Alan Heller, a manufacturer in New York, tells a story that pretty much encapsulates the great promise and subsequent tumult of Design Within Reach. One of Mr. Heller’s products is the Bellini chair, a 1997 design by the Italian architect Mario Bellini. It was such a good fit for D.W.R., Mr. Heller says, that it appeared on the back cover of the company’s first catalogue in 1999. Over the years, Mr. Heller sold thousands of Bellini chairs through the company.
Alan Heller, a manufacturer in New York, tells a story that pretty much encapsulates the great promise and subsequent tumult of Design Within Reach. One of Mr. Heller’s products is the Bellini chair, a 1997 design by the Italian architect Mario Bellini. It was such a good fit for D.W.R., Mr. Heller says, that it appeared on the back cover of the company’s first catalogue in 1999. Over the years, Mr. Heller sold thousands of Bellini chairs through the company.
But last spring, Mr. Heller picked up a D.W.R. catalog and found a “confusingly similar chair” that wasn’t the Bellini. Called the Alonzo, which Mr. Heller believes is a malicious play on his first name, the chair was priced about $50 less than the Bellini. DW/OR
17 Comments
Why is this unethical?
Furniture design is fashion design. The good ones get knocked off. Why can't Heller and Bellini figure out how to make the chair a little bit less expensively?
1997 was 13 years ago. Some might say that Richard Meier's designs look "confusingly similar" to Corbusier's. Is Richard Meier unethical?
What does seem to be unethical, is the AIA's Awards program. If architecture is religious expression, how do AIA members decide that some building's "look better" than others without violating the AIA's own ethics guidelines against discrimination on religious belief?
evidence, back it up with some proof. now, are you saying that Meier stole - literally stole - Corb designs or are you saying Meier's designs are inspired by Corb?
bellini chair|
http://www.designaddict.com/design_addict/forums/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread_show_one/thread_id/7610/
http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2009/03/heller_v_design.html
as for architects stealing other architects designs, that has been done, and architects have been sued.
i have no, zero, problem with appropriation, Rauschenberg did it all the time, but the big difference is; Rauschenberg made the work into something wholly original and could not be confused with the original.
hell, i even like what Negativland did with the U2 album, and they got sued, and the album was banned.
You can't enforce copyright on utilitarian designs.
If it had a logo, an emblem, ornamentation, a one-of-a-kind pattern or a specialty finish relating to the finished aesthetic... then sure, sue away.
But there's no way in hell a judge is going to enforce IP on a fancy mold injected plastic chair.
Well, I guess I'm confused here.
@b3tadine[sutures]:
I'm with Oruchi on this.
First, Heller is suing, claiming trademark infringement, but it's Bellini's design. Did Heller purchase the mark from Bellini?
Second, it's obvious that the DWR chair has an arch-shaped opening right where the coccyx presses against the chair back. DWR appears to have made some utilitarian, functional improvements over the Heller chair, apparently making it more comfortable. And they may be lighter and maybe they stack better.
Third, Heller claims that the public associates the design with Heller. I'm an architect and I own four of those chairs. I couldn't have told you who the designer or manufacturer is, nor am I aware that they were exhibited in an museum. I didn't buy them because of the prestige of the Heller or Bellini names, I bought them because I like they way they look and they are pretty inexpensive. DWR sends me a free catalog and makes ordering easy, whereas I've never even heard of Heller. And I'd probably buy the DWR's chairs instead, too, because they look better than the Bellini chairs. So Heller's attorney is just blowing smoke.
Fourth, Heller hasn't won this case yet, has he? I'm surprised DWR hasn't filed a countersuit for civil harassment. Maybe DWR just needs a licensed architect to certify that the Bellini chairs are eyesores compared to DWR's.
Fifth, a jury trial? That's a good one. My Ouija board tells me Heller would lose hands down with a jury.
Sixth, ethical and legal are very different things.
Also - you didn't respond to my comment about the AIA awards program. How does some architect decide that a Buddhist temple doesn't look as good a Christian church - as part of a fundraiser - and get away with it? How is that not unethical?
So eje, when you design a custom vanity for one client, then the builder copies it exactly on ten spec houses, which are all sold at great profit to people who love the cool design of these builder-designed houses, you won't mind at all, right?
LB, that's why I try to make it a point to add some ornamentation to all of my work in one way or other. Even if it is some lattice work or some basic geometric shapes or even pinstripe, that way some one can rip off form all they want but cannot duplicate verbatim.
