Talk:Barcelona chair

message: I was at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC this past weekend, and in several areas they had seating of Barcelona chairs set up, with an accompanying and stylistically very similar coffee table. Anyone know anything about a connection between the two? – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Barcelona table?

message: 5th July 2007
The WIKI Barcelona chair article has been deleted because it is in breach of our copyright. The person who posted this article eventually admitted to us via e-mail correspondence that they were at fault and did unwittingly plagiarize our original article to create the WIKI article.  A copy of their email is given below.
I wish to make these points very clear because it is obvious the person involved with creating this article have no idea on what steps to take to prevent infringing someones copyright.
WIKI OR ANYONE WRITING AN ARTICLE FOR WIKI IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE OUR ARTICLE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM
That means the following:
You may not use our article to form the basis of a new article. 
You may not re-word our article or sections of our article.
You may not add to our article or a reworded/reworked version of our
article.
You may not copy the structure of our article to create the structure of
your new article.
You may not add to WIKI ANY material that is derived from our original
article or reworded/reworded versions of our article.
The only thing we can permit is for WIKI to have a link to our original article. That is all.
We have documented proof that we created the original Barcelona chair article on which the WIKI article is based. We have all 7 drafts of our article. We have the drafts registered at a copyright solicitor firm as proof of the date on which the article was written. The internet archive also shows that our article was online before the WIKI article. 
The person who posted the WIKI article had in fact based their article on an article which was supplied by and Indian copyrighting company who were contracted to write the article for the infringer. The Indian company had primarily used our article as the basis of the article supplied and the plagiarizer had not checked the sources properly before posting the article at WIKI. 
We have many e-mail correspondence with the infringer and they have admitted fault and wish to put the situation right. One of the key emails with this person is given below. In it they admit they used our article unlawfully and posted the article at WIKI. They also admitted that is breaching our copyright:
<Start of letter from copyright infringer>
"I understand that our internal records of the creation dates are not 
sufficiently 'independent' as to provide reliable evidence, but more 
importantly
it seems that the dates shown by those records (February 2006)  do in 
fact post date your own article, suggesting that our content development 
agency provided us
with material that was not original. As I explained, we will have to 
wait for tomorrow morning before I receive details on that.
I would like to pause here and offer my apologies for 'jumping down your 
throat'. We were indeed given a list of references by this agency, 
(sites and books that they had referenced in the creation of the 
article), and it is entirely my fault that I did not check those 
referenced articles to verify that we did not lean so heavily on them as 
to constitute plagiarism.
Your site was indeed among those listed, and had I reviewed them, of 
course I would have noticed the similarities to your own article.
The Wiki article is more easily traceable:
If you go to wikipedia's history of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barcelona_chair&limit=500&action=history
You will find the full history of my edits to this page. Ironically you 
can also see there that the link to your site from this page remains 
untouched throughout my edits September 20th - 29th 06.
 
Sorry to have to break off again, but I have a meeting to get to and I 
thought it best to send you this in the mean time.
I will return later today to answer your other questions.
But before I go I would like to assure you that the article on 
<web address deleted here for privacy > will be rewritten immediately"
<End of email from copyright infringer>
We also have more correspondence with this individual and it is clear they do not fully understand copyright and how it works. They also have not put in sufficient measures to ensure that any work they post is not infringing existing copyrights.    Unfortunately this individual is doing damage to WIKI by posting. This is actually damaging WIKI and could lead to legal implications for this great resource.
I hope that this is a close to the matter. If WIKI wish to have a Barcelona chair article  then write your own article from scratch without reference to our article.
Sincerely
Dr John M Bolton
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text that was reposted has been deleted. The reason is the STRUCTURE of the article and wording of the article has been taken from our article and is therefore an infringement in copyright. I suggest that the person that is responsible for re-posting this article become fully acquainted with copyright issues. 
The article would not appear so similar to our if the article had been originally researched and written independently without reference to our work. WIKI cannot take our article and use it as a basis for creating a WIKI article and then simply rephrase it. You must research fully your own article and uniquely write it completely from scratch ie to create your own structure and your own content without using our article to build your article. 
We are requesting that the person/s that have posted this article back up make themselves know by giving their full name, contact details and e-mail address and submit that information to our contact form at our website. Please also state if you are also the person that wrote the majority of the "new article" that was based on ours.
http://www.barcelona-tourist-guide.com/contact-us.html
Please understand I do support the WIKI initiative and I welcome that information is being made available to the public. However please try to understand our point of view as well. We have paid good money and time to research these articles. We paid to visit the pavillion in Barcelona, to visit shops that sold the Barcelona chair and to talk with the staff members and curators - in all 2 days research along with another 2 days to further research, edit and write the article.  We created an original piece of work that has structure and content which is copyrightable. 
Please re-search your own article and spend the time to develop your own structure - this is where the hard work is - and it costs money and time to do this. By taking our article and re-working it you are actually undermining organizations like ours that are working hard to create original content.
Dr John M Bolton.
 
