The success of such a hub though, I believe, is still really down to the innovation of the retailers, especially when I consider how I shop.  Like many, I’m trying to save money and generally work on the principle that if I don’t look, I don’t desire, and therefore won’t spend. I also do all my basic shopping online. I do for two reasons 1. So I don’t have to schlep heavy bags around, and 2. So that I don’t get seduced off my “list”. I have had weekends where I’ve organised the weekly shop via Ocado, telephoned my local recycling yard for a firewood delivery, both ordered petfood and browsed the papers online, popping into town only to spend Boots points and redeem a book token. All well and good for my bank account, not so great for the economy, and it’s certainly not because there isn’t good stuff out there, it’s just that I’ve not been seduced enough to want to go and find it. Interesting to note the two places I will allow myself to browse and linger: the beauty store and the bookshop? Somehow these seem excusably laudable.

But, for three weeks in May (5-27 May), Brighton hosts the Brighton Festival, a cultural extravaganza, guest directed this year by Vanessa Redgrave, with hundreds of activities all over the city, from The Lady Boys of Bangkok to the Berlin Theatre Group via film, performance, debate, live music and exhibitions in mainstream to off beat venues. And this is what I’ll happily spend my hard-earned pennies on. I have enough ‘stuff’ but I can always be lured to invest in ‘experiences’. I devour the Festival Guide, then out as I am, exploring town by default with the dog, I happily pick up leaflets, read the posters and chance across bars and pubs hosting pop-ups, market stalls selling cake and cookies and restaurants offering special Festival deals. This annual event shows exactly what could be achieved in terms of engaging the community, and the city is packed as a result. Brighton has not applied to become a Portas Pilot Town, they already are one.

Returning to Mary’s report then, I think this is what she means when she says it’s about “big shops being more than just shops”. As she puts it, “Let’s get some of the big brands on our high streets to think about incorporating more social and local activities into their in-store experience…” For example? “Ask the sports shop to offer a meeting point and drinking water for the local running club.” It’s about encouraging people to engage, rather than just spend. After all, give us a reason to be there, and we might just buy something too. Admittedly, you only have to throw in our unpredictable weather to ensure an immediate lack of enthusiasm, plus the Catch 22 is how to not encourage people to spend money they don’t have, but on the other hand entice support for new businesses. After all, the consumer who happily curls up in the corner of the local bookshop nursing a single cup of tea and a borrowed book, won’t pay the rent. But a dynamic in-town library could perform that function, and the smart independent bookstore will host readings and signings so you not only want to buy the book but have to check out the back catalogue too.

For the smaller boutiques and independent units to prosper they need people to care and be loyal. But they, just like the bigger stores, must proactively persuade us to do this. However, it needs to be stated that if you don’t want to be surrounded by McDonalds and Starbucks, ask yourself, do you actively support the independent tea shops? With hard cash? By stopping and having scones? The regeneration of our communities is inevitably a two-way pact, but the retailers need to take the first step. Only this way, will our high streets become positive, uplifting and fun places to be rather than the reflection of economic malaise they currently are with their surfeit of charity shops, betting booths, poundstores and discount outlets. So dear retailers, sell me the benefit to me of my spending, rather than it all being about profit to you, and I shall shop. Even in the rain!

Great Observer article for more thoughts on how to regenerate our high streets from architect David Adjaye to ELLE Editor in Chief Lorraine Candy and Jane Shepherdson, chief executive of Whistles.

It’s all very well, but I’m not a designer, what’s this got to do with me? There are estimated to be 250,000 designers in this country, so even if you’re not one, you’ll probably know someone who is. Our campaign is about people, not profit. These are the people who make your life easier, more efficient, comfortable and beautiful so you can get on with whatever it is you choose to do. Don’t they deserve a little respect? Plus, the creative industries are a major part of the UK’s economy, contributing 5.14% of the UK’s employment total, 10.6% of exports and 2.9% of Gross Value Added. If designers continue to receive such pathetic protection, why would anyone bother to become one? And that’s a lot of jobs and money to lose from the economy. Granted, most creatives work for love and passion, but fair recognition should also be part of the deal.

I suppose, but at the end of the day, aren’t ideas just ‘out there’, I mean doesn’t everyone have a right to profit from them? Good design and great ideas benefit us all for sure, but how would you feel if you devoted your life to inventing something that changed the world, or even just made things a little prettier, but no-one gave you any credit for it? Let alone paid you? Would you think that’s fair? Isn’t it better all round to acknowledge who thought of what first, who collaborated with who, and credit them accordingly? Plus, in response to the ‘but I could have done that’ knee-jerk response… the only answer is, maybe, but you didn’t, did you. From Picasso’s Guernica to Lee Broom’s ‘Decanter’ light (massively ripped off), they did it first, not you.

I’m listening, so what’s the petition all about then? The ELLE Decoration Equal Rights for Design petition is to prompt the government to look into the disparity between the protection afforded to intellectual property concerning design, and that of other creative disciplines.

Whoa, going too fast already, what do you mean by intellectual property? Intellectual property simply means that the owners of ideas are granted certain exclusive rights to protect those ideas. The tricky bit is that such ‘ideas’ are often intangible, unlike bricks and mortar. Nevertheless, musical tunes, literature, even words, phrases and symbols are already commonly recognised as intellectual property, and routinely protected via extensive copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and even trade secrets in some cases.

