text:
Knockoffs: Flattery or Theft? 7.26.11
Apartment Therapy Design Evenings
• What: Design Evenings: Knockoffs Panel Discussion
• July Guests:
John Edelman, CEO of Design Within Reach
Kate Hable, co-founder of Hable Construction
Alan Heller, founder of Heller Inc
Marc P. Misthal, attorney at Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman
• Attendance: 269
This was our biggest panel discussion yet, and it was thrilling to have four such distinguished guests. Knockoffs as a subject is so complicated and controversial that it made for a lively discussion among our guests. Read all about our evening below, and please join us in September for our next New York Design Evening at ABC Carpet & Home!
l to r: John Edelman, Kate Hable, Marc Misthal, Maxwell Gillingham-Ryan (missing: Alan Heller)
This month's meetup was kicked off again by Ken Pilot, Executive at ABC Carpet & Home. In a fitting introduction to our panel, he talked about real vs. fakes when it comes to what ABC Carpet carries in its store, and that they deal with this dilemma often. It's pervasive throughout the design world yet hasn't been talked about much in realms outside of fashion, so it's of great importance that we're talking about it this evening.
Maxwell Gillingham-Ryan:
Thank you everyone for being here. So a quick back story to my own personal experience with knockoffs - when I first started as a designer and was working with clients, I was always happy when I could find them "affordable" pieces. The whole idea of whether or not it was a knockoff piece wasn't as top-of-mind, but fast forward to today and I'm a lot more aware of it, including affordable alternatives that are not knockoffs, which is important and something we'll most likely touch on this evening.
So, let me introduce our panel, from left to right:
Marc P. Misthal is a patent and trademark specialist at Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman. He specializes in all areas of trademark and copyright litigation and prosecution, and has extensive familiarity with domain name and Internet issues. Mr. Misthal has contributed to the Aspen Law & Business treatise, Trademark Counterfeiting, (George W. Abbott, Jr. and Lee S. Sporn, eds. 1999); and he is the author of Reigning in the Paparazzi (10 International Legal Perspectives 287, Northwestern School of Law [2000]).
More recently Marc, along with George Gottlieb, contributed an extensive chapter on intellectual property to the newly released book Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives and Attorneys. The book takes a practical approach to addressing legal issues. It is the first book to comprehensively examine, in one volume, those areas of the law implicated in the fashion business (including, in addition to intellectual property issues, franchising, distribution, rentals, leasing and import/export). Fashion Law, published by Fairchild Books, is available from Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and other booksellers.
John Edelman joined Design Within Reach in January 2010 as President and Chief Executive Officer. He has more than 20 years' experience with consumer-focused lifestyle brands, most recently at Edelman Leather. During his 14-year tenure at Edelman, six years as President and CEO, he exponentially increased its brand awareness, sales and profits as the leading national provider of premium leather to the home furnishings industry. He was instrumental in leading the sale of his namesake company to Knoll, Inc. in October 2007. Prior to joining Edelman Leather in 1995, Mr. Edelman spent seven years at Sam & Libby, Inc., where he was responsible for its U.S. business.
Kate Hable is co-owner of Hable Construction with her sister, Susan. Her academic background in journalism, marketing, and sales management at Polo Ralph Lauren and Kate Spade refined her skills in co-owning the company with her sister, Susan. She was born and raised in Corsicana, TX, and currently resides in Brooklyn, NY.
As the entrepreneurial force of the company, Kate is influenced by the independent and hardworking women around her, and inspired by her sister's artistry. Kate also realized the benefits of starting her own company which afforded her the freedom to be a mom, wife, and her own boss.
Alan Heller founded Heller Inc. in 1971. The company's philosophy is good design, industrial production, and reasonable prices. For over forty years, Alan has collaborated with some of the world's leading designers and architects, including Massimo Vignelli, Philippe Starck, Vico Magistretti, Mario Bellini, and Frank Gehry. Heller products have received numerous prestigious design awards, including two Compasso d'Oro's, Italy's highest design award, and Germany's Red Dot and IF Design awards for technology. Heller products have been exhibited and included in the permanent design collections of museums such as the Louvre, MoMA, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, the Victoria and Albert in London, and the Pinakothek in Munich, among many others.
Throughout his career, Alan Heller has worked closely with manufacturers of innovative technologies both in Europe and the U.S. Alan Heller holds a number of patents, including one for his new invention ErgoErgo, a revolutionary chair based on plastics technology which won the Good Design award even before being launched in the market. He has consulted on technology for various companies.
Alan graduated from The New School, N.Y., with a BA in economics and lives in New York City with his wife, Barbara Bluestone.
Just so everyone knows, I tried to get a fifth panelist, someone who actually makes knockoffs - I tried three different people and they all backed out.
So, let me start by asking you all how this issue has affected your own lives?
I've always worked with major designers, with a focus on industrial production. We look at price as it compares to the production cycle and try to find how we can make the absolute best product within the required price point.
There will always be copies, they're just out there. But you don't have to buy a copy to get a "designed" product. Many of our least expensive products are actually carried at Design Within Reach. Their wholesale prices would make Wal-Mart laugh, but the key here is that we want to create good product and won't sacrifice that.
The first product I produced was a dinnerware line in 1971, which is still in production. At one point I think there were 34 copies of it out there. This particular line is in MoMA.
For me, as a textile designer, we're in a bit of a different realm, as people can easily copy 2D work. We produce our goods domestically, so our prices will always be hire - but we've made the choice to produce in the U.S. and use U.S. workers and we're proud of that. Along with that comes the higher price.
We've sued and won two major lawsuits with department stores. They came about because designers knocked off our textile designs. People just Xerox our fabrics and then manufacture them in China, but luckily, we have great customers who have actually seen this and brought it to our attention. In fact, a friend of my sisters from Parsons called us a while back - she almost lost her job because she told us that her company was Xeroxing their designs.
This issue affects us on a daily basis. Our main goal is to make sure our clients aren't confused - therefore, we want people to know that we carry zero knockoffs. There are other companies which have lines that are similar to ours that are knockoffs - it's unfair competition and it's confusing for the client. We can't blame people for being confused, it's too easy to use these similar names to find a market at a lower price point, and much lower quality.
Now, DWR used to have a mix of product, correct?
Correct. At the beginning, Knoll wouldn't sell to us - they are very, very strict with who they license to, as they should be, and when DWR started they didn't know how legitimate we were as a new player in the space. So we started offering knockoffs. And as we grew and they realized we were a legitimate company, they gave us the license arrangements and we stopped carrying knockoffs. Originally the company really wanted to have "modern within reach", so they did what they had to in order to reach that company goal.
You know, in general, creative people have demands. It's our job to find a way to work with them.
So Marc, you're on the other end of this - you're the one who's called when a designer finds a knockoff of their work. Tell us how a knockoff is defined in legal terms?
There are a few factors we take into account, but mostly it comes down to what a piece looks like. Is it a "good" knockoff, meaning that it looks exactly like, or as good as, the original? Or is it "influenced" by a famous piece yet has its own distinct look?
To be honest, there isn't a really good legal definition. The big question here comes down to rights - that is, if you have rights to something, what are they? Our best legal test is the visual test - if you put two pieces side-by-side, do they look similar? Is it hard to tell them apart? Is one a "good" knockoff of the other, or is it "influenced" by the original? It's subjective, but this is mainly what we use when looking at knockoff cases.
And what about if a bag has a Hable Construction logo?
That's considered trademark infringement, which is something a bit different. That's more to protect the consumer than the designer.
What about the shape of a chair or table?
The first question is how is it protected? Patent or trademark? The question with Trademark is, Is the consumer going to be confused? With a design patent, that is more to protect the designer and his/her design.
So you're a small company knocked-off by a big one. Is it expensive to sue?
The main way Katherine won her lawsuit is because she had a Copyright, and Copywrights are cheap. She spent $35 and was covered, end of story. They're easy to get online, and any work you create can be covered.
One of the lawsuits involved a print we call the "Poppy". We had pictures of it in the press three years prior to the creation of the knockoff, so that helped. Also, we had registered the yardage - someone knocked it off in a wool appliqué version, but it was clearly the same hand. All of our work is hand-created, it looks much different than a digital creation, thus it's easy to spot our own.
I'm thinking about other items that are questionable in terms of knockoffs, for example, a slab table. One would have originally thought Nakashima, but you see these tables all over now. It's so basic and natural in its form, can that be considered a knockoff?
Copyright protects works that have a small modicum of artistic expression. A detail that makes it what it is, if you will. That may not be the case here. We may have patents coming into play.
The minute you add a name to something, it's different (logo) - think of fashion where this is ubiquitous. In furniture, you don't always have that type of mark or signature, so it's a bit more difficult to discern from a legal standpoint.
True - in fact, if someone copies a logo, that's a lot easier to defend.
What about an Eames lounger? Or a Saarinen table?
These are iconic pieces. Herman-Miller has a Trademark registration on these items that they actively police. They go to court all the time for these issues - with a Trademark, you have to police it, it's a bit of work.
I'm just thinking about places like the one across the street from here. They pretty much exclusively carry knockoffs.
Remember, a design patent lasts 14 years. A trademark lasts for as long as you use it, so you can't get lazy, you have to police it.
This first slide shows the Coca-Cola bottle shape and look, which is trademarked. It was issued in 1977, and Coke's been using it since 1916. They must re-register the TM every ten years and pay a fee to do so.
Here's the Tizio lamp which is trademarked (designed by Richard Sapper for Artemide in 1972).
Barcelona chair, which is trademarked.
Does a manufacturer escape lawsuits if they create a knockoff that isn't called the Barcelona chair?
No, it doesn't matter, going back to the visual test.
Here's a good example - this is a block print by Galbraith & Paul, whom we represent. Their design is on the left, and then you'll see a lamp from Ruby Tuesday on the right. Well, the Galbraith & Paul folks were at a Ruby Tuesday with their families one night and called me from the restaurant when they saw these lamps. They sued Ruby Tuesday for the use of their fabric. Another great fact about having a Copyright certificate - you can recover the attorney's fees, which is huge, as you can imagine.
