Likes: 0
Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Thread: Copyright - Cassina Willow Chair
-
27th December 2015, 04:01 PM #1SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Buderim qld
- Posts
- 842
Copyright - Cassina Willow Chair
Cassina make chairs that were made and designed by Scottish architect Charles Renee Mackintosh who died in 1928.
This is a link to the chair and their website-
312 WILLOW 1 | Chairs | Charles Rennie Mackintosh | Cassina
I am having trouble understanding their statement under 'Authenticity' as I thought copyright would no longer exist.
"All the models in the Cassina collection, by merit of their artistic content and particular creative character, are protected by copyright, a legal institution that is universally recognised and safeguarded; legal protection is assured for the whole life-span of the author and for 70 years after his/her death (or the death of the last surviving co-author)."
Apart from the above, I would like some thoughts on the cross-lap joints that involves curved/bent horizontal pieces of timber that will probably have to be steam bent. Do I do the cuts for the joints in the curved pieces after I bend them?
I hope you can assist me with both matters. Thanks in advance.
-
27th December 2015 04:01 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Posts
- Many
-
27th December 2015, 04:35 PM #2Taking a break
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Melbourne
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 6,127
As far as I know, the copyright can be renewed/extended by his estate.
Also, everything has to be done after steam bending
-
27th December 2015, 09:39 PM #3
In Australia, for an 'artistic work' (ie not literary, dramatic or musical works) the copyright period is 70 years from the death of the artist.
1928 plus 70 equals 1998, so it's been out of copyright for 17 years.
Copyright (unlike a Trademark) cannot be renewed; that's why Disney keeps getting the US congress to put forward bills extending the duration of copyright so that Mickey Mouse does not go out of copyright.
https://www.nla.gov.au/how-long-does-copyright-last
-
27th December 2015, 09:46 PM #4GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Central Coast, NSW
- Posts
- 3,330
Actually, in 2004 when the statutory period was changed from 50 to 70 years it was not made retrospective, so If the author/artist was already dead then the 50 year rule applies. Therefore it went out of copyright in 1978.
Apologies for unnoticed autocomplete errors.
-
28th December 2015, 01:47 PM #5SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Buderim qld
- Posts
- 842
Thanks, that takes care of the copyright issue.
However, I would appreciate some thoughts on the cross-lap joints. Also what is the best unit to produce steam to bend the wood?
-
28th December 2015, 07:05 PM #6GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Central Coast, NSW
- Posts
- 3,330
If you're painting this,or using a very dark stain like the original, then why steam bend?
Surely it's easier just to make a form and laminate up the curves.
My opinion is that home-done steam bending is pretty hit-and-miss and rarely works as well as many posters would have you believe. Especially true in Australia which is not replete with good bending woods.
Exactly what is the question you are asking about the lap joints?Apologies for unnoticed autocomplete errors.
-
29th December 2015, 05:47 AM #7rrich Guest
Until recently, I would have said that if the copyright has been sold to a corporation, the copyright remains in effect until the corporation dies.
HOWEVER
There was a case where such had happened on the ditty "Happy Birthday". A corporation, I don't remember which, had been collecting royalties on the use of the tune for decades. I believe that the US Supreme Court ruled that the copyright was invalid. What I don't know is if the HB invalidation was due to a defect in the chain of copyright or it applies to all copyrights. (In the US, obviously)
-
29th December 2015, 10:05 AM #8
Warner/Chappell's (who acquired the rights in 1988 and have been collecting around $2 million a year for 'Happy Birthday to You') claim on the song was found to be invalid. Their rights purchase was found to be for the 1893 music 'Good Morning to All', on which the 'Happy Birthday' lyrics were added in 1935.
So Warner's rights purchase was for public domain music, and for the non-existent copyright of the 1935 lyrics (the lyrics were never registered for copyright purposes, as was required by US law at the time).
In US law, copyright owned by a corporation expires 95 years after publication, or 120 years after creation. I always find the US stance on copyright ironic, considering British copyright was one of the things they rejected! Author Charles Dickens complained about not receiving royalties for American printings of his stories.
-
29th December 2015, 11:23 AM #9
Australia has many suitable woods for steam bending. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...-of-Timber.pdf
Steam bending kiln dried timbers is not going to work very well though.Mobyturns
In An Instant Your Life CanChange Forever
-
29th December 2015, 02:12 PM #10GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Central Coast, NSW
- Posts
- 3,330
We shouldn't loose sight of the fact that the statement on the website is not a pre-emptive defence of copyright. The owner is merely pointing out that because the object he is selling was made within the copyright period then it is worth more then one which was made in the knock-off period immediately after the copyright ends.
The presumption is that while the item is under copyright then the holder/licenser of the copyright has an interest in maintaining high quality. After the copyright period ends, the incentive is lost and even the original maker may let quality slip if market pressures dictate.Apologies for unnoticed autocomplete errors.
-
29th December 2015, 03:33 PM #11Taking a break
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Melbourne
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 6,127
Copyright is also only meaningful if the holder is actually going to pursue enforcing it and I hardly think some random guy doing a private project is worth their time. If you were going to sell them to the public that's when you need to worry.
-
29th December 2015, 03:45 PM #12
Another take on it is to use the design as "inspiration" for your own design. It has been said that a difference of as little as ten percent negates any copyright, and could, quite possibly. be far more satisfying to make.
CheersThere ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk!!
Tom Waits
Similar Threads
-
Google and copyright
By Rocker in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORKReplies: 9Last Post: 10th April 2009, 03:00 AM -
Copyright my name
By Wongo in forum ANNOUNCEMENTSReplies: 34Last Post: 8th September 2005, 08:46 PM -
Copyright question
By sprock in forum SCROLLERS FORUMReplies: 2Last Post: 7th November 2004, 09:26 PM -
Australian Copyright
By echnidna in forum DESIGNS & PLANS FOR PROJECTSReplies: 1Last Post: 5th August 2004, 10:54 PM