FRIEZE NEW YORK 2013
INTERNATIONAL HOME + HOUSEWARES SHOW 2013
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2012
BEIJING DESIGN WEEK 2012
Many of us armed with tools and skills have, at some point, seen something we wanted to buy—then decided we'd rather build it ourselves, either to save money or for the fun of it. So, here's a sticky question: With design piracy being such a hot-button issue, how do you feel about someone knocking off an existing design, as a one-off for their own personal use? And does it differ if the design is considered a classic?
For example, let's say you had the capability to create bentwood forms, do metalworking and upholstery, and you decided to make yourself an Eames Lounge Chair for your living room. Your friends would probably be impressed. Versus the stink you might have on you for copying an end table that you saw at this year's Salone.
I ask this because I recently came across this post of a father-and-son team building a desk with built-in cable management. The desk is a knock-off of the Bluelounge StudioDesk, minus the routed cable slot. Similarly, I follow a DIY blog written by a young mother living in the Alaskan wilderness. She frequently blogs about seeing a nice piece of furniture at Pottery Barn, not being able to afford it, and using her skills to build a copy for herself.
My first thought with the desk was, that's a cool bonding experience for a father to share with his kid. Similarly, I cut the DIY mom some slack because she's on a budget and I admire her skills. Both parties presumably build these things for personal use, not to sell, so it doesn't jump out at me the way for-profit design copies do, even though I realize neither of my defenses for them would stand up in court.
What are your thoughts? Have you ever knocked anything off for yourself? How would you feel if you were the original designer? And lastly, do the educational aspects of constructing a duplicate design outweigh any wrongdoing? (An early art-school assignment I remember is the standard trace-the-Rembrandt, and the first piece of furniture I ever built in class was Gerritt Rietveld's Red-and-Blue chair, fully sanctioned by the professor, in order to learn about joinery.) Let us know in the comments below.
Comments
"Knockoff" implies that the piece is a exact copy or is trying to directly imitate another design. In this case I think this is between inspiration and knock off. Furniture knockoffs are sometimes hard to avoid, the original desk looks like a knock off of a famous 60's kitchen table. So does cutting a hole in the top make the studio desk a knockoff? I tend to separate furniture and smaller products into two separate camps. Because of the vast amounts of furniture in existent it's really hard to find pieces that don't draw on inspiration from another existing piece, almost to the point of copying. In the case of building a piece for personal use I think this is always ok, if you are going into production depends on if your directly competing with that product. I also think that there are styles that have exist for centuries and are widely copied for profit, these are public domain and don't belong to [insert furniture company here].
I built a knock-off Fuji Toy Box by Argington for my daughter for her first birthday (http://www.amazon.com/Argington-Fuji-Toy-Box-Birch/dp/B001QFZA9Y)
I really liked the modern design of the box and that it had a cubby but couldn't justify paying $350 for it when I had most of the woodworking tools I needed. For less than $100 I had all of the lumber I needed (3/4" hardwood plywood) and probably 30 hours later I had a beautiful toy box for my daughters birthday that I know wont fall apart any time soon. Can't say the durability of the actual box is all that great based on reviews I read.
Overall it's similar, but not exacting. The lid is not inset and does not use euro-hinges. Instead I used rockler torsion lid-stay hinges. At best i'd say my variation is a sincere imitation.
Absolutely ok. I think this is no different than students copying The Old Masters in a drawing or painting class. Attempting these things helps build skills that future designers can use, as well as give a glimpse in to the processes that lead the original artist to their style and product. It's also a great way to get inspired: I'll bet you every single one of these things is different, in some way (often an improved detail) than the original.
Now if they are out to make a profit from the design or to pass it off as an original, obviously we've crossed a line in to plagiarism.
How would I feel: well, I've had my stuff knocked off many times. And in some cases I've even had individuals come to me and ask about a particular detail or method, and I'm always happy to explain and even provide pictures of how it was done. Consider it flattery from an aspiring student?
Personal use is personal use and remains personal use.
It's of no one's business whatever I do without any commercial goal in mind.
I can do whatever I want with it, no matter if it is a copied artwork, design, product, painting or what else.
I can even fool my friends if I am one of those lame-ass show-off braggers...as long as I don't maliciously deceive it and try to make money with it (selling, trading etc.).
Privately selling it can become risky and is kind of in a grey area. As long as there is only one item existing it might be okay if it is clearly advertised as made by yourself. But sell it with a contract stating exactly this, because you'll never know what the new owner will do with it...thinking of reselling with false advertising and than blaming you...who knows.
Regarding your posting and the concerns mentioned about the posts of that woman from alaska and the father and son project:
They can report about it without any concerns as well...freedom of speech.
greets
From my limited understanding the purpose of a patent is to create fair competition in the marketplace. Weapons excluded, I feel that governing what a person can and can't make with their own hands for private use is an infringement upon personal freedoms.