Bold text26th December 2006
Response from WIKI management after investigation:
[Ticket#2006122010014744] Copyright infringement notice.
Dear John,
Thank you for your mail. The material to which you are referring seems to have
been removed. Feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
21st December 2006
The WIKI text that was written based on our original article has now been deleted.  Please do not use our articles for the basis of building your WIKI article. 
We think WIKI it is a wonderful idea however not at the expense of a legitimate publishing businesses.
Thank you
81.39.2.44 08:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Drama

message: Does anyone have a citation for this? Does it really belong here even if so? (Quite a number of chair designs have become "icons"; I bet several have been sat on in museums.) Gareth McCaughan 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. The story is apocryphal, trivial, and vaguely anti-US. We wouldn't write "a Polish visitor" or "a Chinese visitor", would we? Rhobite 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An untold anecdote" 

message: Shouldn't the article mention that, for a world-renowned icon of design from a school whose guiding principle is "form follows function,"the Barcelona chair is remarkably uncomfortable to sit in?
207.119.20.8 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information 

message: Wouldn't it be better to use a picture of a faithful reproduction that has the same proportions as the original? There are multiple pictures on the Commons of the chairs that were reconstructed for the rebuilt Barcelona Pavillion . These pictures also show the original setting the chairs were meant for.
Consider these Pictures: 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pavelleó_Mies_van_del_Rohe_-_Barcelona_Chair.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pavelló_Mies_06.JPG  
There are multiple issues with the picture used at the moment:
- the back cushion is too high. The back cushion of the original has the same height as the frame
- the base cushion is a rectangle. The base cushion of the original is slanted were it meets the frame.
188.22.138.19 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The sentence "Reproductions proliferate worldwide and are sold under different marketing names" is not neutral in point of view. Furniture and apparel sold under a mark is not handmade by the designer. They're ALL reproductions. In exchange for money, the designer agrees to let some entitities who pay the people who make the reproductions say "This is genuine so-and-so". Those who do not offer enough money are denied the right to say "This is genuine so-and-so". Knoll has, or thinks it has, been granted the right to say 'This is not a reproduction but a "real" Barcelona chair' although they are simply reproducing a design created by the designer, who can't possibly be doing the real work since he is dead. Well, Knoll are entitled to their opinion but their opinion is not relevant in an encyclopedia. I don't come here to read "Christ was the Messiah" when it should say "Christians believe Christ was the Messiah". You're supposed to report on the EXISTENCE of dogmas and ideologies NEUTRALLY, i.e. without EMBRACING any one particular dogma or ideology. The assertion that some of the COPIES and REPRODUCTIONS of the Barcelona Chair are NOT copies nor reproductions, based solely on a piece of paper signed by a party who is not disinterested in the question, is reprehensible. Many "copies" and "reproductions" of Barcelona Chairs exist, including the copies and reproductions made by Knoll. If I have a Knoll chair in front of me, in what way is it any different from the same chair made by someone else? Because there's a contract in a vault somewhere? That doesn't alter the real and material physical characteristics and attributes of the chair in front of me, the physical object. What kind of encyclopedia must Wiki be to parrot the industry party line that PHYSICAL REALITY is changed by a legal agreement? (I don't deny that people sign contracts that bind them to change material things. I DO deny that as ink dries on on a signature-line its drying is causing a PHYSICAL change in the molecules and atoms in a chair in a remote location so that it is no longer a "reproduction" but is, from thence onward, a "licensed genuine article". But WikiP, apparently, believes in magic.) Do you write your copy to please Knoll, or to serve the public? Does Knoll pay you to flak the ideological theories underlying trademarking? If you're going to be doing Public Relations work for Knoll, shouldn't some consortium of interested parties compensate you and shouldn't you disclose such compensation?2604:2000:C6AA:B400:F0BC:4D2C:D44C:C7D9 (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Wikipedia is written by the community in accordance with policies developed by the community; there is no corporate control/sponsorship/whatever. Anybody can join in, but people with specialist knowledge are especially welcome. If you can improve the article, with references to reliable sources where possible, you are welcome to do so. If you need help with editing, put the text "" followed by your question, on your talk page, and chances are somebody helpful will respond quickly. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a neutral point of view

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barcelona chair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403134508/http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/140296/moderno-inc-v-knoll-inc/summary/ to http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/140296/moderno-inc-v-knoll-inc/summary/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401032853/http://www.knoll.com:80/products/brochures/barcelonachair.pdf to http://www.knoll.com/products/brochures/Barcelonachair.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401032853/http://www.knoll.com:80/products/brochures/barcelonachair.pdf to http://www.knoll.com/products/brochures/Barcelonachair.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified