T
Joined: Feb 01, 2005
Posts: 735
|
T
On 2007-08-08 07:10, BrickHorn wrote:
Wow. This got pretty heated in a hurry, but I guess that's what happens when a thread kicks off with a heaping dose of vitriol.
I just wanted to give my $0.02 on the situation as an intellectual property litigator (although I'm not providing legal advice, just applying the law to the sparse facts we've been given here). Basically, what teaKEY's dad did technically qualifies as copyright infringement. Hassan has a copyright in his image by virtue of its publication (no formalities are required to own a copyright). teaKEY has admitted that the mug was a three dimensional adaptation of the image. Now, that said, teaKEY would have a pretty strong argument that his dad's work qualifies as a fair use of the image: he only made one mug, the use was noncommercial, the mug is for personal use, Hassan currently makes no competing mugs, the copy is transformative. That said, it would be a close call on fair use, as the copying is fairly complete.
But, stepping back for a moment from legal technicalities, what is the damage here? The monetary damages are minimal (approaching $0) and, unless Hassan had registered his copyright with the Copyright Office prior to the time teaKEY's dad made the repro, statutory damages are not an option. Hassan doesn't have to acknowledge the work. In my opinion, this is the kind of copying that, if it bothers the author, warrants a warning to the copyist and registration with the Copyright Office (so that you have a bigger stick with regard to future damages).
If I was in Hassan's position (which I will never be, as I'm not much of an artist), I would accept the flattery while kindly letting teaKEY know that you would really prefer that no further copies be made and move on.
Exactly what I was trying to say over on page 1.
Thanks.
|