There's a lengthy interview with Marc Jacobs some place where this was one of the factors influencing his collobration with that japanese dude over the design of the Louis Vuitton handbags.
I agree with eje. In general, I think DWR's problem is a management strategy problem. 1.) Knocking off a product that you are already selling is cannibalizing on your own profit margin. 2) People who are interested in mid-century modern design are aging, and disappearing fast. 3) Modernist design was meant to be ubiquitous..product differentiation is not built into the business model.
So same question to you, nonarchitect: put up a design you've done, post it here, I'll copy it and sell it with no payment going to you, and that won't bother you at all, right?
Your 1.2.3. list is pure post-rationalization bullshit, by the way. This defense of knock offs sounds a lot to me like whining about not being able to afford something you feel entitled to.
i wish people would read the article[s] there are many on DWR. some of you might be right, a suit in this area has been difficult to win, but the issue is less with what is legal and what is ethical. DWR depends, almost solely, on the ideas of designers - other than the shit heads that work for them - and given that, it hardly makes sense that designers in the future would desire to work with them again. Blu Dot filed suit, and that case was settled, so i think Heller's suit may have some legs. i happen to be with LB on this one, put up a design, any of you, and i'll take it, get it made, sell if for some $$ call it another name, and watch you do nothing, right?
"Some distinctions are clear. For instance, a painting on the side of a truck is protectable under copyright law even though the truck is a useful article. The painting is clearly separable from the utilitarian aspects of the truck. The overall shape of the truck, on the other hand, would not be copyrightable since the shape is an essential part of the truck's utility. Another commonly considered example is that of clothing. The print foundon the fabric of a skirt or jacket is copyrightable, since it exists separately from the utilitarian nature of the clothing. However, there is no copyright in the cut of the cloth, or the design of the skirt or jacket as a whole, since these articles are utilitarian. This is true even of fanciful costumes; no copyright protection is granted to the costume as a whole."
Orochi, is only half right; the chair in and of itself cannot be copyrighted, but there are certain aspects of the form[s] that exist outside of the chair - the nature of the chair - that are available for the purposes of the copyright. this is not new btw.
Define the nature of a plastic lawn chair that is separate from the utilitarian nature of the chair?
The form is the thing that actually can't be copyrightable since there doesn't seem to be any superfluous features of the chair.
Again, form cannot be copyrighted unless aspects of the form, like construction, bracing and functional ornamentation, are part of the process of creating the chair.
Do the chairs have some sort of internal bracing?
(Sorry, I'm not trying to be bitchy... I'm just wondering what you're seeing about a lawn chair that I am not?)
This is exactly the reason as to why I never pursued a career in industrial design. There's almost no way to protect your work.
It's a rat race to do something before someone else does it. Then everyone points fingers at each other and gets pissy.
LB and betadine:
DWR is not selling anyone's pictures or designs, they are selling chairs, and a chair is a piece of plastic (in this case) that you sit on. So, I would disagree with your analysis and analogy as being accurate. Neither of you seem to be distinguishing among form, function and materiality. Was that Vitruvius? And DWR's is obviously different visually and functionally, which neither has addressed.
One might look at glazing system A and system B, both of which are quite similar. But if you look at them closely, and see how they work and read the test data and the product's specs, one might conclude that the design of one product and system is superior to the other, and one might want to specify the superior design.
On the other hand, the party with the inferior design may want to rely on prestige, social status and so-called 'meaning' to protect their position in the marketplace without competing on the basis of utility, price, safety, sustainability, no? Are these the businesses that should profit for decades by gaining legal protection from the courts? Are the designers who encourage this type of result the ones who should be held out as role models by the 'design community'? And should the anonymous hard-working designers who improve function and help bring products to market at lower cost be called 'shit heads' by other designers?
Heller seems to want market protection for shapes based on someone else's inventions. Without plastics and injection-molding (if that's the process), the slender lines wouldn't be possible. OTOH, Charles and Ray Eames developed chairs based on useful processes that had never been seen before, and bent-laminated plywood is now used in many applications. I may be wrong, but I believe that one could not have copied an Eames chair without infringing on patents, whose defense I would wholeheartedly support.
If DWR's calling the chair the Alonzo is a 'malicious play on Heller's first name', the courts have recognized the concept of satire, and the DWR chair appears to be something new. Since DWR does not appear to be claiming that they are selling Bellini chairs, then Heller's own attorney's would seem to be in agreement. This is not like selling a fake Rolex or bootlegged copy of Star Wars.
