Hospitality Industry Rife with Copyright Issues, Group Says
September 15, 2005
Copyright infringement is "the scourge of the 21st century in the industry," said Dids MacDonald, director of the trade group Anti-Copying in Design.
The London-based group convened a forum in May to discuss copying in the hospitality industry and ways that design-creators could protect their work.
"The responsibility of those who buy designs doesn't seem to exist, certainly within the hospitality/design sector," MacDonald said. "We're finding companies responding to tenders who've put in a hell of a lot of work and invested a lot of money and are ending up cheated."
In the hospitality sector, copyright is commonly infringed when mills submit their designs while vying to win a job. Design-buyers ask another mill to produce the tendered design more cheaply than the design-creator would have, thus infringing the copyright, MacDonald explained.
"The mill who agrees to manufacture the pattern more cheaply than the original owner of the design is also infringing" and is liable to legal action, she said.
"Responsible mills will seek an indemnity, though," said MacDonald, noting mills' responsibility to protect against infringement. "At any stage it's important to establish who has rights.
ACID recommends that design-creators require prospective purchasers to agree in writing not to share tendered designs.
"Having been in the situation [of submitting design samples] myself, it meant spending a tremendous amount of energy. Meanwhile, we knew that we'd put pretty pictures on the storyboard, and that we'd never get the job," said MacDonald. "We knew sometimes it would go out to a company who could make it for less."
While copyright infringement takes place as frequently as ever, the upside is that companies are wising up.
"There are many more situations where people are challenging legally," MacDonald said, noting that design-creators are becoming more aware of their rights. "We've had several instances where a project has been stopped. For example, there was a furniture case where a company got the contract to supply materials for 340 hotel rooms. After six rooms' worth of goods was purchased, the contract was stopped. It transpired that the furniture had been sourced more cheaply and the purchaser [tried to] finish the contract with another mill. The company that supplied the original design challenged both the company providing the goods and the purchasing function [of the client]."
Design-creators are also protecting themselves establishing proof-of-ownership more regularly, with regard to their designs.
One option that MacDonald recommends for European firms who want to protect their designs is to register them with the pan-European organization, called Office of Harmonization with the Internal Market. For E260, a company can register a single design. Registering 11 or more lowers the cost to E60 per design. The group "is being inundated with applications from designers all over the world," MacDonald said.
The London-based group convened a forum in May to discuss copying in the hospitality industry and ways that design-creators could protect their work.
"The responsibility of those who buy designs doesn't seem to exist, certainly within the hospitality/design sector," MacDonald said. "We're finding companies responding to tenders who've put in a hell of a lot of work and invested a lot of money and are ending up cheated."
In the hospitality sector, copyright is commonly infringed when mills submit their designs while vying to win a job. Design-buyers ask another mill to produce the tendered design more cheaply than the design-creator would have, thus infringing the copyright, MacDonald explained.
"The mill who agrees to manufacture the pattern more cheaply than the original owner of the design is also infringing" and is liable to legal action, she said.
"Responsible mills will seek an indemnity, though," said MacDonald, noting mills' responsibility to protect against infringement. "At any stage it's important to establish who has rights.
ACID recommends that design-creators require prospective purchasers to agree in writing not to share tendered designs.
"Having been in the situation [of submitting design samples] myself, it meant spending a tremendous amount of energy. Meanwhile, we knew that we'd put pretty pictures on the storyboard, and that we'd never get the job," said MacDonald. "We knew sometimes it would go out to a company who could make it for less."
While copyright infringement takes place as frequently as ever, the upside is that companies are wising up.
"There are many more situations where people are challenging legally," MacDonald said, noting that design-creators are becoming more aware of their rights. "We've had several instances where a project has been stopped. For example, there was a furniture case where a company got the contract to supply materials for 340 hotel rooms. After six rooms' worth of goods was purchased, the contract was stopped. It transpired that the furniture had been sourced more cheaply and the purchaser [tried to] finish the contract with another mill. The company that supplied the original design challenged both the company providing the goods and the purchasing function [of the client]."
Design-creators are also protecting themselves establishing proof-of-ownership more regularly, with regard to their designs.
One option that MacDonald recommends for European firms who want to protect their designs is to register them with the pan-European organization, called Office of Harmonization with the Internal Market. For E260, a company can register a single design. Registering 11 or more lowers the cost to E60 per design. The group "is being inundated with applications from designers all over the world," MacDonald said.