Ok, well that sounds pretty comprehensive, so what’s the gripe for design? In the UK, art, literature, film and music are afforded automatic copyright protection for 70 years after the death of the originating author/s. Whereas for design, registered designs are protected only from the date of issue and for just 25 years. And worse, if your work is unregistered (costs sometimes prohibit the registration of every permutation of a design, especially for young designers), protection lasts for only three years!

That seems a bit hypocritical… Exactly, now you’re getting it! Originally, the cover was low as it was only intended to protect things like car parts, and industrial components, and the rule setters believed that longer cover would impede industrial progress ie, inventors would sit back and not bother innovating if they continued to get paid for something they’d already done.

Well that seems reasonable, why should people be able to make money off something they created ages ago? By that rational, why should the surviving Beatles continue to profit from their life’s work? Or JK Rowling get any more royalty cheques for the first few Harry Potter books? Or Picasso’s family have their heritage protected? It cuts both ways. And what we’re asking is why protect some creative disciplines, and not others? Additionally, we’re flagging up that the law is out of step with what currently constitutes design, in other words we see ‘design’ as an endeavour on a creative par with art or writing. This isn’t about nuts and bolts anymore. This is about creative ability. So why is ‘design’ deemed less worthy of protection? Are designers felt to invest less ‘labour, skill or judgment’ in their work (the criteria governing copyright eligibility) than authors, musicians or artists?

But at least designers get some protection, I mean they can always take someone who copies their work to court, can’t they? Well yes, but design rights are currently only enforceable through the civil, rather than criminal courts, and because it’s usually a David (the designer) vs Goliath (copyists) situation, most Goliath’s bank on the designers giving up through lack of funds, time or emotional energy. In fact there are too many recorded cases of small companies being driven out of business trying to protect themselves due to the crippling costs of litigation. And even if they win, the offence isn’t seen as criminal, so going to court is no real deterrent in the minds of the bullies who continue to bank cash off the back of another’s originality, even sometimes as cases go through court! So in theory, legal protection is there, but in practice it’s worthless. And it’s also why young designers who’ve exhibited their wares at exhibitions and shows in the hope of getting a commission or job, subsequently see their work appear on the high street before they’ve even managed to get a prototype made. Again, often, even if they have clear proof and funds, they don’t cause a fuss because they don’t want to jeopardise future possible business. A catch 22 weighted towards the predators. And if we don’t start protecting our young designers, we won’t have a design industry in the future. Surely we don’t want to let our British design heritage go the same way as British manufacturing?

Alright, I can see how this non-protection malarky could be bad for young designers, but what about the old stuff, I mean those designers are dead, so why should I care about them? That’s just manufacturers profiting off a back catalogue isn’t it? No, not really. The licence to produce the work of these seminal designers also comes with the responsibility to protect and maintain those legacies for the benefit of historians, the design-interested, students and future generations, whether that legacy comes in the form of foundations (see details at end of post), dedicated museums, private houses or a body of work. Manufacturers also pay royalties to the designer’s descendents where relevant. And let’s not forget, in many cases they were fundamental in translating those designer’s dreams into realities. That’s why, let’s say in the case of furniture, the manufacturers also have the ‘right’ to be remunerated. For a writer, substitute the publisher; for a musician, imagine it as the producer/record label etc. In other words the artist/designer or producer/publisher/manufacturer are working in partnership. One could not exist without the other. Don’t they deserve a little pay back for that? After all, we’re not asking for protection ad infinitum, just for parity of protection with music or literature.

But what about those companies that scooped up a licence later? If they weren’t involved with the original designer, why should they profit? It’s really still as above. They also legally inherit the responsibility attached to that designer’s legacy, and the permission to only create the designs as the author originally intended. Plus some manufacturers have actually saved a legacy by bringing less well-known names into a bigger fold, so they don’t get forgotten, and expertise isn’t lost, especially when we’re talking small companies creating one off items. And there’s never a guarantee of continued success, which is why good manufacturers also constantly reinvest their money into research and development, which hopefully enables a new generation of talent to create the classics of the future. The rip-off merchants circumvent all of this. They care only about quick profit for themselves.

But most classics made today aren’t ‘original’, they’re all modified aren’t they, what with industrial progress and all that, so unless you’re lucky enough to find a vintage one, we’re all buying reproductions! How do you define authentic? Let’s not confuse two issues here. 1. Who owns the right to reproduce a design, and 2.The fact that even licensed models may differ from the very first versions.

Authentic within the terms of our copyright discussion means made by the manufacturer who legally owns the licence to reproduce the design. And I use the word reproduce deliberately, as yes, today’s versions of an ‘original’ design may well have the benefit of the progress of technology such as improved safety factors. Let’s take the ‘Barcelona’ chair, first designed for the German Pavilion at the 1929 Barcelona Expo, as an example; it was quite probably manufactured by several different companies before Mies van der Rohe, the originating designer, sold the design rights to Knoll in 1953. The extremely rare, ‘originals’ ie the six debut models, are indeed structurally very different from today’s chair. The upholstery was pigskin for starters, and the frame was put together like a complex jigsaw puzzle. But these details are moot. Bottom line is Knoll alone own the right to reproduce the chair, or modify it with agreement from the Mies Foundation, and as such each Knoll-produced chair comes replete with a stamp of authenticity, a serial number, signature and logo. Anything ‘Barcelona’-esque without these is an UNlicensed copycat.

Are there any designs which have never changed? Yes, the Thonet family has never sold the rights to their classic bentwood café chair. So it’s still made by the original manufacturer, in the same way as it has been for the last 150 years, and all revenue still goes directly to the Thonet family.

