Amateur Furniture Blogger Gets Pinched by Pottery Barn

[BobSch]

Those are some great plans on there....my wife already picked a few out for me to add to the list.....

I wonder what those diagrams were made with, Google Sketchup?

Pete

Yup. Quote from the plans page "I love sketchup! Thank you, Google. I use sketchup to draw up all of my plans."

[Woodwerker]

I know some people on here dissapprove of her actions (thanks for the emails :-( )
I like her work and respect her for put it out there for others, mainly women to get a start into this great hobby!

[RAFlorida]

She did violate the copyright laws.

That being said, I give her credit for her efforts nonetheless. Anyway, pelligrini has the correct punishment for her, "I'd pinch her. "!

[Alex Franke]

That being said, I give her credit...

I'm not sure she did violate copyright laws unless you mean by including photos without permission. Like phi1l said, the seems far more interested in their trademarks than the actual designs...

[RAFlorida]

Alex, that's the part I was referring to; the photographs.

As the letter to her stated, "Your website illegally infringes WSI's copyrights because it prominently features WSI's copyrighted photographs."

[Alex Franke]

As the letter to her stated, "Your website illegally infringes WSI's copyrights because it prominently features WSI's copyrighted photographs."

Yep - my mistake.

[toolbelt diva]

Thank you for posting her blog. I'll have to find time to check out some of her plans and see which ones to try out.

[leehljp]

Generically posting a blog is fine. Using PB's copyrighted picts and names are TOTALLY illegal and ethically wrong! If most of you guys (and ladies) here were to make something and then post it, how would you like it if someone took YOUR photograph from this site and posted it in their web catalog or site and offered it for sale - using your photograph - and without any permission from you?

This has happened several times on the Pen Turning web site. Someone creates a pen and many people copy it for their on use or sale. No big deal most of the time. But companies (individuals) have taken those photos and used the photo for their web site sales in another country. A person in Canada had a pict or two of theirs used on a China web site; A fellow (a couple of guys) had their pen picts taken and used on web sites in Australia and in the US at another site. No permission asked. Just illegal use of photos. By the way, these photos published on IAP are not copyrighted technically - However the originals were used to prove to the illegal sales site's Internet Provider that the perpetrator did not have permission. At least one of the sites was closed down. PB could complain to the lady's ISP and more that likely have her site shut down. PB is just being kind!

That is flat out illegal and ethically/morally wrong. Most people's thinking is that it doesn't matter if "they" are the ones doing the taking - But it does make them mad if someone takes their photo and uses it without permission. Think about it! Moral delima!

All that lady needed to do is use her own sketchup, not mention copyrighted names, and not use someone else photos without permission. She is wrong. That directly parallels identity theft! I can't believe the people who condone this.

[billwmeyer]

I would like to see more of here photographs. Not of the furniture though!

Bill

[thestinker]

+1 Hank

I agree with Hank fellas. Its copy wright infringement. Liking something, making your own plans, and building is fine. Posting your pics and your developed plans is ok. Even mentioning that " I saw this in a catalog, online, in a store, and I copied it and made these plans is fine. Referencing the company name or their name for the furniture you are copying without permission is wrong.

I get all the jokes about pinching her...I would too but what she did is kinda shady. She builds nice stuff, and her plans look good, but it doesn't make her actions wright or moral in my opinion.

R

[LCHIEN]

i suppose its OK for her to post her sketchup pictures and say this was inspired by the "insert style name here" (trademark of WSI) in the Pottery barn catalog. As long as she doesn't claim hers to be of that name and credits PB's parent company for the trademarked name, she should be OK. PB does not own a copyright on the design itself. It would have to have some very unique and non-generic features for PB to be able to copyright it.

[gsmittle]

PB does not own a copyright on the design itself. It would have to have some very unique and non-generic features for PB to be able to copyright it.