Here's a quilt artist who's a client of ours. On the left is a hotel carpet, on the right is her product. She was at a large quilting convention in Houston and people were congratulating her as she walked by - the hotel that hosted the event had knocked-off her carpet.
The grey chair (left) was developed by industrial production - it's a gas-injection molding that is one of the first of its kind. We worked on the technology for 18 months. I went to Italy to work with Mario Bellini on how to design a chair using this technology (a bit of a backwards process, but it worked).
The reality is that in China, there are knockoffs of everything. In many instances, they are almost exactly the same. In this particular knock-off, the copies aren't gas-injected, and they aren't made with fiberglass and polypropylene.
On the right are cubes made by Frank Gehry. They mimic his architecture, and he has copyrights on this.
You know, many people don't realize that when they choose an original, particularly one that is knocked-off a lot, its worth grows over the years.
Cassina Chair - this is not the same quality as a knockoff, it simply can't be done.
I think some people fear that the license allows you to charge more.
It's not the license, the difference is actually in the physical product.
This was out of production for a while, and so we went to the family of Finn Juhl to see if we could create it again. It is stamped and authorized by them.
This is actually a Panton piece that's launching this week - it is an original that's been blessed by Mrs. Panton. A Panton by Panton, and a licensed original.
I love this because it's a fun color shot!
When you think about it you have to ask, who's going to find the next originals? It's us (DWR), Knoll, Fritz-Hansen - not the knockoff folks. Knockoffs just confuse the consumer and slow down the New Development process (as we fight patents and trademarks for original pieces).
This is one of our fabrics that's been knocked-off a bunch. We found it once as a knock-off in pink suede.
You know, you just have to keep moving forward with your design and not get bogged down by the knockoff mess. But it's tough - we're very connected to our own work, and it's really hard to see what happens out there.
The main thing I want to share with everyone is to Copyright - Copyright everything. That's what saves you and makes the lawyers' jobs a lot easier. If you're a student and find it too expensive to Copyright, then batch your images - create thumbnails, call them "Katherine Series 1" for example, and Copyright that series (100 thumbnails for $35).
Bead pattern. This is, unfortunately, not able to be Copyrighted, so it's been knocked-off a million times. It's just a pearl necklace that's been laid down and drawn - it's beautiful, but it can easily be knocked-off.
I received an email this week about an online store that copies us a lot. I called them and said I knew what they were doing and didn't want to cause a lot of hassle (since these items aren't copyrighted) so I asked them to donate their proceeds to Habitat For Humanity - instead, I noticed they put the items on sale this week.
Poppy pattern. This one is Copyrighted, and, as I mentioned earlier, we were able to use the press from years earlier in our lawsuit.
Stripes. Someone accused us of stealing from her. We owned this many years before her and had it Copyrighted. Again, Copyright!
An array of our products.
Inspiration series.
You know, the furniture business is shady (sorry, guys). We're affiliated with Hickory Chair and I can just say that a lot of the folks we've spoken to are shady and it's hard to find good ones.
You're right. In fact, none of us at DWR have ever been to High Point because of that - it's so highly copied and commoditized.
I've never been there either - we refer to it as "Low Point".
We went for the first time a few years ago. There were these big doors at every showroom. You must have an appointment, and they need to escort you in. It's really shady and everyone is very nervous. They just don't trust anyone coming in the door and think everyone's going to copy what they have.
Yes, and meanwhile, in Milan, you can do anything and go anywhere - the looks are all so original and bold that there's no way one person can copy another. Unlike High Point, where the looks are so generic that copying is a lot easier.
So who are these people? Manufacturers in China? Designers at big companies that just don't tell their bosses where the idea came from?
There's the person who wants to do something similar, or in the "likeness" of. And then there are the body snatchers, and they're bad. It's tough because sometimes it's just the color, or "essence" of a piece, and that's when it gets confusing for the consumer.
Trademarks are better because you get a piece of paper from the government. You get a much different response to a request when you have that official piece of paper to back you up.
There's a term called "value engineering" - it's from the hotel industry, and it means that they take an original design for a space and then find a much cheaper way to create it. It's malicious if they pull it off as real.
Ken (from ABC):
I was with Gap for 13 years, so I have to say, I'm very familiar with "interpreting" styles. It's very prevalent in the fashion world as was mentioned at the beginning.
I think one of the huge problems in this is the internet. Of course, on the flipside, as a lawyer I love it - it's given us a lot more work to do!
So I have two comments. First is regarding the copyists, those major brands that are out there that have a market for this type of duplication, which is why they are in business. They'll probably never go away. The second is that there's a company called Shapeways (shapeways.com) that produces 3D printed objects. It gives small designers access to classic design and allows them to copy them a lot easier. Basically, anyone can go online and get a product created. Should we be worried about that?
Well if it's an original design we should applaud it - that's good for us all to get more original design to market.
Hello, I'm new to design and I have two questions on this topic: first, after hearing this discussion I now understand why certain products cost so much, but I'm wondering - if someone can't afford an original now, would you want to completely turn them away? In other words, if they buy a knockoff now that may not mean they'll buy a knockoff in the future, so you may not want turn them off? And also, in a perfect world, if there were no knockoffs, would that be a bad thing?
Let's think about this - if there were no knockoffs, people just wouldn't buy things they couldn't afford. This is the way it was throughout most of history.
And to add to that, there are beautiful $400 tables out there that aren't knockoffs, so why buy one at the same price point that is?
Exactly. There is beautiful design at all price points.
Target has approached this idea head on by bringing in big designers to create affordable lines.
There is this beautiful book that is called The Future of the Past by Alexander Stille. In the book, he talks about Chinese museums that sent copies to US museums when they were putting together a show. The US museums found out and were extremely upset, and the Chinese museums didn't understand why. In reading this, I wondered if this is also a cultural debate - in other countries, perhaps they don't worry about knockoffs as much as we do?
Along these same lines, the (NY) Times reviewed an Apple store in China that was an exact knockoff of the US stores, even down to the employees' clothes.
I don't have much experience in this, but I do know that many of these manufacturers really are just copying and don't even think about design - for example, if you want something in a specific size, say 20x20, they will literally make it that way, even if it doesn't scale square. They don't look at it, they just create it, exactly as you ask, without these considerations.
So this is a good question - does authenticity matter? Is it just a U.S. issue?
One of the most destructive forces here is Wal-Mart. We hear a lot about them, but it's true - they don't care about the integrity of anything. They encourage a disposable, throwaway culture. I don't think China would be in business if there wasn't a demand.
There is a huge trend in China on Brands. Japan was the first with knockoffs and now they're into Brands. China is there now, too.
Is this somewhat driven by class? And status? High class will always be costly, so is the idea that some may just never get there?
Allen, you started with affordable design, meaning it is possible, and we have been making that distinction tonight - that original design is very accessible, people just need to consider that before knockoffs.
We have a new chair coming out from Alessi - it's a $200 folding chair. We also have plywood chairs at $129. There are affordable, well-made, original designs out there. People just need to think about this when purchasing.
I'd like to go back to the Ruby Tuesday example. The designer shows the client something that ends up being too expensive and a long lead time. The client then goes to the internet instead and finds an alternative and purchases it. How much is the designer responsible for that?
Well many times the designer doesn't even see the final purchase if that's the scenario, so it's not their fault. Although in reality, they should offer up other alternatives that are original and still work with the overall plan so a viable option is determined. In the end, we as designers need to educate our clients, but in the end, if they go ahead and purchase something without your knowledge, it's not your fault.
In the end, going with knockoffs really is a poverty of the imagination. We didn't talk about Ikea here - but there are choices that are not copies, and people just need to start educating themselves about them. Thank you, everyone.
• Special thanks to Kayne Elisabeth Rourke for transcribing our Meetup!
• Special thanks to our volunteers, Georgie Hambright and Amy Patrick!
• Images: Matt Pokorny
Thank you to our sponsors!
90 Comments
I usually look down on knock-offs, but when the original design was intended for inexpensive design and now costs more than $500 for a plywood chair, I have to give it to the knock-offs. They actually adhere to the designers wishes.
I mean there is clearly some identity politics at play with respect to knockoffs. Most of them are made in China with cheap parts and possibly deleterious labor conditions .... but if each knockoff Eames chair was painstakingly crafted in the United States with premium parts, I wonder how the mentality might change. In other words, what is our hangup about knockoffs? That they steal designs? That they fall apart easily? That they are crafted in third world countries? Maybe all three.
I have a mix of knockoffs and originals in my place -- a knockoff Nelson bench, 2 original Eames CDMs and an original Bertoia side chair (which I plan to cover with a knock-off pad). I prefer the originals if I can get them for cheap, and there are some pieces where knock-offs are not even economically worthwhile, for instance, Bertoia and Eames dining chairs. The knockoffs cost almost as much as a real one in decent shape from Ebay. Of course, both are considerably less than a new one from DWR.
I agree 100% with both posters. I have a problem with knocking off a poor copy of a design in China and selling it for a huge profit (they could likely sell them for $100 a chair and still make money)... I think part of what you're paying for when you buy the real deal, is the designer's time and inspiration.
That being said, I agree as well with energieon about adhering to the designers' intent. If the point of the piece was to be inexpensively mass-produced, and available to the masses, then I think that knockoffs are another story....
I do prefer companies who give homage to the original designer, and use the materials/methods that were originally intended, and mark down the price significantly, rather than ones that tweak the design in ways that the average customer would never notice unless they saw/touched/felt the real thing, and sell it for almost as much as the original.
This is a big gray area for me as a designer, and I'm interested to hear what the outcome of this panel is!
ugh.. do we really need to have this argument for the 4000th time?
I agree primarily with the first post. So many designs, and especially a number of the things in the "Design out of Reach" catalog are vastly overpriced compared to the original intent of the designers to create mass marketable quality pieces. F*** that.
Clearly, the population at large has voted in the most democratic way: with their purchasing power. Knock-offs are around because there is a giant market that wants them.
