3 ms·

Sculptor sues Swedish glassmaker for €1M in test of EU 'bestseller clause'

6 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

isaacfrond 3y ago
Isn’t it wonderful to give presents with other people’s money. It costs the EU nothing, and they look the hero. They made a contract. All parties adhered to the terms. Nobody was cheated. Now 50 years later, it turns out your the villain and please pay 50 million. Ridiculous
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  The contract was based on outdated law, so it sounds like there's at least a case to be made in court that it is invalid. > “Yet even though Ann Wolff signed her contract with Kosta Boda in 1972, the company argues that the pre-1960 law applies in this case.”
throwaway3641 3y ago
DSM article 20, the absurd new law that prompted this, allows authors to claim payment _beyond what they agreed to in their contract_. Even so, the sculptor's greed here is stunning. She want to loot _decades_ of royalties.
- defrost 3y ago
  There's a strong argument that Kosta Boda knowingly cheated her out of lifetime+75 years copyright: “A major change in the Swedish copyright law in 1961 meant that works of applied arts have since enjoyed the same copyright protection as other works, today lasting for 70 years after the death of the author,” said Katarina Renman Claesson, a lawyer for KRO who is advising Wolff’s lawsuit. “Yet even though Ann Wolff signed her contract with Kosta Boda in 1972, the company argues that the pre-1960 law applies in this case.” "Loot" is rather strong when she is seeking a low (in terms of royalties enjoyed by others) sum of €1m from a company with a yearly turnover of €806m in 2022.
  - throwaway3641 3y ago
    If her position was simply that she still has copyright, then getting a new deal with Kosta Boda would be straightforward. That's something she could have done at any point in the last 40 years. The company even made her such an offer, for double the original royalty plus a lump sum, which she rejected. The article is pretty explicit that her intent is to use the new law to rewrite the original agreement: > It wasn’t until Wolff read about a change in Swedish copyright law at the start of this year that she came up with the idea of approaching the manufacturer about retrospective pay for her design. >"Loot" is rather strong when she is seeking a low (in terms of royalties enjoyed by others) sum of €1m Which candle holder designers are taking in royalties that make €1m look "low"?
    - defrost 3y ago
      The less needlessly denigrating question would be : Which glass designers are taking in royalties that make €1m look "low"? The answer, contained within the article is: According to her lawyer’s estimates, the sculptor would have earned between 10m and 15m krona if she had continued to received 2% in royalties on every one of the 15m snowball lanterns sold, which would still have been a relatively low cut by contemporary standards. Ergo: Any contemporay designer of a long standing popular item who receives a contemporary cut. Kosta Boda glass is collectable (to some) and popular items turn quite a profit.
      - throwaway3641 3y ago
        Just saying "it's low" again is no answer. Which designers are making this higher royalty? The other ones working for Kosta Boda? Ones at other companies? Other industries? Convenient imaginary ones?
        defrost 3y ago
        [flagged]
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
Interesting that this is for 'bad contracts' for designers that did license their work to manufactures but (perhaps) didn't get adequately compensated. There's probably more cases where companies are selling furniture that steals/is based on/plays homage to other work by designers that didn't get a penny: https://www.latwist.immo/5-design-icons-for-your-living-room-that-can-be-found-at-ikea/ https://www.latwist.immo/5-design-icons-for-your-living-room...

6 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

Isn’t it wonderful to give presents with other people’s money. It costs the EU nothing, and they look the hero. They made a contract. All parties adhered to the terms. Nobody was cheated. Now 50 years later, it turns out your the villain and please pay 50 million. Ridiculous

helsinkiandrew 3y ago
The contract was based on outdated law, so it sounds like there's at least a case to be made in court that it is invalid. > “Yet even though Ann Wolff signed her contract with Kosta Boda in 1972, the company argues that the pre-1960 law applies in this case.”

throwaway3641 3y ago

DSM article 20, the absurd new law that prompted this, allows authors to claim payment _beyond what they agreed to in their contract_. Even so, the sculptor's greed here is stunning. She want to loot _decades_ of royalties.

defrost 3y ago
There's a strong argument that Kosta Boda knowingly cheated her out of lifetime+75 years copyright: “A major change in the Swedish copyright law in 1961 meant that works of applied arts have since enjoyed the same copyright protection as other works, today lasting for 70 years after the death of the author,” said Katarina Renman Claesson, a lawyer for KRO who is advising Wolff’s lawsuit. “Yet even though Ann Wolff signed her contract with Kosta Boda in 1972, the company argues that the pre-1960 law applies in this case.” "Loot" is rather strong when she is seeking a low (in terms of royalties enjoyed by others) sum of €1m from a company with a yearly turnover of €806m in 2022.
- throwaway3641 3y ago
  If her position was simply that she still has copyright, then getting a new deal with Kosta Boda would be straightforward. That's something she could have done at any point in the last 40 years. The company even made her such an offer, for double the original royalty plus a lump sum, which she rejected. The article is pretty explicit that her intent is to use the new law to rewrite the original agreement: > It wasn’t until Wolff read about a change in Swedish copyright law at the start of this year that she came up with the idea of approaching the manufacturer about retrospective pay for her design. >"Loot" is rather strong when she is seeking a low (in terms of royalties enjoyed by others) sum of €1m Which candle holder designers are taking in royalties that make €1m look "low"?
  - defrost 3y ago
    The less needlessly denigrating question would be : Which glass designers are taking in royalties that make €1m look "low"? The answer, contained within the article is: According to her lawyer’s estimates, the sculptor would have earned between 10m and 15m krona if she had continued to received 2% in royalties on every one of the 15m snowball lanterns sold, which would still have been a relatively low cut by contemporary standards. Ergo: Any contemporay designer of a long standing popular item who receives a contemporary cut. Kosta Boda glass is collectable (to some) and popular items turn quite a profit.
    - throwaway3641 3y ago
      Just saying "it's low" again is no answer. Which designers are making this higher royalty? The other ones working for Kosta Boda? Ones at other companies? Other industries? Convenient imaginary ones?
      - defrost 3y ago
        [flagged]

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

Interesting that this is for 'bad contracts' for designers that did license their work to manufactures but (perhaps) didn't get adequately compensated. There's probably more cases where companies are selling furniture that steals/is based on/plays homage to other work by designers that didn't get a penny: https://www.latwist.immo/5-design-icons-for-your-living-room-that-can-be-found-at-ikea/ https://www.latwist.immo/5-design-icons-for-your-living-room...