3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoJust 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]