The huge mainstream popularity of all things mid-century-modern has created this monster. Too many people want the oh-so-ecclectic edginess that a 'scavenged find' is purported to add to their space. This trendy popularity has -- as is usual --successfully reduced the cool factor that once came with originality.
Commodification of high design reduces the original's aspirational value. That's how it goes.
(she walks off with her mock-gucci bag and rebellious denim).
Most midcentury icons were not intended to be examples of "high design" -- quite the opposite actually.
The demand for knockoffs is induced by the high price for new licensed merchandise (a la DWR, R&B, Vitra etc) and originals sold in the private market. If originals were not as expensive as they are, then there would be little need for a knockoff. In this sense, I think one way stores like DWR or Vitra could combat undesirable knockoffs is simply to lower their prices.
As you can see, not very many people are rushing into the game to make knockoffs of IKEA or Rooms To Go furniture.
Honestly, I am still wrestling with how I feel about this. But when Knoll is outsourcing Saarinen table bases to China, and the "knock off" Saarinen table at Room and Board is cheaper and made entirely in Italy, what is the better choice?
I have some "Jake" chairs (fake "Series 7") and a faux "Barcelona chair". I love them. I think their styling is attractive, and it makes me happy to see them in my space. I am not a collector, I am a librarian who earns spit and lives hand-to-mouth. (It took me three years to pay off the credit card investment in furniture for our new house, including those chairs.) There is no way I could ever afford the Real Deal nor the licensed versions. So to me it's more an issue of finding nice looking furnishings for normal people -- not those in the upper 1% who can get whatever they like. I think copyrights should be limited, and mid century designs should, by now, be public domain. I wouldn't waste money on counterfeit handbags or other items (partly because I would never want them regardless of cost) but furnishings with a history and which do not claim to be "authentic"? Why not, if they are still built well and look good...
It's a cyclical argument. We love iconic design, most of us can't afford it and so we purchase knock-offs. Sure, they're not made with the same quality but I don't believe that they have diminished the legacy or prestige of the originals. A knock-off is only as potent as the design it emulates. I've sat in a knock off Eames Lounge Chairs and still dreamed of the real thing. That will never change.
I'm with cakegirl -- if the knock-off is made in Italy, is high-quality and made carefully adhering to the designer's specifications, then I don't have as much of a problem with it. The caveat being that it is a design at least 50+ years old. After the designer's lifetime, I see it more as a public domain property. You can choose to buy the Penguin paperback, Everyman Library hardcover version, carefully bound with a page-marker or a really cheap paperback with no explanatory notes or introduction, usually found on a the bargain table. Or nowadays, you can buy a version for your iPad. The choice is yours.
However, I will add that there are too many 2nd and 3rd generation knock-offs. When they start selling them at the grocery store, it has really gone too far. That sort of copy really cheapens the original.
And I am getting awfully tired of seeing iconic pieces in everyone's living rooms; makes them less interesting (boring!!) and less special.
I agree with mschatelaine because I oppose the accumulation of wealth in perpetuity through inheritance. I see no reason why a corporation or an individual should be able to profit exclusively from the creativity of an ancestor. A life in being plus 21 years seems long enough. Are we really honoring the designers by purchasing so-called licensed products? And should someone without a large paycheck be compelled to forego good design in order that some corporation banks a profit. Does this adulation of the proprietary interest of the designer include clothes? The knock-offs of designs go on sale within in weeks. So how long should we wait before we purchase new clothes? Only when the original designer and his corporation have died?
Just some questions.
Why is something made in China considered inferior?
I don't think made in China in always inferior, but it is in many cases. Also, many people have a problem with labor practices in China. Companies move production to China to lower costs. Knoll continues to raise the prices on the Saarinen table. It also bothers me that they do not mention their Chinese factories on their website, but they do mention North American and Italian ones. Clearly they are aware that a product made in China could be perceived as inferior.
Screw the poor. If they want good design they need to pay for the real stuff, even if it means starving their children so they can afford it. Or just stick to cheap ugly standardized furniture that wont offend any of the purists.
I agree with mschatelaine, ebrown, and SherryBinNH--when designs are over 50 years old and especially when the designer is dead, I certainly wouldn't call a "knock-off" unethical in any way. I question the purity of a licensed design, compared to any other organization or individual reproducing the design.
Copyright should be limited in all arenas. That a corporation or even a family can profit from an individual's idea for years or generations after their death is in complete conflict with the very purpose of patent and copyright--to encourage and reward ingenuity and originality.
I agree with BetterBombshell...if the designer no longer has the ability to profit from his or her work, I see no problem whatsoever with "knockoffs." It's up to the consumer to decide whether a difference in quality exists and whether that difference is worth the price.
I am reading Delux, How Luxury Lost It's Luster and just finished the chapter about how many $$$$$ handbags are made in China, but he fact is hidden. Ditto the substitution of lower cost ingredients in fragrance over time. In that context, where luxury is a sign of marketing and not necessarily value, going for a wll made knock-off makes all the sense in the world. It is simply beating the brands at their own game.
I am redoing my living room and there is a fabric covered chair on DWR that I'd love - but it STARTS at $15,000, without the footstool, which starts at $1,700. What could possibly cost that much?
Could not agree more with BetterBombshell and others up-thread. The ethos most of these modernist designers embraced--affordable design made accessible through contemporary mass manufacture techniques--completely contradicts the odious notion of the "licensed original."
Regarding the issue of copyright, this research suggests that 14-year protection represents the most societally beneficial balance motivating and compemsatimg creators, while not locking ideas down for so long as to stifle subsequent innovation.
@ Scoot - DWR actually started as a company, doing reproductions.... and were approached to carry licensed product, over time. Thus the name - Design within reach. So I guess that curtails that argument. I am all for QUALITY reproductions. Keeping the integrity of the original design. note your images.... the 'knock off' Eames Lounger and ottoman. The ottoman has the same base as the chair. Big no no, and a rather obvious poor imitation.
I am in the reproduction market, and it is crap like this that sends me seething.....
[ I LOVE apartment therapy. All the way from little old New Zealand... ]
More than anything I'm curious if this panel will be one sided or not. The guests so far are of course from DWR and Modernica. Until you get someone from White on White there then I think it'll just be the big boys justifying their high prices. I love design and yet it irks me to no end the original pieces were produced specifically so that mass production could make them affordable for all... and yet here we are stuck with DWR and Herman Miller pricing.
"Knock-offs are around because there is a giant market that wants them."
There's a market that wants all sort of things: meth, underage sex-workers, automatic assault rifles, shark fins... demand doesn't make it right, it just makes it popular.
Ahhhh, the old 'Knockoff furniture = underage sex workers' argument. Way to take the argument past its logical conclusion by citing illegal goods and services repugnant to the vast, vast majority of the population. Its a silly, shallow comparison that disingenuously associates a legal product with an illegal one. If you reference legal goods and services (say, "grape jelly, HDMI cables, haircuts") in your argument, the air kind of goes out of it.
And... what's your grudge with White on White? This is like the 10th time you've ranted about them in comments.
Regardless of your stance on the "morality" of knock-offs it's clear that no amount of debate or even legislation will prevent them from happening.
At what point does a design become merely derivative? Change of paint color or more? Who decides?
Not buying knock-offs as a politcally correct stance also puts the onus on the consumer--personally I'm not sure if I would recognize a Bauhaus from a Craigslist--should I be forced to research the design history of every furniture purchase?
Pretty much I say live with it.
Now, child labor, concentrated wealth, and companies as legal entities...I have an entirely different opinion on. It's interesting to see that in the space of less than 15 comments the discussion has completely changed.
DWR can sell pieces at those prices, becuase people buy pieces at those prices. The market will bear it. You want a Rolex? Some poeple do and will pay for it.
Knock-offers sell pieces at those prices, becuase people want things that look expensive but don't want to pay big $ (or even 'fair' prices most times ; meaning the cost of materials, manufacturing, assembly, labour, shipping and taxes PLUS the profit margin a company is entitled to to stay afloat).
My problem lies with the end-product: the pooping up of our planet with inferior quality goods and furniture that people are more likely to throw away once the trend has run its course because, "I didn't pay much for it anyway."
That's one of the dangers of commodification; a disposible attitude towards 'stuff'.
Dagnabbit, I wish I was in NY for the talk. Very interested to see what comes of it. Thanks AT and all your readers and contributers for your thoughtful ideas... such a great read.
The wheel was invented about 10,000 years ago. Did Charles Goodyear steal a design?
I don't know about furniture, but with clothes the originals and knock-offs are often made in the same factories (in China or elsewhere), are of the same quality, but with the originals you pay more because of the advertisement, fancy stores ect. And just because something is made "in Italy" doesn't mean a thing (at least not for clothing). Often it is made by illegal Chinese imigrants who are paid shitty wages. So you might as well buy the knock-off, it doesn't make a difference for the workers. There are many stories about connections between the designers, Mafia and the knock-off industry, so it might as well be that the designers get money from the knock-offs too (again, I am talking about clothing, I don't know about furniture).There are exceptions of course.
And weren't there some stories that DWR was selling knock-offs as well? And not from some famous designer who died fifty years ago, but from young designers? So I really wouldn't care about being fair towards DWR (not that I could anyway, in Switzerland there's only Vitra).
"Most of them are made in China with cheap parts and possibly deleterious labor conditions .... but if each knockoff Eames chair was painstakingly crafted in the United States with premium parts, I wonder how the mentality might change."
That's why prices from HM and (most) Knoll stuff are what they are - made in the USA. That costs more than it used to (labor, materials, OSHA, health insurance, etc.). I can't support authoritarian capitalism in China, and I won't buy knock-offs made there. I will, however, support companies that make their products (licensed or not) with high-quality materials by craftspeople in North America. Modernica makes their stuff, often iconic designs no longer in production, in LA - perhaps the ideal happy medium.
