture copied then don't ever publish any photos of your work, not on the web, not in any magazines, nothing. That should solve the problem because if no one can see it then they can't make a copy.


Stephen brings up a lot of good points and stirs the pot well. Point taken on the music industry, do we really have to make singers so ridiculously wealthy?
I do not consider myself an artist, the carved chair project being the only time I felt like an artist and tried to have the right attitude.
My wife likes to say the "he doesn't consider himself an artist but he has the temperament of one". I have very much mellowed out as I get older.

Popcorn is almost ready,

Michael

Michael,

It sounds like your view needs some broadening. You are way out of your league here.

Put aside all of your modifiers. Lets just boil it down to whether it is moral to outright copy someones work, as I believe that is what the argument is. We can debate whether it is legal later. So, is is ok with you if I poach some of your designs and sell it to my client here? Ok, I'll assume you have some friends who are also in the business, How would you feel if you showed up at their shop one day and found some direct copies of your pieces? You're good with that? Sweet! Will it make you feel better if your friend gives you one of your modifiers and says, oh they weren't going to buy from you, i did it for a bit less.

Morality is about treating strangers the same way you treat friends.

Everyone can come up with an excuse as to why it was OKAY to do something. But the sad reality is not everyone can get what they want in this world. My work is not that expensive that someone can severely undercut my price. I am not famous. (and BTW, I do ship to Canada, you may be another country, but we live in a modern world)

Perhaps we would be better off a bit more like the music industry, they have a fixed set of rules in place for covering someone else's songs, you need to pay a royalty and give them a cut if it makes a gazillion bucks. We all know the music industry is heavily flawed, but damn, so is our industry. So many makers ready to undercut the next in the race to the bottom. Perhaps if the place that wanted to copy my bench had called me up and cut me a check for the right to do that I would not be as pissed. The design is my intellectual property and it was stolen. Do you think studio furniture is a better model where the best of the best still struggle to make ends meet? Heaven forbid they make big money off of their talent.

Do you really think something on the level of Newbould's indexer is the only thing that is a proprietary idea? You have a lot to understand about the law and how subtle some patents are.

I can unequivocally say, there is no way in hell I would copy one of your pieces. I build my work in my style of work. Now, riffing on an idea is a different matter. Show me a picture and ask me to riff on the concept using my ideas and elements and I will consider it. But making carbon copies? Hell no. But I guess I am an artist who has a style and values that. I also try to respect other peoples intellectual property.

All this arguing is funny to me, as when I went to build a chair last year I decided to riff on a pre-existing design. I created my version of Rietvelds z chair. I used my visual language to design it and modified the proportions a bit. I give Rietveld plenty of credit, but am still not sure how I feel about it in the long run. This is definitely an homage piece and I hope I have done a good enough job of making it my own rather than a rip-off.

Pete

Well said Pete!

There is just no way to justify copying a living, producing artists work without permission. It's insulting, unethical, and should be illegal. Decapitation with a dull pull saw!

The sort of thing Stephen is asking about is a whole other thing. Work that old would have passed into the public domain had it ever been protected at all. Altho Disney manages to get the laws changed everytime Mickey Mouse gets close to aging out.

M. Moore said:

Crzypete,

Another point about knock-offs, if you don't want your furniture copied then don't ever publish any photos of your work, not on the web, not in any magazines, nothing. That should solve the problem because if no one can see it then they can't make a copy.

Michael

Click to expand...

So, It is my fault that I was ripped off? I didn't see the waiver that said once you see a picture of a piece on the internet, you can feel free to copy it.

Peter