But some of this classic stuff is really expensive, why should only the wealthy have access to these designs? This isn’t about wealth, it’s about desire, as certain pieces have become aspirational symbols of a designer lifestyle, and lest we forget, they’re also luxury items. These pieces were never intended as democratic design, just as not everyone can own a Hermès handbag or Roland Mouret dress either. We should encourage people to spend what they can afford, certainly no more than they feel any item is worth, but also to have the confidence to be original in their choices. Yes the ‘Arco’ lamp, Eames lounger and ‘Barcelona’ chair are exquisite, but they’re not the only lights and chairs in the world! Just as a Birkin isn’t the only handbag in existence.

But I really want an Eames chair and I can’t afford an original! I’d quite like an Aston Martin, but I can’t afford one, so I drive something a little less lofty. I will probably never own an Aston in fact, nor do I know many people who do, but I wouldn’t go and steal one. I can desire, but not necessarily have, such is life. It sucks sometimes.

But if the copyists can make things cheaper, why can’t the licence-holders? Agreed, if an authentically created ‘Barcelona’ chair from Knoll retails for £4k+, how can someone else possibly sell the same thing for £400? But let’s think about this for a moment. To sell the chair for this little simply means a lot of corners will have been cut in the chair’s manufacture. It’ll be low-quality leather, which probably won’t be used on all sides of the cushion (common practice is to substitute fabric or pleather where they think you won’t look), the frame will be hollow, rather than solid, and the steel used, lower grade than usually specified, ie less than the recommended 12mm thickness. The cushion will be filled with cheap foam, which makes the chair uncomfortable; cushion buttons won’t be sewn on properly, and so on, you get the picture.

But it looks the same, so what’s the problem? It may appear superficially to be the same when seen in isolation but you only have to put an original next to a copy as we did in the windows of The Conran Shop recently (see our Equal Rights for Design Facebook page) and you’ll immediately be able to tell the difference. But more crucially, comfort and longevity will have been compromised. If the foam used is low quality then the cushioning will be very stiff. A quality chair will have seats you sink into, not bounce off. Plus how long do you think a chair should last? An authentic classic could be handed down to the next generation, ageing gracefully, and gaining patina and character as it goes. And, they’ll hold their value. Think of them as an heirloom or investment for life, just like a painting, but more useful! So per use, they’re actually pretty economical after the initial outlay. Whereas your cheap chairs will look rough in six months and be in the skip after a couple of years. You might as well save yourself the bother and just throw your money away.

But I only want it for a year or so, as I’m into that look right now? Then perhaps you’ll be bothered by the human cost of your flightiness. The only other way these knock-off cheats can cut costs is on labour, ie forget about safe working conditions and fair pay for staff, assuming it’s not child labour; jettison ecologically aware environmental practice, waste management and so on, all of which, if ignored, might well contribute to getting that price down, but have a high long-term cost. Plus they’re not giving anything back. Not to the heirs, the foundations, or the designers of tomorrow who could really benefit from a little support. Not to mention, the threatened loss of legitimate jobs and businesses, whose outlets are forced to close due to unfair competition. And you, the consumer, are being conned if you think you’re investing in something worthy, only to find out it’s a fake. This is about the quality of our lives today, and the quality of all our futures.

Ok, so my conscience is pricked, but I can’t find what I want for the amount of money I have to spend. Then that’s where we at ELLE Decoration UK must do better. We hereby dedicate ourselves to finding those Style-for-Less items that you’ll love just as much, as well as talent spotting the future classics so you can inject some originality into your furniture investing if you have a bit more to spend. There’s loads of great stuff out there, so no-one ever has to resort to phony fakes. They aren’t worth it, and you deserve more.

Fine, deal. I’m convinced, no more fakes for me then. Hurrah! And shop happy in the knowledge that you’re also protecting Brand UK. Because of the hypocrisy of our copyright laws, we’re currently the knock-off capital of Europe as promoting, or profiting, this kind of duplicity is illegal in many other European countries, so they’re mostly based in the UK. Make you proud? But no demand, no supply, so if you buy original and British, you’ll do yourself a double favour.

Ok! enough already. But don’t forget to sign our petition! Add your name here. And one last thing: the four most ripped-off classics include the ‘Eames’ lounger designed by Charles and Ray Eames in 1956; the ‘Arco’ lamp designed by the Castiglioni Brothers in 1962; the aforementioned ‘Barcelona’ chair, and Arne Jacobsen’s 1958 ‘Egg’ chair. They are licensed to the manufacturers listed below, all of whom contribute to the upkeep and support of these designer’s legacies through the listed foundations, museums and archives. Have a browse, it’s fascinating stuff.

Barcelona chair, licence owned by Knoll. The Mies van der Rohe Foundation

Eames Lounger, licence owned by Herman Miller in the US, and Vitra in Europe. The Eames Foundation

The Arco lamp, licence owned by Flos. Studio Museum Castiglioni

The Egg Chair, licence owned by Fritz Hansen. Jacobsen archive.

Over and out.

Focus on dining The new indoor/outdoor furniture, plus best buy chairs, tables and stools

Easy updates How to transform your home with flowers

Smart shopping Beautiful basics to love forever

It’s often argued that cheap offers accessibility, a way to get designer style for less. After all, detractors bleat, why should only the wealthy have access to great design? Except this is rubbish. Good design doesn’t mean expensive. Good design is the way something works, not how much it costs. And let’s distinguish here between inexpensive and cheap. Ikea is able to produce some cracking stuff at very low prices because of the sheer volume of units it produces. This is democratic design. On the flip side, things generally cost more the fewer you make of them, and you can add a premium if the making involves any element of handcrafting. Cheap, on the other hand, is badly made tat designed only for maximum profit. Here, anything of value is cut to save money: investment in labour, quality of materials, ecological considerations. Net effect? A big long-term price we’ll all end up paying.