Clearly, with some items and companies there's a brand premium. That goes with just about everything and is the basic tenet of marketing. But when you really get ripped off is when you buy a luxury product made offshore. Just look at the mall - now its all made in China.
I get tired of seeing claims the Eames Lounge chair is out of reach compared to 1956. Wen it was released, the price was $578 for the chair and the ottoman. According to the first inflation calculator I picked on Google, that is $4,700 in 2011 dollars.
The price today is about the same.
You can spend a comparable amount of money on generic chairs from big box stores. And yes, you can also buy much cheaper chairs, too.
What if we changed the way we thought about possessions in general and furniture specifically? What if we made do with fewer items but bought extremely high-quality, well-designed pieces that we could keep for a lifetime?
Wouldn't that change what's considered "expensive?"
Of course you can buy a super-cheap table at Ikea that will begin falling apart almost as soon as you get it assembled. Or you could spend $4,000 on a Saarinen marble-topped pedestal table. Which sounds like a lot, except it is built like a tank, will last the rest of your life, and never go out of style. If you buy this in your 30s and use it for the next 35 years (not unusual for couples to keep the same dining table their whole lives), that works out to $114/year. Is that really excessive for something poetically beautiful that every member of your family will use every day?
lol, i wouldn't pay $900 for the knockoff too.
Flattery is posting an article about how wonderful a designer's product is - not taking their idea, manufacturing it in China or from cheaper materials and selling it for less.
It's impressive how different the Lounge chairs look. The original looks so much nicer, with smooth and quality matte leather. Notice how the nock-off is full of wrinkles.
I agree with all of you. Some designers aren't here anymore, so it really comes down to your particular experience with your furniture. I've had problems with knockoffs, but unfortunately if I wasn't able to afford a particular piece, I've made some concessions. There's nothing like owning a piece that is built like it's supposed to. I do hate the big companies ripping people off for designs that are supposed to be affordable. Design is a human expression to edify our lives, and when it's used mainly for profit alone, it degrades its purpose and meaning.
God, I wish I was in nyc for this!
Brooklyn Rob -- I agree with you completely.
And that is how Europeans tend to live. They have much smaller homes than most North Americans (along the same lines as apartment-dwelling New Yorkers), but furnish them with much more beautiful (and expensive, well-made) furniture. That's because they only have 1 all-purpose living area to furnish as opposed to several (living rooms, family rooms, studies, etc.).
It's not just a MCM issue, either. Good quality, well built furniture of any style will always be more expensive than 'disposible' junk.
I don't mind reproductions IF they are well made and of good materials. Luckily, Victorian and A&C pieces are still pretty available, though. And here in the Midwest, the prices aren't crazy - yet.
That sounds like a terrible idea. I would hate to feel obligated to hold onto furniture that, for whatever reason, I no longer like that much (no matter if it's a classic design, well-built, etc--and where exactly does that leave new designers, anyway?) just because I spent a lot of money on it initially. (Resale would probably not be impossible in this case, but if I had to buy the replacements new the outlay would still be absurd compared to now.)
I think the wrinkles are a function of there being less stuffing/whatever, not the leather.
I dunno, does this panel seem particularly balanced, or will it just be blanket condemnation of knockoffs? Also, I forget what followup (if any) there is for these things on AT, do they post a transcript?
Ah, if we only buy good-quality stuff and live in small spaces and keep our furniture our whole lives, then designers must go out of business. Design of any form insists that what is cool this year must be out next year. Mid-century-modern was super, super OUT when I was a kid, and it will be super, super out again when retro-80s chic (dusty rose, anyone?) is back.
So... the keeping great furniture for a lifetime only works if your style never changes. That sounds tiring to me. I flea market and get fabulous finds there for cheap money. It takes time and commitment, but I've got lots of those. I just don't have $$.
As a person with a house full of IKEA and thrift shop finds (and having lost many of my possessions in a house fire), I can only shake my head and wonder why anyone would entertain spending nearly 5,000.00 on a chair just because it's authentic. The sense of entitlement among the design elite is enough to make me want to buy nothing but knock-off's from China.
Knowing what I do about manufacturing and shipping, there is no way to defend charging such prices on any of these products, unless it's hefty price is meant only to exclude those who can only dream and droll and hope that one day, they too, can sit on a Licensed Copy Eames.
So buy the knock-off, save yourself a ton, and spend the remaining money on something that makes sense like retirement or a kick-butt wine collection.
Factories in China pride themselves on doing a knock off- I just read there are complete Apple stores in China that are fake!
As consumers of - we win! I buy stuff from all over - DWR, white on white, Room and "Bored", ikea, Jonathan Adler, west elm - even Lowes (shudder)..... So long as the piece is made well and fits in my space, I could care less if it was signed and stamped by the artist himself.
Knock offs aren't only a problem when it comes to "iconic" designs. A typical strategy for Asian furniture manufacturers is to have their US sales reps 'scout' the floors of their biggest dealers, looking for good selling US made designs only to take those designs to their factories in China, Vietnam, Malaysia or wherever then go back to the dealer and threaten that they'll sell the popular design to his biggest competitor unless the dealer takes and runs the knock off. And the threat carries weight because the dealer knows how well the design sells and is desperate to prevent his competitor from having access to his best merchandise. Now in the furniture industry it's understood that something less than half the designs that are prototyped ever make it into manufacturers lines and of those that do, maybe something like one in five ever sells well. So after spending tens of thousands of dollars per design on product development less than one out of every ten has the potential to become a success. Now consider that a Chinese manufacturer with an artificially devalued currency is going to try bypass the expense of research and development, he's going to steal your best designs and intimidate your dealers into dropping your product for his. That is the reality of the knock off business.
So the public should realize when they buy a knock off, the above scenario is what is playing out behind the scenes and they are becoming an unwitting participant.
@k2yhe --
Knowing what I know about economics, I can only shake my head and wonder why anyone would entertain buying cheap goods from China and sending US dollars and jobs overseas to get pay for them rather than supporting your own country's economy and your neighbors jobs (as well as your own) by buying American.
Okay, then what are you going to say about precious iconic designer furniture from Denmark, exported to the US? I see it as the same thing; different era, different continent.
Total Theft! If these were Chanel bags there would be no debate here. I never allow companies who produce knock-offs to be carried in my stores even if they have some original designs of their own.
I remember sitting on old Eames chairs in my classroom as a kid and wishing we had cool new ones. Many of the designs that now cost crazy amounts were never intended to be for the elite. If a company can reproduce a design in an ethical and quality way for less, I have no problem with it.
I try to avoid Ikea furniture but I see no value in buying knock-offs because they are made of God-knows-what (VOC's anyone?). I have a few Herman Miller DCM's and all of them together cost less than one new chair. Buy vintage and let someone who can afford to do so take the hit on the initial depreciation.
@ k2yhe
Also profound differences in quality. Furniture from Denmark was thoughtfully designed properly built for a lifetime of use. Furniture from China barely survives the manufacturing process and is generally not going to do much for your home air quality either. I guess we could thank China for democratizing the home furniture market and McDonald's for expanding the American palette.
Agree with deedee914. This has all the makings of a very one sided discussion. Based on their bios, everybody on the panel stakes their livelihood on making sure consumers are purchasing original product and not knockoffs.
my husband is a woodworker (by hobby) and we have built many beautiful pieces of furniture and remodeled two homes together in our 18 years of marriage.
When I know a piece can be made from $150 of nice maple, walnut or other "real" wood, yet a "similar" "artiste" piece is selling for $2500 to feed someone's ego and wallet...
I think you see where I am going on this....
I think the problem is that we've lost our manufacturing base in this country. Designers here need to be able to bring their original designs to market in a way that keeps them affordable. That would be a win/win.
I view this like I view software piracy - it's harmful when you're getting something that you otherwise would have purchased, however the company actually benefits if you're not taking revenue from their pocket.
What I mean is: I may procure a copy of Photoshop, as opposed to using the Gimp or some other freeware program, however I would never have the money to purchase Photoshop myself so if I couldn't get that pirated copy, I would never expose myself to it and would not have a familiarity with it. By investing my mindshare in that program, however, I'm increasing Adobe's market dominance and in a business setting I would encourage purchase of that program because I'm already familiar with it.
Similarly, I may not be able to afford a $2,500 table right now, and so have to settle for a cheap knock-off - but if the opportunity presents itself later in life for me to purchase the real thing, my appreciation for the design would result in me ponying up for it. Also, there is the investment value to consider - while you can often achieve most of the short-term aesthetic benefit with a knockoff (at least in some cases), like all "used" furniture it's going to depreciate over time while a piece with the name behind it will, at worst, hold a higher percentage of its value and at best will actually appreciate in value.
Since I can't really add anything original to this discussion, I'll just "copy" all of the commentary that justifies the purchase of knock-offs as a means of having the look at an affordable price, etc, etc.
I suppose that makes me a "knock-off", too.
True enough, MarshallO, but fear or honesty... I would be VERY surprised if DWR sends a representative to this panel who's says that replicas are the way to go. I highly doubt that we see any devil's advocacy from them.
Curious now?
-Design is not typically covered under copyright law.
-artistic works are, so some patterns or artistic elements can be copyrighted
-they may have an "unfair competition" claim or trademarks claim if they can call the design trade dress in which the public associates w/ a single origin
-->to do this the trademarked elements must be nonfunctional and also not a typically desired aesthetic function (aesthetic functionality)
-Most gain 20 years of protection from a patent. Not a terrible option when you think about it...
Lobbiest are now fighting to extend copyright protection to designs.
--> the issues with this are:
A. Depletion of the public domain limits new entrants into the design world (you must be allowed to build off of certain ideas in such fields)
B. Limited amount of ideas (a shirt is designed so many ways)
The classic balance in copyright law: having a rich public domain to allow for new creation vs. having enough property rights to create an incentive.
(PS and I hope by "specialist" AT means "attorney" ...if so an esq. would have been appropriate)
Please name some famous designers that have gone bankrupt because their designs have been copied and sold for less, elsewhere.