It seems that the arguments you both make are commercially protective of the design industries in a way which don't seem to result in any benefit to the consumers, as well.
Oh. In response to your challenge about posting work and letting someone else get paid for it?
This is a basic condition for everyone who enters an AIA sponsored program. The entrant submits work. The AIA has the right to publish the work.
In perpetuity.
Whether the entrant is a member or not.
To collect whatever publication fees they want.
To provide the entrant with nothing in exchange, other than credit.
With no obligation to actually publish anything.
Here's the real kicker. It isn't even free. *You* have to *pay them* for the opportunity!!!! ++
Now. LB and betadine. Would you say that the AIA leadership is run by unethical 'pieces of $#!#'?
++ This is my understanding. If my facts are incorrect, any comments from AIA members are welcome.
Ugh, eje, really? That's completely different, kiddo. When you submit something to AIA - or whatever competition - you are agreeing to their terms. You can choose not to participate if you don't like the terms.
What designer knock-offs are doing is bypassing any kind of terms altogether - grabbing any idea they see, anything existing in the world, and making money off it for themselves. That's stealing. Popping a hole in a new place, while every other element remains essentially the same, doesn't fundamentally change a form enough to be considered a new idea.
liberty bell - Your points are excellent, and it's possible that we agree more than we disagree.
Briefly, though, competitions differ widely. The sponsors and the terms are not all the same. Some competitions reflect a property owner's values, interests or tastes. And the term 'designer' is not the same as the term 'architect.' However, the AIA awards program has people who call themselves 'architects' involved in positions where they act as 'judges'.
So .... when you agree to be bound by someone else's professional judgement, what kind of judgement is it that you've agreed to be bound by? What does that mean?
You may say, "It doesn't matter", - because no one has to enter the competitions - but it matters a great deal to a public that hires architects to design buildings. Members of the public can be compelled to abide by the judgements of architects and AIA members whether they like it or not. With no evidence and no proof, just wild stories that are made up as they go.
I'll write more on this in the near future, but suffice it to say that I share your outrage over the wholesale theft that some architects are engaging in.
BTW, I am licensed as an architect, but I am not now and - except as a student - never have been, a member of the AIA.
An interesting new competition:
Create a short video in the form of a Public Service Announcement on the topic of genuine design and the problem of knock-offs. Use concrete examples to demonstrate why furniture designers deserve the right to protect their work against unauthorized copies and counterfeits. - Competition details
@Paul:
This contest wastes students' time and deludes them into false beliefs. Students will make fools of themselves because they have no knowledge of the courts' opinions. Instead, they will take advocacy positions to protect their future earnings as a result of wasting money on a 'designer' education. They are pawns of manufacturers with ties to industries of culture.
It is worth noting what the judges ruled in the DWP case and in similar cases involving Knoll. In the Heller case, Heller LOST on a number of causes of action.
Basically, the court seems to have said that US trademark laws don't protect furniture designs. Otherwise, the courts will have to intervene in disputes over every detail. What can be protected by trademark are logos (Nike's swoosh), namestyles (Nike), and slogans (Just do it!), not furniture shapes. Adidas may protect the three-stripes mark, but not the 'look' of their sports shoe. Otherwise, all shoes would cost $500 and there would be no look-alikes for $10 [my opinion].
A designer T-shirt may cost $350, but do you want to *have* to pay $350 for a T-shirt because a clothing manufacturer might sue a competitor? Now, I can choose whether to buy a 10 dollar T-shirt or spend $60 to buy a CK T-shirt that looks identical. The CK T-shirt has a better fabric, better sewing and it fits better - I may have to try the shirt on to tell the difference - but that's my choice to make as a consumer. And you better believe that Calvin Klein knows his fabrics, fit, construction and prices inside and out.
Instead of having this type of bandwagon contest for people who have no idea what they are doing, it might be helpful to interview real attorneys who have courtroom experience, like those at the legal site linked above.
The contest claims to support the rights of designers, but it really supports the interests of the manufacturers to keep prices high. A designer could learn how to negotiate a good price for her work and the manufacturers could compete on the basis of price and quality, not just the fame of the designer. That isn't taught in architecture school. Instead, what is taught is, "My work is great art! It's in a museum! I'm famous!" Blah, blah, blah. The manufacturers use designers to keep their noses and prices in the sky.
Thanks to the Thom Maynes of the world, the architectural design industry is completely and totally screwed up, and I predict that this competition will prove that to the world.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.