So what is the acceptable ground between ‘designer’ and ‘democratic’? Where is the quality stuff for the people?! I’d say let’s look for inspiration at high-street fashion house H&M, whose highly successful designer collaborations are a perfect example of how things could work between large retailers and designers. Instead of churning out cheap ‘inspired-by’ copies of catwalk hits, it invites well-known creatives to the table and a third way is configured. It’s a win-win solution that’s seen clothes by Karl Lagerfeld, Versace and most recently Marni made available to the consumer at accessible price points facilitated by the manufacturing might of the high-street engine. And arguably, these collaborations have turned around the fortunes of the Swedish chain to boot.

So why not in design? Instead, here, stories abound of young designers’ work spotted at trade shows then curiously reappearing in a slightly different guise on the shelves of well-known retailers. The designers generally can’t afford to sue and even if they could, they worry about destroying future potential relationships. Applause then to M&S for its recent collaborations with Terence Conran and Marcel Wanders; likewise John Lewis for its latest Design Collective initiative showcasing some of the best established talent from the UK and beyond. But a massive boo hiss to Asda for a frankly appalling Eames rip-off range, as well as a ridiculously derivative, yet utterly unendorsed, Jan Constantine-esque cushion collection. Dear Asda, why not simply commission her to do something for you instead?

But please, I’d like to see more of the big guns really sending the elevator back down and commissioning fresh names and new talent. I’d like to see conspicuous investment in the support and promotion of the names of the future. Britain has a wealth of young design talent who’d be on their knees in gratitude for the opportunity. It’s time we gave it to them.

If you are reading this in the comfort of a replica Eames chair, or by the light of a spin-off Poul Henningsen’s PH lamp, you might want discreetly to dispatch them to your less favourite relative before your next dinner party. One of the country’s most prestigious designers, Sir Terence Conran, has joined the Elle Decoration editor-in-chief Michelle Ogundehin to wage war on anyone wooed by what they term “faux furniture”.

Not to “wage war”, rather to ensure consumers really understand the hidden costs of these seemingly innocuous bargain buys. From the threatened loss of legitimate businesses whose products are faked and the exploitation of Britain’s young designers whose designs are ripped off, to the consumer, thinking they’re investing in a designer classic when actually it’s worthless if it’s not the authentic, licensed version.

Their aim, says Ogundehin, is to inject a “sense of shame” into buying replica furniture in the same way that, in the fashion world, buying a fake Louis Vuitton handbag is frowned upon.

See above. Not shame, “understanding”. And also the confidence to buy something else if an original classic, or designer piece, is deemed too pricey. There are many fantastic affordable designs available without recourse to fakes, and it’s ELLE Decoration UK’s enduring mission to proffer these Style-for-Less alternatives.

The row started when Ogundehin read last October that Samantha Cameron had bought a rip-off of a designer lamp – the 1962 Arco lamp by Achilles and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni. She wrote on her blog: “I am appalled. Surely she should know better?” A media furore followed.

“Here was the ambassador for British fashion basically buying a knock-off design,” she says. “If she doesn’t understand the importance of that, then that is very worrying. If Samantha Cameron sat on the front row of Fashion Week wearing a fake Burberry coat, you would never hear the end of it.”

Absolutely. While the ELLE Decoration UK campaign for Equal Rights for Design in no way seeks to embarrass Samantha Cameron, the public knows she would never wear fake clothing, or carry a knock-off handbag, so why is it ok to buy fake design? It highlights the extent of the misunderstanding around these unlicensed copies so I call upon Samantha Cameron to publicly back our campaign, and for the government to wake up to the negative impact of the fakes industry, and the fact that they’re condoning it by default because of the hypocrisy of the UK copyright laws, unless of course they’re happy with Britain being seen as the knock-off capital of Europe?

When Ogundehin talks about “fake”, she is referring to reproductions rather than counterfeits (which involve an intent to deceive). Under copyright laws, it is illegal to copy any design that has been registered for up to 25 years after the issue date. So producing a piece of furniture that the copyright has expired on and is in the public domain is not illegal, though Ogundehin would argue that it is an “unauthorised imitation”.

Let’s be crystal clear on what constitutes a fake… To draw a fashion analogy, just as only the original Roland Mouret studio can make an authentic RM dress, so only certain manufacturers legally own the rights to make particular designs. But whether we’re talking a young outfit like Tatty Devine that creates own-brand jewellery in the East End or Vitra, a multinational conglomerate who own the licence to make all of the Eames’s furniture, the point is the same… anyone else flogging their work, is an UNauthorised, UNvalidated, UNmonitored, UNendorsed intellectual property thief. And often these people use the original designer’s biographies and credentials as marketing collateral to mislead the consumer into parting with their hard-earned cash! They stop just short of illegal “passing-off” of their wares as originals by inserting the words “inspired by” or “in the style of” after the descriptions, but sometimes it’s really hard to tell who’s real and who’s a phoney, so we’ve started to compile a Fakes Blacklist on our Equal Rights for Design FaceBook page. But always look for the words “licensed manufacturer” when it comes to classics. Remember, if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. These pretenders claim they’re making design “accessible”, but really they’re just callously creaming a quick buck off the back of another’s creativity while side-stepping the hard slog of research, development, investment, marketing, testing, pain, sweat and love that goes into the production of any original design. And crucially this isn’t just “old” stuff… I cite the recently publicised case of Tatty Devine vs Claire’s Accessories.