Knock-offs stimulate the popularity and desire for a designer's product. Everyone wants what they can't have. If you don't believe me, just walk down the street and have a look at all the butt-ugly handbags women have overpaid for so they can feel good about themselves.
It all comes down to psychology, folks. People want what they perceive is out of reach for most so they can feel "special". So now, everyone wants a butt-ugly handbag, even the people who can't afford an original. I'll bet YOU (reader) have a butt-ugly handbag, too... and strut like a peacock when you carry it.
I could think of at least 20 things that are more attractive than a Herman Miller chair, BTW...couldn't you? Come on. "Iconic"? Maybe. But about as pretty as a butt-ugly handbag..... let's be honest. Not even really all that comfortable. People just want it now because, for whatever reason, it became "desirable", again. In a decade or so, it will be another white elephant that you can pick up at a garage sale for a ten dollar bill.
suessinc - a four-pronged ottoman sends you seething? you must have an idyllic life if this is the biggest thing you have to get worked up about!
i look for furnishings that are attractive and well made. if in doing so i happen to purchase a piece that is a replica of some "iconic" furniture design, i often don't realize it - and probably wouldn't care if i did.
the big-name furniture designers have little-to-nothing to lose when replicas of their designs start popping up; they're not competing for the same purchase dollars. those who love a genuine designer piece of furniture, and can afford it, will do so. those who have an eye for good design but cannot pay the price, will search for affordable items that approximate the look they want; if in the future they become able to pay designer prices, it is likely they will trade up.
many a bride has secretly walked up the aisle with a cz on her hand, only to have it replaced by a genuine diamond at a later date - who are we to criticize?
While I'm generally willing to pay more for the "real thing," within reason, I feel like the line has gotten blurred a lot of late. Two examples:
* Some of the "knockoffs" that are made in Europe aren't "knockoffs" in the true sense -- they're made by manufacturers licensed to sell that design for the European market. Should I really believe that if I buy a chair in Paris, it's real, but if I buy the same chair in New York, it's fake?
Likewise -- some of the licensed manufacturers have quietly modified 'iconic' designs over the years. Take the Eames shell (DS- and DA-) chairs -- the 'authentic' Herman Miller has switched to polypropylene, while the Modernica 'copies' are the original Fibreglass.
Of course, at the end of the day, the best answer is generally "used." I paid less for a set of six vintage Knoll tulip chairs than DWR wants for a single new one; granted, they need some TLC, but I'll still come out way ahead.
All a patent really does is exclude.
hello again.
reinforcing the 'knock-offs-pooping-up-the-planet' argument are @valentino1 who believes it's okay that people, "will search for affordable items that approximate the look they want; if in the future they become able to pay designer prices, it is likely they will trade up." ... and poop up the planet with their original, less valued 'disposable' purchase...
And thanks also to @monkeyshines who will, "... have to settle for a cheap knock-off - but if the opportunity presents itself later in life for [him] to purchase the real thing, [his] appreciation for the design would result in [his] ponying up for it." ... and poop up the planet with his original disposable purchase...
just sayin you said it.
i love the looks of furniture at DWR, but even though we make a comfortable living, i just can't bring myself to pay those prices. i even visited an outlet in Palm Springs, and it's still not 'within reach.' so i shop at *gasp* Pottery Barn, Crate and Barrel, Room and Board ... and yes, like another commenter, I even shop at the big box stores. I'm at a point in life, though, where I don't want any Ikea furniture. I'd like to purchase something that will last a while longer. And to avoid getting 'bored with it' as once commenter feared, I just look for a classic feel to it - be it modern or even traditional. yup. it can all go together if it's what you love.
Actually foog, I'd sell my less expensive knock-off when the time came, assuming it wasn't so poorly made that it fell apart during my period of ownership...and isn't buying 2nd-hand the most responsible way to buy if you're that concerned about "pooping up" the planet?
I love the hipster "greenies" who brag about how socially responsible their new Prius is. I don't remember the exact timeline, but the carbon footprint of building a new car is great enough that it takes...I think it might have been a decade...before you've broken even on the environmental impact vs just continuing to drive your old 20mpg 1983 car.
I have to laugh, sitting here with my rear end comfortably planted on my Tolix pseudo-knockoff . . . of course I would prefer the real thing, but I can't have it. I can, however, have four satisfying "interpretations" for less than the price of one perfect Tolix chair, and I'll have enough left for groceries -- and maybe even a knockoff of someone's rug.
We all know "knockoff" has an unspoken pejorative connotation and remains to be a faux pas. I want to criticize monopolizing an idea but in the end, this perhaps can be construed as rhetoric on financial gain/copyright laws. I do believe this copies are thievery. I also believe in healthy competition. I'm on the fence about this because I've stolen ideas for my place and had them custom made by local artisans...iron, wood, glass, etc. (Textiles, no. Apparently thats my contribution to the international market. lol) The first item I bought for my place was a knockoff - a Luxo L-1 Task Lamp...I still have it. A part of me wants to be willfully ignorant.
"I think the problem is that we've lost our manufacturing base in this country."
And where do you think it went?
That's right - China.
Why? Cheaper prices and greater profits, but not better quality goods - nor better quality lives for those left without jobs.
To all the people bemoaning the fact that'll lofts mean jobs go to China, read Deluxe, How Luxery Lost It's Luster and see how many European designers are having their handbags and accesses made in China - and then marking them up 0 times and (2) in San Francisco the government just outsourced the building of a BRIDGE to China to save $600 million. yes, California is broke - but those are really good jobs.
As to original vs. Copies, I am now looking for a chair. I would like to spend less than $1,500 doe something fabulous. That is a lot of money to me. does't even get me in the door at DWR and a host of other places. Could I spend $5,000 for
a chair - yes, but I find that obscene. So I would consider a knock-off.
And the German sofa I bought - being made to order for me - in China.
I will never feel guilty or bad for having and looking for knock-offs.
and years later when I can afford to I will reupholster with better material/leather.
Just buy what you can afford and quit whining altogether. Not everyone has $3K to spend on a damn chair. Anyone aware of the economy we're living in? And by the way, everyone has Chinese manufactured products of some sort in their house, so get off your high horse. If you can afford authenticity, cool, buy it. If you are living by far lesser means, buy the replica and don't feel bad. Just because you're not a rich design snob doesn't mean you are restricted to the styles of Target or IKEA.
I can appreciate the fact that designers can, and should, make as much money for their original designs as possible. I'm a designer in a different discipline, so I understand the hard work that goes into design. I also understand a tight budget, and, of course, being a designer myself, I want well designed things.
In my own field, I am vigilant about not using knockoffs or stolen material. When it comes to home furnishings, it's really tough, so I agonize over knockoffs.
There is an area of design that makes me happy, though--mass-market originals by renowned designers. I might not ever be able to afford $5K for a proper Eames chair. But I can afford a chair or other decor by Graves or Starck at Target. Yeah, it isn't my ideal, but it isn't buying a knockoff or settling for something bland, either. I thank God for Target's commitment to good design.
I've also discovered that local craftsment either already have their own designs or can make mine for less than an original designer piece, price-competitive with Pottery Barn. And it would be an original. Yeah, it costs more than Ikea or Target, but it's also a happy spot.
@monkeyshines... pooping up the planet includes buying something that you know is likely, "so poorly made that it [falls] apart during [your] period of ownership.".
you said it again.
WHY are we still talking about this?
I wish I cared enough to really care.
I usually like the look of the knock offs more than the originals. Like with the examples above...
To me buying knock offs is a form of cheating. Sure, maybe you can get away with it, but you always know the truth. What's the point if it's not the real deal? I'd rather buy something real and iconic that's in my price range rather than a fake.
Here's an interesting question for the debate--what about cars? Originally, designed and made in the U.S.. The argument is that the costs are high and quality low due to unionized American labour. Should we support American made for economic reasons and do our bit, or buy Japanese cars based on American designs but made in ununionized factories that quite often are better built and in many cases, more well suited to personal needs?
It is strange folks get in a tizzy over this. How many people here demand brand name pharmaceuticals over generics and shell out the money for those? Right. Made in China. Our fault. Poorly made in China, um, how many of you posted on this site with a US made computer or smart phone? Oh right. Knock offs are all crap? Um, Eames lounge chairs are notorious for having shock mount failure. Ever seen a vintage womb chair? Not too pretty, and to reupholster costs about as much as a new chair. And I don't mean a knock off. Plywood chairs aren't exactly heritage furniture either. Lot's of fancy modern design from B&B and BoConcept are made of the same crappy MDF you'll find at Ikea. I'm sitting in a vintage 4 star base management chair, but the fact that is "original" doesn't help the designer any does it, I got it second hand. Use your head, check out pieces before you buy them. Buy the best quality you can afford to buy. (I'd avoid aluminum group chairs myself, the knock offs look dodgy, but shell chairs seem fair enough.) I'd agree with other posters on the time frame, dead designers are fair game, but I'd turn up my nose too at a polder or confluences sofa knock off, as much as I like them.
I like the term "influenced" rather than "knock off." Nothing is truely original.
How come no one is mentioning Maxwell's platinum-blonde knock-off hair?????
@JenPDx - I was thinking the same thing.
I'm sorry, could you please repeat that? I didn't hear a word you just said. I was blinded by Maxwell's platinum blond hair.
So glad they haven't been to High Point - I've never understood the appeal; the mass produced crap that comes out of there is boring and flimsy.
@ urbancricket
you're right, they really didn't. They mentioned Target commissioning "big name" designers to come up with original designs for their products.that's about it. Also, there was mention of IKEA, which designs their own stuff, often inspired by known products, but they generally don't knock-off designs. I'm not really sure that these entry level designs enter into the discussion because the fact is, people want Knoll, HM, etc. products BECAUSE they are expensive, and in magazines and celebrities' homes. This is what makes them aspirational. People don't really aspire to own Target or IKEA products.
