Trying To Apply Rules Designed For Publications To... Coffee Cans?
from the tricky-laws dept
One of the common problems that we run into all the time is seeing courts trying to apply laws that were meant for a specific scenario to a totally different scenario. Take, for example, the question of the use of a photo on a coffee can. Let's say the photo is "infringing" on some right that was originally created to deal with publications such as newspapers or magazines. How do you figure out when the coffee can was "published"? Or is it even "published" at all? And is it republished every time a new can is sold? That's an issue faced by the California court system, as it struggles to figure out what counts as publication with a coffee can. It seems the courts agree that the coffee can is covered by a "single-publication" rule, meaning that if the image on the can is infringing or defamatory, it only counts as a single publication. But, where it's still struggling is on the date of publication issue. That's because, in this particular case, there's a statute of limitations of two years from the date of publication. But is that just when the first coffee can was sold? Or is the date of publication a running tally, so long as the cans keep being sold? And then, suddenly, you wonder: wait, why are we so concerned about infringement on a coffee can?
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: coffee can, defamation, infringement, publishing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Too complex for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd say the answer is that a coffee can isn't a publication in the first place.
but then i realised that, really, it's a bit cheap to be using the photo in question without permission.
i could see an order to change it, i suppose. i could see a dismissal of the whole issue. if anyone ends up paying anyone money over it, though, there's something very wrong with the world.
[and there is. we knew this already.]
please note that this is not a legal opinion. this is a sane individual with no vested interests opinion :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd say that this is actually a valid use of copyright law, as opposed to the normal perversion of it. My main justification is that its a commercial usage, so the guy deserves to get paid for his work. IMO, the biggest problem in copyright law is that it doesn't differentiate between individuals and businesses, so you get laws designed to punish businesses being used against individuals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF?
No?
THEN STFU AND DIAF!
PREFERABLY A COURTHOUSE FIRE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]