“There is no doubt that the ‘fake’ industry has grown hugely over the past ten years,” says Sir Terence, whose Conran Shop in Marylebone will be the first to launch a series of window displays next month highlighting the Get Real: Fight the Fakes campaign.

Consumers set demand. An industry can only grow if people buy. Clearly there’s a demand for cut-price furniture, products and even fashion, but I believe there are plenty of original alternatives without recourse to the immoral arena of fakes. ELLE Decoration is committed to finding and promoting those affordable designs, so our readers can get great style at whatever level they’re able to pay — see the first of our Fight the Fakes features in our May issue, on sale Wednesday 4 April. PS you can now download the issue straight to your iPad.

“The growth of the internet means companies selling fakes can set up quickly at low cost and reach global markets. People are taking more pride in their homes and magazines and blogs are beautifully styled and people want to emulate that and get a certain look, which is understandable. However, there really is no need to buy a fake. There are so many alternatives available; I find the practice dishonest.”

Sheridan Coakley, the founder of the furniture store SCP, is not convinced. “During the term that they are protected by the law, the designer and the manufacturer have a monopoly over the design and can charge what price they feel fit,” he says. “Once it is in the public domain, the market decides the price, which generally drops. This enables many more people who couldn’t afford it before to buy it. Is this not a good thing? You only have to look at [Elle Decoration’s] website to see that the only companies supporting their argument are the very same companies who want to extend their monopolies.”

Actually Sheridan that’s not remotely true. Designers and companies both small and large have contacted us, thrilled about this campaign, because they understand that it protects ALL designers, not just the big guns. And what of the manufacturer’s duty of care to its creators, the providers of the goods you found your business on? Or are they just expendable commodities, useful to you today, broke tomorrow? The Vitra, Knoll and Cassina’s of this world also contribute to protecting the larger legacies of their designers whether that’s the maintenance of museums, show-houses, foundations or archives, all for the benefit of future generations. The knock-off merchants do none of this. Additionally, you seem to be saying that retailers, and one therefore assumes yourself included, routinely overcharge for their goods? So are you ripping off the consumer too? I wonder how you’ll feel when your “stock” falls… eg Matthew Hilton’s best-selling Balzac Armchair, designed for you in 1991, which runs out of copyright in 4 years time? And I wonder how Matthew will feel, now he knows you don’t care about his future either?

Sir Terence and Ogundehin want the law changed to put design on a parity with works of literature, music and art, which are protected for 70 years after the author’s death. The Conran Shop window, which will be replicated in other windows across the UK, will feature a real design next to a fake. If they get 100,000 signatures on their e-petition (called Equal Rights for Design at www.elledecoration.co.uk) it will be debated in the Commons.

Correct. Change the law to put design on a par with other equivalent creative disciplines as our campaign petitions and this all goes away. For example, the public accepts it’s illegal to openly peddle a knock-off Picasso or rip off J K Rowling (or Bloomsbury, her publisher), on the printing of the latest Harry Potter, so why should those who manufacture or create design be treated any differently? I believe it takes just as much effort to create a great design as it does to make a painting or write a book, and the hypocrisy surrounding UK copyright laws with regard to design is killing the industry. And when every contributed penny to Britain’s coffers counts, this is madness.

“The intellectual property reform is worth £7.9 billion to the economy,” says Sir Terence [according to the results of Professor Hargreaves independent report into Intellectual Property reform commissioned by the government, see my post highlighting/translating the juicy bits here]. “Design has an important contribution to make to growth when it is sorely needed. If the UK Government were to change the copyright laws that are intended to protect designers it should go a long way to ensuring our brilliant young designers can make a decent living.”

The difference between buying a replica Eames and a Primark dress in the style of Céline is that consumers know that the dress won’t last long. Ogundehin and Conran argue that with design replicas, consumers are less aware of the lack of quality and heritage.

“The most important thing, and my responsibility, is to show consumers how much wonderful stuff there is out there, as a good alternative to fakes. That’s what Elle Decoration will be doing in its next issue,” says Ogundehin.

May issue, on sale Wednesday 4 April and available at all good newsagents or to download via iTunes on the Apple Newsstand.

Smart shopping The best British ceramics

Focus on bedrooms How to create a dream boudoir in the new pretty pastels

Outdoor living Enjoy spring in the city, from urban sanctuaries to foraging

All inside the May issue, on sale now

But when it comes specifically to products, it’s simply dishonest to imply quality, heritage, longevity and value when your offer is merely superficial. So I’m thrilled that as part of our Equal Rights for Design campaign, we’re putting our might behind Get Real: Fight the Fakes, a parallel initiative supported by some of our favourite retailers and manufacturers through a series of window displays and reader events beginning this April. All details were being finalised as this page was going to press, so follow us on Twitter and Facebook to find out exactly who, when and where! But I can tell you that we’ll launch at The Conran Shop, which is committed to never stocking fakes, as it believes, like us, that its customers deserve the best and understand that there are many superior alternatives to a knock-off. Cassina, Knoll, Vitra and Fritz Hansen are also on board, with more to come.