As for patents and copyrights expiring, you;re right, they do. But designs are not always patented, they could be trademarked. All three are different in their meaning and enforcement. Mark Misthal described some of this. As he pointed out, if you are granted a trademark, it can be enforced indefinitely as long as it's actively being used. So while patents expire, allowing whatever patented design or technique to enter into the public domain, a trademark can still offer protection.
By the way, I actually think the hair is pretty cute. But I wasn't kidding when I said I was momentarily stunned.
I think it's hilarious that they held up a $200 folding chair by alessi as totally accessible. How about... no.
Also, this was cute:
"You know, many people don't realize that when they choose an original, particularly one that is knocked-off a lot, its worth grows over the years."
"If X then Y" is true, it doesn't mean "if Y then X" is also true, but from this admission certainly seems that knockoffs do not 'cause originals to lose value. At all. So what is the problem here?
I enjoyed this discussion, but what I thought was conspicuously missing was a discussion about which policies would encourage creativity. I know it's sad when people 'steal' your designs, but how much of the design is truly original? And how long should you be protected? Most artists I know would claim that nothing is really new -- you build on what came before.
Sometimes the copying is clear, but more often it falls in a grey area (less often with these MCM most people are talking about). How do we deal with that?
Also, nobody has mentioned how quickly fashion changes now. In the early 50s of the Eames references, people saved more to buy their furniture (and clothes and food...), but the styles didn't appear outdated very quickly. Is our obsession with newness driving the desire for knockoffs?
A few years ago I bought the "limited edition" Lytegem lamp at DWR on sale for $99. The original price was $125.
I need another one so I Goofled, hoping to find a used one. instead, I learned the Lifhtolier makes them. I bought my ORIGINAL on Amazon for $59.
So...the issue isn't always protecting the copyright or whatever. It is stores like DWR playing us for fools. My earlier post on this thread suggested that folks read Delux to understand all the falsehoods about luxury
goods. Now I will check carefully before buying any more limited editions or whatever.
The real thing vs Knockoffs vs illegal copies
I agree that bigger efforts should be taken to protect intellectual property, but I have some reflexions for you:
If the "knockoff" is not a copy, but it is a "inspired by" product, is it bad?
I really think that if you make an exact copy and brand it as if it its original, then you are doing wrong, wherever you brake the law or not.
But lets think about this:
Is not the original 1006 Emeco an almost exact replica of a wood chair?. IIRC, the inventor was not good at designing furniture, but he was very good at making things, mostly metallic. Was he "stealing" the design? Is almost everyone partially copying others when designing most, not all, furniture? (because all have to be designed by standards, and most of them have 4 legs, same seat heights, and other equivalent features just to be functional)
Also, another important point; the Emeco discussion gained importance with the current Chinese versions, basically because of its price, easily 5 times or more less.... but, what did Emeco said when at is first glory time, in the 50-60's, when other American companies presented their obviously copied versions, like Goodform, Ohio Chair and Art Metal... Just because they are American then it is different? or maybe the difference in their price was not that great?
Quality is another thing. Its known that Emeco chairs will last a life time while the Chinese versions don't, its known that Emeco finishes are better, etc... but while one has not been deceived and is aware that is buying a lower quality product to benefit from lower prices, then, should it be okay?
A few "stories" from a designer who has been knocked-off more times than I can count.
1) I found a plycraft Eames style lounge chair on eBay. Cheap... but needed reupholstery and welding work. By the time i was done, it cost almost as much as the DWR chair... but I liked it better: it was a recliner—no ottoman. Great for my space. I sent a photo trying to learn the piece's backstory to a contact at Herman Miller (we own A LOT of Herman Miller originals). I got a scathing response—so awful, in fact, I will likely avoid that company all together in the future. This is design myopia at its finest.
2) Purchased original pieces from eBay (trying to be ecological). They hold together well and can be found at a decent price, sometimes. Therein lies the value of well-made work. It's not who puts their name on it... it's that it will last. For the elites who say if you can't afford good stuff, buy Ikea... you are doing design a disservice. You are pretending that there is no quality variance...that the difference is style refinement and name value. That is a lie and it will come back to haunt all designers. The Ikea work does not last. A few years at best. It satisfies the immediate need for something somewhat appealing, but will not be functional or attractive in the near future. Furniture is an investment. Think ROI over time.
3) Early on, before I had a clear perspective on this, I bought some knock-off office furniture. 1/3 the price of the original (this is when we were expanding the office... I had one original, but filled our the rest with copies). Those chairs all fell apart in under 3 years. My original is still in near perfect shape 21 years later. If you do the math, you'll find that if my original disintegrates tomorrow, it would have been in service 21 years before replacement. The knock-off would have to be replaced at a rate of about 7 to one (at best). This means, over time, the knock-off would cost more than twice what the original costs not to mention the cost to landfills. In essence, it would have cost a tad less with interest to buy the originals with a credit card than to purchase the knock-offs. I add this as a personal story, with no intention of telling others what to do. We all have different wallets, investment philosophies and access to funds. I point this out, because it seems to be about economics. The consumer will decide how to balance heirloom and disposability. I imagine he mid-century designers saw this coming and they took the side of affordable quality for the masses. Some designers seem to have lost that perspective. Let's get back to the triple threat and there will be less margin for "knock-offs": let's make stuff that will endure, that the public can afford, that have an aesthetic that speaks to the people. And for the added whammy: let's make things that popularize inclusive conversations about design for everyone. EVERYONE.
As far as where my designs have been knocked-off, I have this to say: I'm flattered. I don't care. I got what I needed to get from the work and so have my clients long before it got knocked-off. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I've moved on to something better. This well will never dry. And most importantly: the work is for the people and communities first and for design as a profession a distant second. Go at it! To paraphrase Marcel DuChamp: why should anyone care about the originals when the copies today can be so good! (I don't think he really meant that... but I certainly wish he did).
This is a very valuable point you make about the derivative nature of design. Thanks for making it. I think I just addressed some of the same concerns below (before reading this...). I couldn't agree more. This is a new world. We are prototyping and riffing all the time now (thanks to the speed of communication and the high visibility of the internet and the openness of sharing). It's a whole new world. Designers need to keep up.


text:
- News
- Calendar
- Blogs
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Business
- Lifestyles
- Community
- Opinion
- About Us
- Classifieds
- Coupons
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Contests
- Weekly Ads
'The Crucible' coming to Youth Theatre Northwest
Youth Theatre Northwest will present The Crucible from March 4-20.
The play features the organization's most advanced acting conservatory, 20 talented performers between the ages of 14 and 18 from Bellevue, Newcastle and other cities.
The play is about with the Salem witch trials, but its message deals with the dark side of human character, even today.
Tickets are $15 for adults and $13 for youth/seniors. An $8 teen ticket is available for those with a valid high school identification card. Tickets are available by calling 206-232-4145, ext. 109, or at www.youththeatre.org.
Youth Theatre Northwest, located at 8805 SE 40th Street, Mercer Island.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Sep 23 - Sep 30
Read the latest Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Sep 26 edition online now. Browse the archives.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hiking is a favorite vacation activity for guests at our resort. From a short walk to see river cascades to a hike down Moose Mountain to combing cobblestone beaches, Minnesota's North Shore has hundreds of miles of hiking trails.
The Superior Hiking Trail
The North Shore of Lake Superior boasts one of the top 10 trails in the nation - the Superior Hiking Trail. The trail begins in Duluth and meanders through the ridge lines and woodlands along Superior's coast, ending at the Canadian border. While the entire trail is over 200 miles, many sections are 3-7 miles in length and are easily accessible. Some of our favorites are below. Link: http://www.shta.org/
Top 10 Lutsen Area Hiking Trails
- Moose Mountain and Poplar River Lutsen Mountains - walk from the resort
Take an easy walk up the Ski Hill Road and board the tram to the top of Moose Mountain. Take in panoramic vistas of Lake Superior, Moose Mountain and the Sawtooth Mountain Range. Grab a picnic lunch and walk the pathways at the top of Moose Mountain, or pick up the Superior Hiking Trail and hike the 3.6-mile trail through the maple forest down through the Poplar River Valley.
- Lutsen Mountains Hiking Center Lutsen Mountains - walk from the resort
Fifteen miles of trails traverse the hills and forests of Lutsen Mountains offering shaded hikes, open meadows and views of Lake Superior. Pick up a trail map at the Vasque Hiking Center, which rents hiking boots, walking sticks, day packs and child carriers, too!
- Oberg Loop Lutsen - 5 minute drive
Hike through maple hillsides to a loop with seven stunning overlooks of Lake Superior, the Sawtooth Mountains, Teal Lake and LeVeaux Mountian. Bring your camera!
- Cascade River State Park Lutsen - 10 minute drive
Hike the trails from Hwy 61 up and over the many cascades of this state park's namesake river. You can park at the river mouth and amble along the beach or enter the park and climb the wooded hill trails, too.
- Temperance River Gorges Schroeder - 10 minute drive
Temperance has a great cobblestone beach at the river mouth, but the show stopper is the brief hike up the east side of the river to the stunning rock gorges carved by years of thundering water pushing to Lake Superior. A bit further inland are the more sedate cascades. Don't miss the footbridge just above the river mouth!
- Britton Peak Tofte - 10 minute drive
This is a short, steep hike to wide open views of Lake Superior, Carlton Peak and the Temperance River Valley. Located a few miles up the Sawbill Trail.
- Sugarloaf Cove Schroeder - 15 minute drive
Explore the Lake Superior shoreline and forest along these 1-mile interpretive hike. A perfect leg stretcher on summer vacation!
- Eagle Mountain BWCA - 30 minute drive
Hike to Minnesota's highest point, Eagle Mountain (2,301 feet)! This is the classic North Shore day hike. At 7 miles round trip, pack a lunch and head through birch forests, spruce bogs and past lakes as you climb to the peak. BWCA permits required and are provided in the parking area.
- Artists Point and Grand Marais Harbor Grand Marais - 20 minute drive
Looking for a slow, meandering, coffee-in-hand sort of hike. Grab a coffee to go and explore Artists Point, the east breakwall and beaches of the East Bay and Grand Marais harbor. Very nice!
