Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement
Posted Jan 31, 2012 19:51 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
Firstly, the two companies were already in court because the defendant had copied, and used commercially, an image belonging to the plaintiff. This is a criminal offence (I know it isn't in the US, but it is over here).
Secondly, the defendant studied the original picture, and set out to produce a replacement. In literature, this would be a clear case of copyright violation - producing a derivative work without permission. I know "photography is different", but as somebody on GL pointed out, people who use clean-room re-implementation to avoid copyright violation make a point of *avoiding* intimate knowledge of the product they are copying. The defendants *studied* the product they were copying.
So that's why Judge Birss ruled the way he did. Anybody trying to build on this to claim "your photo is similar to mine" is likely to find themself on a sticky wicket.
Posted Jan 31, 2012 20:12 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds