If You Build A House Based On Copyright Infringing Plans That You Bought In Good Faith... Are You Infringing?
from the maybe-so dept
Michael Scott points us to an interesting -- if a bit technical legally speaking -- discussion over whether or not indemnifications exist for copyrighted materials. The discussion involves a homebuilder, who built some homes based on plans he bought from a third party. It later turned out that the plans were infringing copies, but the builder believed they were legit. So, in any common sense world, the liable party should be the guy who sold the infringing plans. But at least some lawyers and judges seem to believe that there is no indemnification in copyright law, and thus the copyright holder can basically sue whoever he wants up and down the chain. But, of course, not everyone sees it that way, and by the end of the post, it's pretty clear that the court in this particular case got it wrong. Blaming the builder, who had no clue that the plans were infringing, simply makes no sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: building, copyright, first sale, indemnification
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I know that in my jewelry store, we purchase jewelry from people, and it if turns up stolen, the police and the victims certainly don't hold us responsible! The person who stole the items is responsible. If that is true for real goods, how could it be less true for intellectual property?
This is getting silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And all the infringing copies he made, including those incorporated into buildings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not like that in all countries. In I believe it's Sweden, after five years it's yours. And in Japan the original owner must pay the new owner what ever he paid for it to get it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rose's question
Simply because if your jewelery is stolen, you no longer have it to use yourself. If I have a copy of your floor plan, you *still* have it yourself and can still use it even though I have a copy of it. Now if I used (what I have reasonable reason to believe is) a legitimate floor plan supplier, how am I supposed to know (s)he did not obtain your plans legitimately. How do I know my supplier did not create the plans themselves?
Nothing silly here at all. The 'source' of the plans the builder used should be on the hook for whatever the plans would have cost plus punitive damages as appropriate. Now if you can prove the builder did not obtain the plans *in good faith* legitimately, then (s)he is on the hook for same (addressing the shell company proposal in another comment).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ignorance of the facts of a case may well be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ignorance of the facts of a case may well be.
How about ignorance of the facts of law about a case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The shades of "ignorance"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amazing how many lawyers your solution requires. It won't work after I've been proclaimed King of America and have made my first order of business the senseless slaughter of the entire legal system. Bwahahahahaha!
....No, seriously, I plan to take over America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
....
from the other end of the Pacific Ocean, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Check out my new campaign slogan:
"Dark Helmet: Just as black, but without the hypocrisy..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We could tell cause of the helmet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like a lawyer's dream come true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this anything but a complete waste of resources? If the chain is 10 parties long then you get 10 unnecessary lawsuits, instead of just having the copyright holder go straight to the party acting in bad faith. To say nothing of what happens if the bad actor is insolvent: Perfectly innocent people on the hook for penalties designed to deter fraudulent actors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using that logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using that logic
Yes, they could.
Your question is phrased imprecisely, of course. I take issue only because on Techdirt, there's no perceived difference between being sued and being sued successfully. So yes, i4i can sue you for just about anything they want.
The question you presumably really want answered is: can they sue you with a ghost's chance in hell of winning?
Yes also, although not for the same reasons as in this story here. This is a copyright issue; the i4i vs. Word issue is a patent issue. A patent grants an exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention. Since you would be a Word user, you could be found liable for infringement. Of course, the costs of suing you individually greatly exceed what they could possibly expect to recover, so it won't happen.
Microsoft actually is fairly explicit about how it indemnifies and attempts to protect its end-users against these sorts of things. It's one of Microsoft's selling points over things like open-source software. Whether or not you think this indemnification has any value is entirely up to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Using that logic
How so? If they recover legal costs plus damages, how doe they come out behind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using that logic
Good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
floor tile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
also do you like fluffy stuff or furry stuff better?
so if say someone infringes something and a chain is created would it be possible to sue everyone on the chain no matter how far removed they are from the original transaction. lol trans. like even if the chain is say 100 links long? and if so how come no one has like tried to wait and see how long a chain can become and make a gazzillion dollars from sueing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
also do you like fluffy stuff or furry stuff better?"
A. The Stars and Stripes America. The rest of the Americas are largely too effed for even me to bother with. Especially Argentina. Entirely too many German last names for a South American country, if you take my meaning.
B. I prefer furry fluffers.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You will have to get it all before Martin Bormann's grandkids do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. use dummy company to sell copyrighted material to legit company
3. use legit company to sell on copyrighted material to consumers.
4 dissolve dummy company
5. PROFIT!!
Seems like a good plan to me. The dummy company takes the fall and the legit company makes millions without fear of getting sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Is Why We Need DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Is Why We Need DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My former company had a similar problem.
This seems to be a good common sense way of dealing with this sort of thing, the victims cooperate to go after the perpatrator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My former company had a similar problem.
Now how are the lawyers going to keep up with the payments on their third vacation house with you doing common-sense things like that? I'm surprised your lawyers didn't sue you for failing to sue this other company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when courts make sense? I might've missed the memo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going on, and on, and on...
Next step - sue the banks, who provided mortgages for buying those houses...
Next step - (who else?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the infringement ?
Did the court actually rule that the house was an infringing copy of the plans ? Or what ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies can't buy insurance?
Regarding indemnity, there is no way this ruling will stand. It looks like the court messed up by not using the occupying-the-field test. I really doubt there is evidence of Congressional intent to prevent indemnification. The side effect of this would be to prevent insurance for non-willful copyright infringement. This means every movie ever made is up a creek.
From a Chicago school angle, we allow insurance against any kind of legal liability except for intentional torts and gross negligence. This is economically efficient. It is not economically efficient to treat unintentional copyright liability the same as an intentional tort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]