- Devil's Kettle Judge Magney State Park - 30 minute drive
This quiet park is centered around the Brule River with its Upper and Lower Falls and famous Devil's Kettle, a spot in the river where the Upper Falls split into two. Half the river enters the Devils Kettle and no one knows where the water goes! The trail is 2-1/4 miles total with a section that has nearly 200 stairs down (and back up) from the river.
Best Hikes for:
- Families Over the foot bridge on the Cascade River, Sugarloaf Cove and the Grand Marais Harbor
- Non-Hikers Artist's Point, Grand Marais harbor, river mouth of the Temperance and Cascade Rivers
- Serious Hikers Eagle Mountain, the trail up & down the river and to Lookout Mountain at Cascade River State Park
- Mystery Lovers Devil's Kettle and Sugarloaf Cove (find out why Sugarloaf exists)
- Immediate Gratification Britton's Peak, footbridges on the Temperance & Cascade Rivers, or walk to Caribou Crossing for a treat
- Don't Want To Drive Hike up to the Poplar River and the Lutsen Mountains trail system


text:
O'Learys Seafood Restaurant
- Address:
310 Third Street
Annapolis, MD 21403Neighborhood:
- Cuisine:
SeafoodPrice: $31 to $50
O'Learys Seafood Restaurant
- Dining Style: Casual Elegant
- Website: http://www.olearysseafood.com/
- Phone: 4102630884x
- Hours of Operation:
Dinner: Sunday - Thursday: 5:00pm - 9:00pm, Friday & Saturday: 5:00pm - 10:00pm
- Payment Options: AMEX,Discover,MasterCard,Visa
- Cuisine: Seafood
- Executive Chef: Gary McGinley
- Dress Code: Business Casual
- Accepts Walk-Ins: Yes
- Additional Details: Bar Dining, Beer, Farm to Table, Full Bar, Non-Smoking Restaurant, Private Room, Takeout, Wheelchair Access, Wine
- Private Party Facilities: Buyouts available by request. Please call for details.
- Private Party Contact: Wil Peterson 4102630885x
A word from O'Learys Seafood Restaurant
Located in the historic Eastport section of Annapolis, O'Learys Seafood Restaurant offers seafood cuisine that is strictly nouveau/fresh, along with "the best small wine list in Annapolis"!Continued
Foodspotting photosSee all photos
Awards voted by OpenTable diners
- Diners' Choice WinnerBest Overall
- Diners' Choice WinnerBest Food
- Diners' Choice WinnerBest Service
O'Learys Seafood Restaurant - Best Restaurants in Annapolis ›
O'Learys Seafood Restaurant reviews from OpenTable diners
185 reviews since June 4, 2014
- Food4.6Service4.6
- Ambiance4.1Noise LevelModerate
special occasion (111)fit for foodies (106)romantic (88)neighborhood gem (78)notable wine list (45)scenic view (12)good for groups (9)hot spot (8)kid-friendly (7)late-night find (7)great for lunch (6)great for brunch (5)great for outdoor dining (2)vibrant bar scene (2)Show More
- Always enjoy this consistent gemJimandAnneDined on 9/28/2014The best place in the Annapolis area for excellent seafood. Popular among us locals and we always recommend it to people who are visiting.Special Features:
- Anniversary DinnerOpenTable Diner Since 2014Dined on 9/27/2014Food and service were outstanding for our special event dinner.Special Features:
- Great DinnerOpenTable Diner Since 2014Dined on 9/26/2014We chose this restaurant to celebrate a recent raise, so it was a special occasion for us. the food was served in a timely manner. the staff was very knowledgable about the menu and accomodating to my dietary restrictions. We had a wonderful dinner.Special Features:
- Outstanding Every TimeSizantDined on 9/25/2014We have been to O'Learys before. It has been consistently outstanding every time. It has a sea food focus (which is why we go), not a lot of meat choices (we'd go elsewhere if we wanted a steak). Not much more can be said except we'll go again when we want a great meal.Special Features:
- Favorite fine dining in AnnapolisOpenTable Diner Since 2006Dined on 9/19/2014Food is superb, service is phenomenal, love, love love this place!!!Special Features:
- Not so friendly when arriving!FoodieDined on 9/19/2014The gentleman that seated us was rude. We made a mistake on how many people in our party when making the reservation, and he was not very nice about it. The restaurant was empty at the time so it was a little strange how he acted. Our waiter was excellent though, food was good.Special Features:
- Small wonder nooked awayluv2reviewDined on 9/18/2014The food was incredible. Everything was delicious. So much detail in every dish. The flavors just burst in my mouth. We had Lobster cappuccino and oysters on the half shell. No disppointment there. For our main course we shared the Surf and Turf and the Groper. Both worth returning back for. I will say the restaurant was a bit smaller and the noise level a bit higher than preferred. But our awesome waitress, Jessica, more than made up for them.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- finally - a return to high quality!schnauzernutDined on 9/13/2014After years of mediocrity and unjustified high prices, O'Learys had returned to the top of the Annapolis dining scene. We are SO happy!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- miniscule mealsfpicardDined on 9/11/2014menu special was 1 1/2 lobster said waiter when served to me obviously much smaller and lobster claws miniscule, when I mentioned I was from NE and never saw such small claws (1") on a lobster he just shrugged, very disappointed with meal feel it was misrepresented in size altho cooked adequately but price was outrageous for the portionSpecial Features:
- OpenTable Diner Since 2009Dined on 9/8/2014Our waitress was very good even accommodated one of our guest who does not eat seafood. Would highly recommend your restaurant to our friends and will return.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Good Sunday Night Find!murphysworldDined on 9/7/2014Place was empty on a recent Sunday but the staff gave us a good meal/service. I love eating in a booth and the ones here are huge and very comfy. I soft she'll special although tasty had way too much breading. Far from what a seafood rest in my should provide. The rest of the meal was very good. 3 specially the berry shortcake.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Great dinnerbbfoodieDined on 9/4/2014My husband & I entertained friends from out of town & decided that although there was no water views we would go to O'Leary's. We all had the specials and they were amazing. Let me also mention, if u want desert try the lemon berry cake it was deliciousSpecial Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Excellent DiningDMH43Dined on 9/2/2014This remains our favorite restaurant in Annapolis where the food is excellent, service is quiet and unobtrusive, and the ambiance is always relaxing.Special Features:
- Annapolis dinnerDuluthMikeDined on 8/30/2014Thanks to Open Table we secured a 730pm reservation at this busy neighborhood restaurant. Small and intimate with great service and wonderful food. Highly recommend this place.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- OutstandingMSBowlVIPDined on 8/30/2014Thirteen years ago when we moved to Annapolis, we were given a gift certificate to O'Leary's by our Realtor. With few exceptions, we have celebrated my husbands birthday dinner every year since. As always, the food was excellent and the service outstanding. What started as a nice place to try for dinner has become a birthday tradition and an almost certainty for other special occasions. Each year, our small group seems to grow, and is a memorable time that everyone looks forward to. This year we were joined by 10 friends to celebrate this special occasion, and anticipate returning next year. I can say with certainty that if you have not eaten here before, you are missing a delightful dining experience.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- PappyDined on 8/29/2014We were very pleased as our only previous information had come from your reviews. The food was excellent and we had the Crisp Grouper and the best Crab Cakes that we had during our weekend in Annapolis.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Better than everNofastfoodDined on 8/29/2014Based on our dinners, O'Leary's food and service are better than even their previous high standards. Previously deep-fried soft shells have been replaced by superior, crisp pan-sauteing, which highlights the taste of the crab. Their crab cakes rival the best of the state. Even the rolls are outstanding. Service is professional and friendly. If there is a better seafood restaurant Annapolis, I don't know what it is.Special Features:
- Upscale Dining in a tourist townDCvisitorsDined on 8/28/2014Thanks to Open Table, we quickly located this fine dining establishment upon arrival in Annapolis to start our vacation. So glad since much of our subsequent meal experiences were unfortunately 'tourist trade' faire. A woman seated adjacent to us exclaimed, "best food I've had all week of my visit!" Traditional seafood dishes, such as crab cakes and shrimp were elevated to a higher level of gastronomical experience with creative ingredients and pairings. Service was excellent though we had to wait a few minutes outside before 5 pm opening. We were introduced to a local craft beer that became a favorite to purchase for home. Skip the 'inventive' cocktails. Only downside was not being on the water with just a view of sail masts passing.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Great MealRFWSSIDined on 8/27/2014We had the whole rock fish and cazuela. Very well prepared and presented. Our server, Elaine, was professional, friendly, and attentive. O'learys is a very comfortable restaurant with a well worn, established feel. Definitely returning to try more on the menu.Special Features:
- BirthdayLadyDined on 8/25/2014It was a birthday dinner, and I had heard about O'Leary's for quite some time, but we had never made it over there to their quiet little spot nestled in Eastport. The decor is comfortable, unpretentious, and food was very excellent, especially the fried grouper. The tuna sashimi we had as a starter was also fabulous. I will go there again. Wish the place had an expansive water view.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Best Seafood Dinner in Annapolis!LunchnVegasVIPDined on 8/23/2014With my guest who's been going to O'Leary's for over 25 years; we can't say enough about it. A bit loud with a very energetic crowd from 20's to the 90's... Great Food!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- bhmcVIPDined on 8/23/2014As Annapolis goes, this is one of the best dining experiences. While not gourmet, it is a fine meal. The fish is fresh and there clearly is pride in its preparation and presentation.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- OpenTable Diner Since 2009Dined on 8/22/2014Great food and service. Pleasant atmosphere with delicious seafood.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Terrific food!1SueBVIPDined on 8/21/2014This was one of the best prepared dinners I've had in a long time. My husband & I both had Barramundi because we loved the fish in Australia. It was delicious, with a perfect array of flavorable accompaniments. I would go back tomorrow. Very nice location near the water with easy parking.Special Features:
- Great Restaurant!DrMrsMomDined on 8/21/2014My family as eaten here several times. Each time, it seems to get better and better. The food is always great. It's suitable for kids (although there is no kids menu) but come early. The servers are very accommodating.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Classic higher end and quaintDrew4060Dined on 8/17/2014The service was great and very friendly. The food was extremely well thought out and very tasteful. Food quantity was adequate but appropriate for this level of quality. The dining room is small but plenty of room to enjoy and not loud as you might expect from a smaller room. No question its pricy but again for the level of food served, not unexpected. I'd recommend O'Leary's if you're in the mode for seafood that's well prepared and looking for a quaint environment.Special Features:
- Great first experience at O'Learys!OpenTable Diner Since 2014Dined on 8/16/2014My sister and her husband were visiting us from NYC and wanted a seafood dinner. We picked O'Leary's from the reviews from friends. It was a great dinner- we had a mix of seafood and it was cooked perfectly. Our waitress knew the menu well, was very informative and professional. Wait staff was attentive and cleared plates in a timely manner. Loved the environment and the dinner- plus the coffee was amazing! Will definitely be back again.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Great food, wine, and serviceAnnapolisFoodieDined on 8/14/2014This was my first time here and it was wonderful! Everything on the menu sounded amazing and we couldn't make up our minds so the server offer great suggestions for all courses. We had the lemon marscapone for dessert and it was fabulous! Would definitely go back for another special occasion.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- dinner reviewanniversarydinnerDined on 8/13/2014there are many seafood restaurants in Annapolis. Many have better views. But O'Learys by far has the best seafood. If you want meat- don't go there. If you want a scenic view - don't go there. But if you want 4 star seafood, it's the right place - no question.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- A Dinner to RemembertheGrand1Dined on 8/11/2014A wonderful experience, with super food, great wine and prompt service. Can't be beat for classy seafood and a cozy atmosphere.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Spectacular diningBobbiVIPDined on 8/10/2014My wife and I had a wonderful dinner on the eve of our wedding anniversary . You guys never disappoint . Great food , great ambiance ! We will dine at your restaurant for every special occasion ! Chuck Dewey & Barbara GordonSpecial Features:
- Just okayKnitnonnaDined on 8/9/2014We went for the crab cakes which we remembered were way bigger than now and the jumbo soft crabs were okay but not jumbo and pretty pricey for fried green tomatoes and a little corn thrown in. So not as good as the last time we were there. Guess we still have to go to Great Falls Va for great food at a great price.