As such, in a new ELLE Decoration series, see page 111 of the May issue for our first Fight the Fakes feature, devised to demonstrate just how much great affordable design there is out there, if you can’t or don’t want to spend lots of money. So you have no more excuses! And neither do we, as it’s arguably also ELLE Decoration’s responsibility to continually champion accessibility as well as aspiration.

We’re also proud to announce our official support for ACID (Anti Copying in Design) in its Commission It, Don’t Copy It campaign, which entreats UK retailers and manufacturers to proactively support original design and pay a royalty for each product sold. Britain has such a magnificent reputation for creativity, and I’d like to be proud of what this country stands for, not ashamed. Wouldn’t you? Join the debate, like our Equal Rights for Design Facebook page and add your name to our petition so that design, and designers, whether emerging or established, iconic or dabbling, are given the opportunities and respect they deserve. After all, in the inimitable words of ‘Moby Dick’ author Herman Melville, ‘It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.’

I’m not being naive. Of course everyone should have goals, and we all need a sense of what we’re achieving and where we’re going, but surely it’s about taking that journey one step at a time? Instead, I feel we’re caught in the midst of the “Limelight Generation”: a time when too many fail to join the dots between effort, respect and subsequent gain. What’s happened to the wish to contribute? What happened to pride; or the satisfaction of accomplishment?

Where you are, is where you’re at right now. Add a little commitment and dedication and that place might just be enjoyable. After all, it’s ideas, integrity and originality that are the true currency of success today, not availability or the desire for promotion.

Impatience has replaced curiosity when it comes to apprenticeship; learning a skill is deemed too slow. Nowadays it’s corner-office straight away please and a company-paid trip to Paris the week after if you don’t mind, because I’m worth it. In fact, I think it’s exactly the same mentality that leads people to seek benefits rather than a job on the basis that the “pay” is the same — the expectation of something for nothing. What’s really sad is that this subtraction-mentality perpetuates only disillusion. After all, if your eye is always on the prize just out of reach, you’ll miss the potential right in front of you. In other words, sort the motivation, and a whole new world of possibility might just appear.

Hargreaves’ review deduced that, yes, “the UK’s intellectual property framework, especially with regard to copyright, is falling behind what is needed.” And he concluded his executive summary with the following: “If the review’s recommendations are acted upon, the result will be stronger rates of innovation and increased economic growth”. Growth that he estimated to be between 0.3 per cent and 0.6 per cent annual GDP growth (that’s upto £7.9 billion!), albeit with the caveat “subject to the high degree of uncertainty inherent in such projections” adding, “The path laid down in this review would also, over time, mean that IP law, including copyright law, would become clearer and be observed by most people without controversy.”

So, I read the report and have reprinted here what I believe to be the most salient points with regards to design. And I’ve italicized the really juicy bits, because even mightily abridged, it’s a touch long. And for those with a very short attention span, you’ll be content to know that Hargreaves included this telling statement: “It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is something deeply and persistently amiss in the way that policy towards IP issues in the UK is determined and/or administered.”

The entire report is available online (click link) if you’d like to read it in full.

What’s next? Announcing the government’s response to the review, Business Secretary Vince Cable said, “We are accepting the recommendations and will now set about reforming the UK’s intellectual property systems. Opening up intellectual property laws can deliver real value to the UK economy as well as the creators and consumers.”

And, a new intellectual property crime strategy and international strategy have also since been published. But, for design, a lot depends on the mooted next stage, an open consultation in May of this year. Lord knows, governments have passed over many a smart policy before. Let’s wait, hope and pray they deliver this time. Meanwhile, keep entreating your friends, colleagues and even complete strangers to sign our e-petition… 100,000 signatures means they have to debate it. So every signature counts. Make a difference. Sign right now, it’ll take you less than 60 seconds.

Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth

Chapter 7 Designs

7.1         Unlike patents and copyright, design was not explicitly mentioned in the Review’s Terms of Reference. This is surprising, given the economic importance of UK design and the strength with which a number of issues relating to this area of IP protection have been raised in evidence to the Review.

7.2         Design is a wide-ranging concept covering a range of industries from fashion design (apparel) to industrial design. According to new estimates by Imperial College, design constitutes the largest contribution to overall intangible investment in the UK economy. In 2008 investment in design alone amounted to 1.6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

7.6         Design evidence submitted to the Review was predominantly concerned with protection and enforcement issues. The discrepancy in levels of protection between design right (protecting technical design) and copyright (protecting artistic designs such as illustrations) was highlighted. This applied both in terms of duration and availability of rights and their enforcement. ACID in particular was concerned that SME designers’ products were routinely copied by major High Street retailers. Unlike copyright, which is supported by criminal sanctions and is therefore of interest to police and trading standards officers, design rights only offer civil sanctions.

7.7         A point made by several designers was the problem of having to tender for contracts with designs, which they had little chance of being able to protect, frequently finding their best ideas simply taken without compensation. The designers concerned had invested time and money in developing these designs but either could not afford to take enforcement action or found the law inadequate to do so. This reflected a broader concern over the costs of litigation, and scepticism that design rights could be effectively enforced that has been corroborated in research being conducted for the IPO. This work suggests opinion is divided as to whether registering designs will help protect them from infringement. The development of the Digital Copyright Exchange, set out in Chapter 4 of this review, may well be relevant to the design sector and every effort should be made to include design interests in the creation of this Exchange.

