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).

"Knock-offers sell pieces at those prices, becuase people want things that look expensive but don't want to pay big $"

I don't think this is even true. People just want things that they like, and often some of that stuff is given a heavy markup in the name of "luxury" regardless of its actual cost. There is no reason for an Eames Lounge Chair and Ottomon to be 4500 dollars. They sell it at that price simply because they know it is Iconic and people will pay for it. The design is over a half century old, who cares if someone builds an affordable knockoff for people who like the design?

There are ethical issues with knockoffs obviously, but there are ethical issues with almost all of our manufactured goods. I can see being reasonably upset about knockoffs of recent work, arguing it denies sales to the original created in a period where their design is still original, but half the stuff that gets knocked off isn't even particularly unique.

"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.

@BrooklynRob
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.)

@Edboy1
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.

When not blessed by the orginating designer or corporation: THEFT.

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?????

Wow. Maxwell and AT, I am disappointed with this being presented as a balanced discussion. As far as I know, no one argues whether knock-offs are theft. Duh, right?

The argument is whether great original design is available at all price points. Prove it. Show me. I'm not saying it's not true, but you went so far to show examples that represent theft, but can't be bothered to show examples that prove this much more relevant assertion.

Here's another issue no one raised. You can copy a Louis IV or XV chair all day long. You can copy an igloo or a teepee. Copyright expiration and public domain are also related topics.

And here's another angle: Part of the reason drug companies charge so much isn't quality, as asserted by your panel about furniture -- it's that the drug company wants to recover research and testing costs while they hold a patent. Under cetain circumstances, patents and copyrights expire. Further, some furniture or textile designs don't meet the reuqirements for a patent. How about a discussion about that?

This wasn't a balanced dialog. This was a seminar with a single bias. I read and read and kept waiting for the "other side" of the conversation. Maxwell, you owed it to the conversation not be a yes-man. Shame on you for not challenging any assertion.

@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.