As for academics: if the purpose of the assignment is to be original one should tread carefully when drawing large amounts of inspiration from one piece.
I think it's ok considering most of it is simply and cheaply made and the prices for the original item are, as John Wayne would say; "Ri-God-Damn-diculous!"
Is making a cheese burger at home okay? Is it fair to knock off the chef that created that? Can I serve on to guest only for my personal consumption.
nothing wrong with copying a design that you like for personal use. Although most of the time people end up customizing the copy for their own needs which kind of makes it a new piece anyways.
almost all furniture designers draw from one another and follow trends, except for maybe those on the very high end.
I think the term knock-off is incorrect.
More like 'homage'..... These people have seen a good piece of furniture and like it so much that to be able to get one like it for themselves they're making it.
If I was the original designer I would feel flattered that my product was so desirable that people who couldn't afford it had made their own. However if someone was copying my design to sell on 'knock-offs' of my product then I would be really pi55ed!! and would probably seek some sort of recompense if legally protected, and yet the way product design is going are our ideas going to be protectable in the future??
I think it is absolutely ok to do this.
I have even helped a guy who wanted to produce one of my table designs for personal use, providing the technical drawings and giving some advises about its construction.
I heard years ago BMW took legal action against a Chinese motor company for copying their SUV and lost even though they looked extremely similar. Think about how much money and time was thrown at that lawsuit. As long as the products are not replicas of each other or built by the same specifications then you can't call them knock-offs. I could go into the door knob business tomorrow making your typical round brass door knobs. What other company is going to stop me from doing so as long as the shape, specifications, or turning mechanism is different. It could look exactly them same but if those changes were made I don't know who is going to stop me. Especially if the design you are mimicking is half way around the world with zero means or desire to distribute their product in the USA.
1. I love Steve's comment. Isn't it interesting that chefs go on TV to give away their recipes. Most have websites with free recipes too. I've never heard of one patenting their recipe (I'm sure one could). I wonder what our world would look like if we applied that to industry/software/etc.
2. All furniture today is already ripping off of something else. That table is like four at Ikea, just with a little more of a radius here and a little sliding bit. Wow! Who cares if someone uses the same idea and builds it at home.
Ideas have no intrinsic value, and are free until acted upon.
Value for the creator/producer is created at the first pencil line and reaches a maximum sometime after mass production.
Value for the consumer is created when the object is in their hands.
I don't think you can compromise the value for the producer ('steal') by building a one-off (invariably with your own tweaks due to special features or limitations of your tooling). You clearly weren't going to buy it.
Similarly, if someone sees your work and starts pumping them out for cheaper, or accessing different markets that you can't, it's probably a competitive advantage due to scale or experience, and if it's just because they are dumping waste and paying children to make the item then hopefully other regulations, tariffs, etc. would level the playing field. And yes, I recognize that I'm dreaming on that last point, but less than expecting work to be 100% original.
I know a person who found a Chinese factory to make him a copy of a piece of furniture, from a photo. It was 1/4 of the price, air shipping included. It was only for personal use, so would that be considered a knock-off? Guessing that many will answer "yes" - what's the difference between paying someone to do it or doing it yourself? Who is actually guilty of "knocking off"?
A client asked me to do a knock-off because she saw the stall on a book, once she knew about the price she said "NO! I will not pay for it" so, she looked for some one to duplicate it for cheap, is it worse than doing it for your self? I mean, you want to pretend you have an expensive object, but you do not want to pay for it.
If you build it for your self, i think is a nice, but is even nicer if you create it for your self using the concepts you like, but you do it on your own style, if you just copy.... is not a crime, but if you copy to sold to some one else and pretend is real, is a crime!!
What about a costumer asking to an artisan to copy a piece for him? moral fault or a copyright crime? who is guilty, the costumer or the artisan?
The whole idea behind capitalism is that you pay for a service/product that you can't do/build for yourself.
There is nothing wrong with creating a one-off duplicate for yourself, and frankly, if I was the original designer, I'd be flattered.
The harm comes when you duplicate and sell for profit.
That's when it's an IP violation.
The difference between doing it yourself and paying someone to reproduce a design for you is that the person doing the reproduction is doing it for profit which makes it a no no. Doing it for yourself though is fine.
I built a coffee table/trunk after my wife saw one at Restoration Hardware that cost $1600, I built it for $300. It is not an exact copy and it does not pretend to be a "brand name" piece. I put my own details and twists, but if you asked me I would say it was influenced by the R.H. piece. Even if I were to sell it, as my own and not trying to peddle it as a real R.H. piece I think that would be ok.. not like a chinese ripoff pair of jeans that claim to be a brand that they really aren't.