4 ms·
I 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 violati
by gerggerg 15y ago
I 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.