7.8         In general, research is limited on design rights, and the issue is complicated by the wide range of industries involved. Different industries have different levels and types of needs from the IP framework, and they are not yet fully understood. For example, the fashion industry lives with a high rate of appropriation of their designs. They do, however, frequently pursue infringement of their trademarks (i.e. counterfeiting). Controversially, some argue that copying in the fashion industry may actually promote innovation in that once a design is copied this spurs the fashion houses that created the original to move on and design something new.

Chapter 7 Conclusions

7.9         Design has an important contribution to make to growth, and it is unsatisfactory that we start from such a low base of understanding in considering how best to optimise the IP framework to support this growth. The Review has received a good deal of evidence about the difficulties designers encounter in enforcing their rights. Knowledge of the relationship between design rights, and innovation and growth, is inadequate to draw wider conclusions about the implications of these difficulties for growth or for improvements in design rights and enforcement.

7.10 We conclude with an example, which highlights the risks associated with the current thinly evidenced and reactive approach to policy. Digital technology is altering the nature of design. It has radically altered the way in which many designs are produced, and the development of fabrication through “3D printing” can be expected to have a substantial impact. This development alone may be sufficient to require reconsideration of the interactions in law between copyright and design. In Chapter 10 we discuss the reactive character of the IP policy machinery. We hope that 3D reproduction does not become a case study in the shortcomings of this approach. The copyright issues associated with 3D reproduction need to be addressed before it becomes a widely used technology if IP law is to enable rather than inhibit the technology’s potential to contribute to growth.

Chapter 7 Recommendation: The design industry

The role of IP in supporting this important branch of the creative economy has been neglected. In the next 12 months, the IPO should conduct an evidence-based assessment of the relationship between design rights and innovation, with a view to establishing a firmer basis for evaluating policy at the UK and European level. The assessment should include exploration with design interests of whether access to the proposed Digital Copyright Exchange would help creators protect and market their designs and help users better achieve legally compliant access to designs.

Chapter 8 Enforcement and Disputes

8.52 Counterfeiting may adversely affect growth since trademarks are associated with growth. Research has suggested that investment in brands constituted approximately six per cent of total tangible and intangible investment in the UK economy in 2006, and that firms which trade mark have significantly higher value added than non-trade mark companies. The association of brands and business growth is particularly clear in the branded fast moving consumer goods sector.

8.53 There is also a consumer protection aspect to tackling counterfeiting, in situations where consumers are being misled. This is not always the case, however, depending on the nature of the product: for example, few people believe they are buying a genuine Gucci handbag when they pay a few pounds in a street market.

8.54         Some of those who provided submissions drew attention to the losses to the exchequer, links to organised crime, health and safety consequences and other adverse effects of counterfeits. In an IP context these are very much secondary arguments, though there can certainly be value in ensuring that criminal enforcement agencies are suitably “joined up.” There are, however, good stand-alone IP arguments for the enforcement of IP law, and care needs to be taken not to confuse either the objectives or the means of tackling problems in very different areas, such as safety and counter-terrorism.

Chapter 8 Recommendation: Enforcement of IP rights

The Government should pursue an integrated approach based upon enforcement, education and, crucially, measures to strengthen and grow legitimate markets in copyright and other IP protected fields. When the enforcement regime set out in the DEA becomes operational next year its impact should be carefully monitored and compared with experience in other countries, in order to provide the insight needed to adjust enforcement mechanisms as market conditions evolve. This is urgent and Ofcom should not wait until then to establish its benchmarks and begin building data on trends. In order to support rights holders in enforcing their rights the Government should introduce a small claims track for low monetary value IP claims in the Patents County Court.

Chapter 9 SMEs and the IP Framework

Costs of IP Management

9.11        The Review has heard on many occasions and from a wide range of sources that the costs of IP management to SMEs are felt by many to be prohibitively high – both in terms of registering and maintaining IPR, but also in conducting (or entertaining the risk of being involved in) disputes.

9.12         The Review therefore asked firms to estimate their true costs of obtaining registered IPRs. The average cost to an SME of applying for, maintaining and protecting a patent, was reported to be £20,700; the equivalent figure for a trademark or design is £4,800. The mean fee paid for external advice on applying for, maintaining and protecting a patent was estimated to be £13,800; the comparable figure for a trademark or design was £6,300.

Chapter 10: An adaptive IP Framework

10.7         It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is something deeply and persistently amiss in the way that policy towards IP issues in the UK is determined and/or administered. The fact that problems are most striking in the area of copyright law needs to be taken into account: that may, in part, reflect the origins of the Intellectual Property Office, so named in 2007 following Gowers, having been the Patent Office since 1852. No one can be surprised that in the face of significant structural flaws, a decision to graft on to the IPO an independent committee with a research budget failed to resolve the difficulties.

10.12        A prominent and persistent example of the lobbying problem concerns the duration of copyright protection, which has been periodically extended in recent decades. In spite of clear evidence that this cannot be justified in terms of the core IP argument that copyright exists to provide economic incentives to creators to produce new works. As has been noted by a number of commentators, no one has yet discovered a mechanism for incentivising the deceased.

10.13        The most recent example of such extensions involved a UK decision to support a still incomplete EU process to extend the rights of owners of sound recordings from 50 years to 70 years. Such an extension was opposed by the Gowers Review and by published studies commissioned by the European Commission. A decision in favour of the change was, nonetheless, announced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Andy Burnham, in December 2008. The Government’s own economic impact assessment subsequently estimated that extension would cost the UK economy up to £100m over the extended term. One justification for extension might be that Ministers wished to afford extended copyright as a mark of respect and gratitude to artists and their families – a perfectly legitimate argument, though one that ignores the fact that very often artists’ rights are owned by corporations. Independent research commissioned for the Gowers Review suggested that the benefits to individual artists would be highly skewed to a relatively small number of performers.