- 2nd time therelynnielouDined on 8/6/2014best crab cakes i've had in a long time. dinner was amazing. definitely one of my favorite. will be back!Special Features:
- I recommendbookbuilderDined on 8/4/2014Wonderful wait staff. Food beautifully prepared, delicious. Hoped that we could see the harbor as the restaurant is on the water, but a high fence blocked the view. But the restaurant is lovely and the food is great. Pricey, but worth it.Special Features:
- Excellent food, attentive serviceSZMDDined on 8/2/2014Had not been here for at least 10 years, will be coming back often!Special Features:
- Top QualityPfwolfbirdDined on 8/1/2014Four of us spanning 3 generations really enjoyed the excellent food and great service. What so many reviews have been saying is true. It was a bit spendy, avaraging over $50 apiece but the quality deserves it. Too noisy for a romantic dinner, though.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Wonderful birthday spot!beachwriterDined on 7/31/2014My wife and I celebrated her birthday there, had a very nice table with a semi-view of the water. Food was outstanding, from appetizer courses through entree and dessert, which was specially presented for her. Service was attentive but NOT cloying. Value for money is excellent. A great place to which we'll return! Highly recommended.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Tastefully devineOpenTable Diner Since 2014Dined on 7/31/2014Wonderful service, romantic for a special evening getaway.Special Features:
- Best Food in AnnapolisAnnaplocalDined on 7/31/2014Love dining at O'Leary's, best food in Annapolis, always fresh and delicious. Recommend it to everyone!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- TastyeatoutVIPDined on 7/30/2014Great interpretation of fish, veggies and spices. Gorgonzola orzo is to die for!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.


text:
User ID
Password Forgot Password
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12032163 (posted Dec. 28, 2012)"
On June 15th, Secretary Napolitano announced a new deferred action program for childhood arrivals. Since then the Governors of Arizona, Nebraska and Texas have issued statements or executive orders denying certain state benefits, including drivers licenses, to the beneficiaries of this program.
After SB1070 passed, 36 other states attempted to pass harsh immigration enforcement laws, with five states-Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah-successfully passing omnibus laws following the example of Arizona. Court challenges based on preemption and civil rights were filed against all five of these new state laws.
On 08/20/2012 CA11 issued a decision affirming the enjoinment of section 7 of HB 87 and reversing the portion of the order enjoining section 8.
A 6/27/11 order granting Plaintiff's preliminary injunction and blocking important parts of Georgia's "Show Me Your Papers" law, HB 87, in a class action case filed by a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys, including AILA Past President Charles Kuck. AILA Doc. No. 11062730.
On 06/02/11 class action complaint filed by a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys, including the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, and AILA Past President, Charles Kuck, challenging Georgia's "Show Me Your Papers" law, HB 87. AILA Doc. No. 11060230.
On 8/21/12, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued decisions in U.S. v. Alabama and HICA v. Bentley-Order that block many of the provisions in Alabama's controversial immigration law, HB 56.
In U.S. v. Alabama, the court blocked sections 10, 11(a), 13(a), 16, 17, and 27. AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11092842. (Posted 08/22/12.) However, the court upheld sections 12(a), 18, and 30. In HICA v. Bentley-Order, the found that section 28 violates the Equal Protection Clause and remanded to the district court for the entry of a preliminary injunction. AILA Doc. No. 11092842.
On 3/8/12, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order temporarily enjoining Alabama from enforcing Section 27 and Section 30 of its immigration enforcement law, HB 56. AILA Doc. No. 12030961.
On 11/21/11, AILA filed an amicus brief urging the court to affirm the decision of the district court blocking key portions of Alabama HB 56 from taking effect. AILA Doc. No. 11120171.)
On 10/14/11, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta ordered an injunction blocking two provisions of HB 56 from remaining in effect while the appeal of the district court's ruling continues. AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11092842. The two provisions enjoined are:
On 9/28/11, in three separate cases Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Bentley, Parsley v. Bentley, and U.S. v. Alabama, Chief U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn blocked certain portions of Alabama's controversial immigration law, HB 56, from taking effect, ruling that there is a substantial likelihood that the U.S. government can establish that the provisions are preempted by federal law. AILA Doc. No. 11082842., AILA Doc. No. 11092842. AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11092842. (Posted 9/28/11.) The provisions enjoined include (but are not limited to):


text:
ELKHART LAKE, WI (WHBL) - Eight man football has been a success in the Elkhart Lake/Glenbeulah School District. Coach Barry Feldmann said the switch from 11 man to eight man came after they had a chance to play a game two years ago and saw the benefits for their small enrollment district. He said the team is more competitive. Feldmann said previously they would play tough in the first half of games but then get tired out in the second half because they didn't have enough players on the roster to substitute and keep players fresh. Not much is different between 11 man and eight man football other than less players on a field that is narrower and only 80 yards between end zones. Feldmann adds students have also supported the change. He said they now have more kids out for football. Feldmann hopes more schools in our area of the state make the switch as well so that they can lessen the need to travel several hours to play other eight man teams in the state. You can watch the Resorters in action this Saturday as they play in Elkhart Lake for their homecoming game against Bowler/Gresham.
Sheboygan's Morning News 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM
On Air Now.


text:
Irene recovery officers hiredFebruary 23,2013BRATTLEBORO The Brattleboro Development Credit Corporation announced Friday that two people have been hired to fill Southern Vermonts two federally funded flood recovery officer positions.
Anthony Summers, of Spokane, Wash., and Wendy Rea Woods, of Dorset, will help public officials and economic development organizations work effectively with businesses and encourage development of collaborations between the public and private sectors. Their high-level goals will include economic restructuring strategies, village and downtown revitalization, and business resiliency in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene.
The positions were funded by $472,000 in disaster recovery funds from the U.S. Department of Commerces Economic Development Administration to the Windham Regional Commission and the Bennington County Regional Commission. Each disaster recovery investment is intended to support a communitys long-term recovery, spur job creation, leverage private investment and promote disaster resiliency.
Summers and Woods will start in March. Summers will work in Brattleboro while Woods will be in Wilmington. They can be best reached by email at email@example.com and email@example.com.
More information on the project can be obtained at www.windhamregional.org or www.bcrcvt.com.MORE IN This Just InFree lecture about Full StoryMIDDLEBURY — Operators of a holistic health center are planning a grand opening from 4 p.m. Full StoryCastleton State College present a production of the drama "Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad... Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: Julius Caesar dedicates a temple to his mythical ancestor, Venus Genetrix; on this day in 1933, FBI agents in Memphis, Tennessee, arrest Machine Gun Kelly; Yves Rossi flies the English Channel with home-made jet-pack.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1852, Henri Giffard demonstrates the first steam-powered airship, sailing 17 miles from Paris to Trappes; on this day in 1877, Japanese imperial troops crush the Satsuma Rebellion, Saigo Takamori dies in Kagoshima.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: U.S. Rep. Peter Welch meets with Killington business owners, governor candidates debate, Gov. Shumlin discusses progress in anti-opiate campaign, Spanos trial venue moves to White River Junction.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1776, as Nathan Hale is hanged by British military authorities for spying, he utters his famous last words — or does he? In 1975, Sara Jane Moore attempts to kill President Gerald R. Ford in San Francisco.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: Patrick McArdle reports and the theft of an $89,000 shotgun, police release a video of the Monday Castleton robbery, O'Gorman reports a lawsuit by a local man claiming his vehicle unlawfully seized, police leave him in cold.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: Giles Corey of Salem, Mass., is pressed to death during the Salem witch trials; on this day in 1952, film comedian Charlie Chaplin, while traveling to England, is denied re-entry into the United States by U.S. attorney general.