5 ms·
And that's why the ruling is contentious. With out an attempt to deceive it's not a counterfeit. It's an inspired piece of creativity. The judge is effectively
by gerggerg 15y ago
And that's why the ruling is contentious. With out an attempt to deceive it's not a counterfeit. It's an inspired piece of creativity. The judge is effectively defining the boundaries of inspiration.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterfeit http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterfeit
- chc 15y agoBut that's the point: It does seem like there is an intent to deceive. From my understanding of the relevant facts, the copycat photo is meant to be displayed on merchandise right next to those that use the official one, and it seems unlikely a lot of people will be able to tell that it isn't just a cropping.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- gerggerg 15y agoI think you're confusing the photo with the products. Perhaps the products are deceptive, but this case is about a unique photographic execution being a violation of copyright. Not a label infringing trademark.
- vannevar 15y agoI think the judge was confusing them too. He let the 'up-to-no-damn-goodness' (as my old law professor would say) of the defendant prejudice his judgment on the copyright issue.
- clarkevans 15y agoParagraph 71 of the ruling explicitly states that the claim of unfair trade competition was not considered: "Whether or not consumers confuse the products of the parties (or their licensees) is not the issue."