Wouldn't "unique and non-generic features" be more of a patent thing? Realize that I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on stage, film, or TV. (Have played doctor, though )

As I understand it, as long as she reverse engineers the design, she's home free. If, however, she buys a piece of PB furniture and copies every aspect of the design, then that might be an issue. Using the PB names and photos are definitely copyright infringement.

I'm kind of sensitive to intellectual property issues. I make sure that I obtain a license and pay royalties for every show we do. Often my students don't understand that we can't just do another performance and not tell anybody. Even though it's not likely we'd be caught, it's still morally wrong.

g.

[LCHIEN]

Wouldn't "unique and non-generic features" be more of a patent thing? Realize that I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on stage, film, or TV. (Have played doctor, though )

...
g.

art, music, books, etc. can be copyrighted.
Inventions can be patented.

A cabinet containing a secret drawer with a new and novel opening mechanism can be patented. A Cabinet with a unique decorative design might be copyrighted.

Consider the following design elements in order:
1. An inlaid line around each cabinet door
2. an inlaid line in bright red around each door
3. an inlaid line with a circle in the center.
4. an inlaid line in red with a centered trademarked Pottery barn logo.

The first line is a common design element, would not be copyrightable.
The line of a specific color and perhaps width and dimension would be more likely to be copyrightable. Use of multiple lines is less common and would be copyrightable (witness the adiddas log with three lines.)
The third instance, consists of a less common but highly possible combination of common design elements, might remotely be copyrightable if a certain specific size ratios and color combinations were claimed (making it more unusual)
The fourth instance containing a unique element-the logo- not in common place use (among other reasons because it itself would be copyrighted) would almost certainly be copyrightable.

In all the cases above, the owner might claim the copyright on their product packaging and sales literature , but would then have to prove that it was relatively unique and not common design in a court of law when suing a potential infringer.

That's a final difference between patent and copyright - the patents are registered and granted by the patent office. The copyrights are merely claimed and the originator should retain proof.

A trademark, however, is registrered.

[woodturner]

PB does not own a copyright on the design itself.

I would think they DO own a copyright on the design itself. In general, any creative work is copyrighted. It's common but not required to record the copyright.

If I design a piece of furniture, I automatically have a copyright on that design. If I think I may need to defend that copyright, it would be wise for me to record the copyright, but a copyright does not need to be recorded to be valid and enforceable, in most cases.

BTW, patents are different. If I patent a woodworking clamp, for example, NO ONE many legally copy that design without my permission - including a home woodworker making one for his own use.

With copyrights, the issue of whether one is selling the copies comes into play, but not for a patent.

disclaimer: These are my opinions as one who creates copyrighted works and as I understood explanations by counsel and in copyright seminars. However, I am not offering legal advice and anyone concerned about these issues would be well advised to seek counsel from an attorney in their local area.

[woodturner]

Consider the following design elements in order:
1. An inlaid line around each cabinet door
2. an inlaid line in bright red around each door
3. an inlaid line with a circle in the center.
4. an inlaid line in red with a centered trademarked Pottery barn logo.

The first line is a common design element, would not be copyrightable.

There may be some confusion here between trademark and copyright. A "common design element" is still copyrightable and copyrighted. To say it is not copyrightable is akin to saying a written work could not be copyrighted because English words were used.

In this case, however, the entire work (design of the piece of furniture) is copyrighted, just like a book is copyrighted. Whether a simple line around a door is separately copyrighted is a different and less clear question. For example, one could make up a new English word and copyright it, but likely could not enforce or defend a copyright on the word "the".

A trademark is something different. If I take that red line around the door and register it as a trademark, it prevents others from using that design element. With a copyright, they could not legally reproduce the entire piece, but could potentially use elements of the design in another work.

disclaimer: These are my opinions as one who creates copyrighted works and as I understood explanations by counsel and in copyright seminars. However, I am not offering legal advice and anyone concerned about these issues would be well advised to seek counsel from an attorney in their local area.