Chapter 11 Impact

Recommendations

7. The design industry. The role of IP in supporting this important branch of the creative economy has been neglected. In the next 12 months, the IPO should conduct an evidence-based assessment of the relationship between design rights and innovation, with a view to establishing a firmer basis for evaluating policy at the UK and European level. The assessment should include exploration with design interests of whether access to the proposed Digital Copyright Exchange would help creators protect and market their designs and help users better achieve legally compliant access to designs.

8. Enforcement of IP rights. The Government should pursue an integrated approach based upon enforcement, education and, crucially, measures to strengthen and grow legitimate markets in copyright and other IP protected fields. When the enforcement regime set out in the DEA becomes operational next year its impact should be carefully monitored and compared with experience in other countries, in order to provide the insight needed to adjust enforcement mechanisms as market conditions evolve. This is urgent and Ofcom should not wait until then to establish its benchmarks and begin building data on trends. In order to support rights holders in enforcing their rights the Government should introduce a small claims track for low monetary value IP claims in the Patents County Court.

9. Small firm access to IP advice. The IPO should draw up plans to improve accessibility of the IP system to smaller companies who will benefit from it. This should involve access to lower cost providers of integrated IP legal and commercial advice.

Some additional thoughts from others: http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2011/06/harping-on-hargreaves/index.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/18/hargreaves-report-recommends-overhaul-of-copyright-laws

And the government response, August 2011… http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse.htm

You’d think there were only ten or twelve pieces of furniture in the universe to give this argument any serious credence! It’s ridiculous. Instead there are hundreds of wonderful chairs, lights and tables of all styles and price-points to be found in shops and boutiques, from high-end to high street, fleamarkets, discount outlets to online and on our travels. To use the argument of price alone is to confuse cost with value.

I’ve always believed that any product is worth only as much as you’re prepared to pay for it, nevertheless I also regularly counsel, buy the best you can afford, as it’s generally a truism that you get what you pay for, whether that’s heritage, materials, longevity or even resale value. This also puts the responsibility back to you, the consumer. I don’t force people to buy things, and neither would I remotely wish to, the ELLE Decoration mantra has always been buy want you like. But I can share my enthusiasms for the purchase of certain items, and/or reasons for the rejection of others.

As such ELLE Decoration showcases a broad range of “best buys”. Our aim is to showcase the full gamut of design, from top end dream pieces to cheap and cheerful style-for-less items. Sure certain designs achieve iconic status over time either because they captured a design moment, or superbly solved a design problem in a way that has been deemed aesthetically perfect. But that doesn’t stop you seeking out fresh, more personal icons. That’s the excitement, if not brilliance of design, and it certainly doesn’t make those choices any less worthy.

But if you ache to own an Eames chair (fab video of one being made in this link), and don’t have a spare 5K+ to buy one, and honestly how many of us do, is the solution really to buy an inferior Eames-esque facsimile? And inferior it will be as something major has to give to bring the costs down to the price levels of the fakes. Ask yourself, do you really want to sit on something that’s superficially got the look but that inevitably won’t capture any of the aspects of the original that made that look so iconic in the first place – the quality and texture of the leather, the proportions, the wood finish, the smooth reclining mechanism? Plus, are you absolutely sure you want to own a chair that trumpets a statement of intellectual property theft not possible in most other civilised countries?! Not to mention that it’s money down the drain, as unlike the authentic licensed models which will hold their value, that knock-off is already worthless.

The solution surely is simply to buy something else. And as a magazine I recognise it is our responsibility to proffer those alternatives, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.

To draw a analogy with cars, on Twitter I was asked, I believe in all seriousness, that if Skoda bought a license to copy the look of an Aston Martin, would I consider that to be unethical? Where to begin…! 1/ Aston Martin would never ever sell the licence for their look, it is their lifeblood, their heritage, their essence and their future. 2/ Skoda have a look already. It’s aimed at a different demographic but no doubt has an equal level of pride, accomplishment and achievement behind it. 3/ Crucially here, a look is not how something works. Let’s say in this fantastical world that Skoda do indeed start making cars that look like Aston Martins, but with a Skoda engine beneath the bonnet, it’s certainly not going to feel, drive, respond or sound like an Aston. So you’ll always know it’s really only a Skoda. So why not pick a Volkswagen? Or a Renault, or an Audi, or how about a BMW, or a 1976 Karmann Ghia Coupé? You get the idea.

And finally, no matter what we’d like to believe, everyone makes judgements, fair or otherwise, on everyone else by virtue of their choices, whether it’s what they wear or select to sit on. That’s life. So if you buy a fake just remember, you’re a champion for unlicensed profiteering off the back of another’s originality. And this doesn’t just affect classics, it’s young designers work as well. I cite the recent case of cult British jeweller Tatty Devine clearly ripped off by high street chain Claire’s Accessories. It’s all one and the same. Simply put, originality undermined for a quick buck. Sad, considering any of these manufacturers could put their valuable resources towards either collaboration or innovation. So do you really want to be on the side of the phonies? I’d rather be a snob. See below, a brilliant ad I came across recently in an American magazine.

Sign our petition to change the copyright laws and give all designs, new and old, greater protection, because either you believe design deserves the same protection as art, literature or music, or you don’t give a damn.